NizamuddIn Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....petitioner but we are of the opinion that the very first point is sufficient to allow this petition.3. the grounds of detention alleged that on 25-5-2001 at about 10.15 a.m. the petitioner and some of his associates who are muslims attacked one banwari giri who is a hindu with lathis and dandas. one ram sahai tried to intervene and he was shot dead by a pistol and this created terror in the area. in our opinion, this is a clear case of law and order and not of public order. no doubt the petitioner and his associates can be proceeded against under the ordinary criminal law but we are of the opinion that it is not a case of public order and hence the detention order is invalid vide t. devaki v. government of tamil nadu 1990 scc (crl) 348 : (air 1990 sc 1086), mustak miya jabbar miya shaikh v. m.m. mehta 1995 scc (crl) 454 and tarannum v. union of india 1998 scc (crl) 1037 : (air 1998 sc 1013)4. learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a case of public order because the incident created communal tension. we do not agree with this submission. merely because the assailants were muslims and the victims were hinduthus this does not mean that it was a communal incident. there was no mention that the petitioner and his associates were shouting that the hindus should be killed or that there were clashes between the hindus and muslims. the mere bald allegation that the assailants created terror in the locality in our opinion was only to give colour to be the case to create an impression that it was a case of public order.5. for the reasons given above this petition is allowed. the impugned detention order dated 15-6-2001 is quashed. the petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in any other criminal or preventive detention case against the petitioner.