Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sohan Lal 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 r.b. misra, jj.1. this appeal is directed against the award of the motor accidents claims tribunal, awarding rs. 1,22,000 as compensation to the claimants-respondents.2. the claim petition was filed by the claimants-respondents with the allegations that the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2 died in an accident on 5.12.1999 by a tempo.3. the appellant contested the claim petition on the ground that the tempo was not insured with it and the driver had no valid licence.4. the tribunal recorded a finding that the tempo was insured with the appellant and the driver had a valid licence.5. we have heard mr. k.s. amist, the learned counsel for the appellant who has urged that the driver did not have a valid licence. the tribunal had recorded a finding that the driver had a valid licence. this finding has been assailed on the ground that the driving licence was only to drive light motor vehicle. the appellant has filed a photocopy of the driving licence as annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. the driving licence indicates that it was for driving light motor vehicles. the tempo is a light motor vehicle. the driver had a valid licence to drive the vehicle. it is further contended that he had no valid licence to drive the tempo as a taxi. the mere fact that the tempo was being used as taxi will not mean that the driver did not have a valid licence.6. we do not find any merit in the appeal. it is accordingly dismissed.7. rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant in this court, shall be remitted by the registry of this court to the motor accidents claims tribunal concerned within one month for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to the claimants-respondents.