Ram Sanehi Vs. State of U.P. 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. .....has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16.12.1983 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 2.8.1982 passed by the respondent no. 2 to this writ petition.3. the brief facts of the case are that a notice in form 49-ka issued by tehsildar assistant collector, ist. class, agra was served on the petitioner inter alia stating that he had illegally taken possession of gaon sabha land no. 46 measuring 0-0-3 since 1383 fasli and is liable to pay a sum of rs. 150 as damages. the petitioner filed an objection inter-alia stating that he is not in possession over the land in dispute and further that proceedings have been initiated against him due to enmity with the members of gaon sabha. it was also stated that the eekhpal had submitted a wrong report under rule 115ck of u.p.z.a. and l.r. act. it was claimed by him that he had purchased an area of 0-5-0 of plot no. 48 and had raised pucca wall over this land in an area of 0-1-10 of the land of his share of plot no. 48.4. it appears from the record that the plot no. 46 area of plot no. 46 is 0-15-15 has been allotted to 4 persons while on spot it was actually 0.19-5. this mistake in area of 0-3-12 plot no. 46 is reflected from the revenue record since the time of preparation of record by consolidation proceedings. the order of ejectment imposition damages to the tune of rs. 150 and further direction to the petitioner to pay a further sum of rs. 1 /8th of the total damages per month till he is ejected was passed by tehsildar/assistant collector ist class.5. aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the collector, agra which was dismissed by order and judgment dated 2.8.1984. from the perusal of the record it appears that the courts below have passed the order only on the basis of map which had been taken into consideration and there was no actual measurement of the plot. the judgment given by the tehsildar/assistant collector, ist class,.....