Annapurna Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ist A.D.J. and ors.

.....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. .....matter, the petitioner relies upon a decision of learned single judge of this court in smt. runna v. vth additional district judge, gorakhpur, writ petition no. 27782 of 1996, decided on 29.8.1996, 1998 (1) tac 450 and anr. judgment of learned single judge of this court in writ petition no. 29085 of 1996, decided on 10.9.1996. 1997 acj 625 and prays for that such a condition is arbitrary and therefore, is liable to be quashed.2. there is no dispute that the petitioner is beneficiary of the award who has challenged the award by means of this writ petition. under section 173 of motor vehicles act an appeal lies to this court against the award of the motor accident claims tribunal. first objection to the grant of the relief to the petitioner is that the petitioner instead of approaching this court by means of this writ petition, should have filed an appeal under section 173 of motor vehicles act and in view of this statutory provision, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.3. there is yet another reason for dismissing this writ petition that in view of the decision of the apex court in general manager kerala state road transport corporation, 1994 (2) scc 176, petitioner if feels aggrieved by the award they ought to have approached the tribunal itself and tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the application of the petitioner. in view of the guidelines prescribed in the aforesaid case and that having not been followed, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. however, it will be open to the petitioner to approach either of the remedies, referred to above.4. with the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is dismissed.