Anwar Ali Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under 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. - police station kotwali district kushi nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.orderm. katju, j.1. this is the fourth bail application of the applicant. the incident is of july 1998 and i am informed that the trial has not even commenced. i am also informed that nowadays in uttar pradesh it takes ordinarily about five years or more to complete the trial. if a person is found innocent after five years (or more) the question arises as to who will restore those years of his life. this long time for completing the trial is itself an important consideration nowadays for grant of bail in most of the cases. article 21 is also violated if the trial is not held speedily as held by the supreme court in a large number of cases.2. the f.i.r. in the present case discloses that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. this fact coupled with the fact of delay in even commencing the trial makes it now a fit case for grant of bail.3. in the circumstances let the applicant anwar be enlarged on bail in case crime no. 444 of 1998 under sections 304, 307, 504, 506, i.p.c. police station kotwali district kushi nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju, J.

1. This is the fourth bail application of the applicant. The incident is of July 1998 and I am informed that the trial has not even commenced. I am also informed that nowadays in Uttar Pradesh it takes ordinarily about five years or more to complete the trial. If a person is found innocent after five years (or more) the question arises as to who will restore those years of his life. This long time for completing the trial is itself an important consideration nowadays for grant of bail in most of the cases. Article 21 is also violated if the trial is not held speedily as held by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases.

2. The F.I.R. in the present case discloses that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. This fact coupled with the fact of delay in even commencing the trial makes it now a fit case for grant of bail.

3. In the circumstances let the applicant Anwar be enlarged on bail in case Crime No. 444 of 1998 under Sections 304, 307, 504, 506, I.P.C. police station Kotwali district Kushi Nagar on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.