Smt. Uma Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - 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. - 7 anganbari karyakarti does not enjoy the post of profit and is paid honorarium only. she also informed that as member of the zila panchayat she does not receive any remuneration or honorarium, therefore, the membership of zila panchayat is not a post of profit and she can continue to hold the post of anganbari karyakarti as well. dated 16.12.2003 the petitioner cannot continue as anganbari karyakarti as well as member of zila panchayat. 7 and the entire action as well as the impugned order is against the principle of natural justice and as the orders being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be quashed.rakesh tiwari, j.1. heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. the petitioner was appointed as anganbari karyakarti in village and post office harhamaphi, p. s. badausa, tehsil atarra, district banda. the election of the members of the zila panchayat, banda was held in which the petitioner contested and was declared successful.3. the president zila panchayat, banda wrote a letter to the district magistrate, banda stating that the petitioner is not relinquishing the post of anganbari karyakarti even after her election as member of zila panchayat and requested for action against the petitioner. in enquiry made by the commissioner, chitrakoot dham division, banda, respondent no. 3, the petitioner informed that under the government order referred in the letter dated 21.1.2004 of respondent no. 7 anganbari karyakarti does not enjoy the post of profit and is paid honorarium only. she also informed that as member of the zila panchayat she does not receive any remuneration or honorarium, therefore, the membership of zila panchayat is not a post of profit and she can continue to hold the post of anganbari karyakarti as well. respondent no. 4 on 21.1.2004 issued a letter to the effect that in pursuance of the g.o. dated 16.12.2003 the petitioner cannot continue as anganbari karyakarti as well as member of zila panchayat. he accordingly, required the petitioner to resign from the post of anganbari karyakarti within 3 days otherwise her honorarium will be discontinued. the petitioner was thereafter removed from the post of anganbari karyakarti vide order dated 10.3.2004.4. the counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any g. o. nor any rules bars the petitioner from contesting the election of member of zila panchayat if she is ineligible otherwise to contest the election. he further submits that government order dated 16.9.2003 is not applicable to the petitioner as she was elected in the year 1999 and the aforesaid g. o. has no effect on the election as it is not made applicable from retrospective effect.5. it is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed at the behest of respondent no. 7 which is apparent from her letter without application of mind. it is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by respondent no. 7 and the entire action as well as the impugned order is against the principle of natural justice and as the orders being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be quashed.6. according to the g. o. dated 13.8.99 the anganbari karyakarti is not a holder of civil post. she does not get any salary from the government and is only paid honorarium. anganbari karyakarti is not a government servant and service rules of the state government are not applicable in the case of anganbari karyakarti as has been held by a division bench of this court in smt. sunaina singh v. district magistrate, mau and ors., 2002 (2) esc 1236.7. in the instant case, the petitioner being an anganbari karyakarti, is not a government servant and does not hold any office of profit. the order dated 10.3.2004, is illegal and is quashed.8. for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. no order as to costs.