Subhash Chandra Solanki Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/iiird A.D.J. and ors.

.....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. - 9, 10 and 16 of the writ petition that no objection was endorsed in the application for setting aside ex parte award when the copy was served on counsel for opposite party.anjani kumar, j.1. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the contesting respondent.2. the petitioner, by means of present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, has challenged the order whereby the application moved on behalf of the petitioner to set aside the ex parte award has been rejected by the motor accident claims tribunal/iiird additional district judge, etah. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated in paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 16 of the writ petition that no objection was endorsed in the application for setting aside ex parte award when the copy was served on counsel for opposite party. this fact has not been denied in counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. in this view of the matter, the order dated 7th october, 1993 rejecting the application under order 9 rule 13, code of civil procedure dated 22nd september, 1993 deserves to be set aside. since no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter only for deciding the application under order 9 rule 13, code of civil procedure, the ex parte award dated 19th november, 1992 deserves to be set aside.3. in view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the order dated 7th october, 1993 rejecting the application under order 9 rule 13, code of civil procedure dated 22nd september, 1993 is set aside and the ex parte award dated 19th november, 1992 is also set aside. no useful purpose will be served by sending back it to the tribunal again, the tribunal is directed to decide the matter on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the tribunal. however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.