Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar 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. sudhir narain and v.m. sahai, jj.1. this appeal is directed against the order of the workmen's compensation commissioner dated 15.9.2001 awarding a sum of rs. 2,42,980 as compensation.2. the claimant-respondent filed claim petition before the workmen's compensation commissioner with the allegations that he was working as a conductor on the vehicle no. up 14-e 0975 which met with an accident near modi nagar due to which his left leg below the middle thigh was amputated. he became disabled and was entitled to compensation.3. the appellant contested the claim petition. the workmen's compensation commissioner found that the accident had taken place during the course of the employment and the claimant was entitled to compensation of a sum of rs. 2,42,980. this order has been challenged in the present appeal by oriental insurance co. ltd.4. we have heard mr. arvind kumar, learned counsel for the appellant who submitted that left leg below middle thigh of claimant-respondent was amputated but that amounts to 60 per cent disability under the provisions of part ii of schedule i, item no. 19 of workmen's compensation act, 1923 which reads as under:amputation below middle thigh to 8.89 cms. below knee ... 60 per cent.5. it is urged that the workmen's compensation commissioner wrongly took the disability as 100 per cent and awarded compensation on that basis.6. admittedly, the claimant-respondent was working as conductor of the bus. his left leg below middle thigh has been amputated. taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation is to be awarded. the claimant-respondent has been awarded a sum of rs. 2,42,980 as compensation and we do not find that there is any manifest error in the impugned order passed by the workmen's compensation commissioner.the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.