Narendra Kumar Sharma and anr. Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and anr. - 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. - it is admitted case, as would be clear from the assertions made in the writ petition as well as in the impugned order that before passing the impugned order the petitioner, owner/landlord has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing by the rent control and eviction officer as held in the case in 1984 (2) arc 7 and 2002 (2) arc 434 that the district magistrate while declaring the vacancy or passing an allotment order exercises quasi judicial function, therefore, even if there is no such provision either in the provisions of section 16 of u.orderanjani kumar, j.1. the proceedings initiated on the application of respondent no. 2, mahesh chand sharma who inspite of due service of notice has chosen not to appear before this court the rent control and eviction officer, aligarh has passed an order under section 16 read with section 12 of u.p. act no. 13 of 1972 declaring the vacancy in accommodation in dispute, which is owned by the petitioner. it is admitted case, as would be clear from the assertions made in the writ petition as well as in the impugned order that before passing the impugned order the petitioner, owner/landlord has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing by the rent control and eviction officer as held in the case in 1984 (2) arc 7 and 2002 (2) arc 434 that the district magistrate while declaring the vacancy or passing an allotment order exercises quasi judicial function, therefore, even if there is no such provision either in the provisions of section 16 of u.p. act no. 13 of 1972 or in the rules 8 and 9 of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) rules. 1972, the petitioner being owner and landlord was entitled for opportunity before passing the impugned order.2. in this view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed only on this point. the matter is sent back to the rent control and eviction officer, aligarh to be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. since the matter is fairly old. therefore, the rent control and eviction officer is directed to decide the same within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.

Judgment:
ORDER

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. The proceedings initiated on the application of respondent No. 2, Mahesh Chand Sharma who inspite of due service of notice has chosen not to appear before this Court the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh has passed an order under Section 16 read with Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 declaring the vacancy in accommodation in dispute, which is owned by the petitioner. It is admitted case, as would be clear from the assertions made in the writ petition as well as in the impugned order that before passing the impugned order the petitioner, owner/landlord has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as held in the case in 1984 (2) ARC 7 and 2002 (2) ARC 434 that the District Magistrate while declaring the vacancy or passing an allotment order exercises quasi judicial function, therefore, even if there is no such provision either in the provisions of Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or in the Rules 8 and 9 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules. 1972, the petitioner being owner and landlord was entitled for opportunity before passing the impugned order.

2. In this view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed only on this point. The matter is sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh to be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. Since the matter is fairly old. therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the same within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.