Dharmendra Kumar 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. - 1999(1)awc451 .3. having heard learned counsel for the represented parties as well as the learned standing counsel, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be supported on the basis of the conclusions drawn.ordera.p. sahi, j.1. heard sri manish nigam learned counsel for the petitioner, sri h.p. misra for the respondent no. 7 and the learned standing counsellor the respondent nos. 1 to 6.2. this court had earlier issued notices to the other respondents for which steps have been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner but no counsel has put in appearance. it is further submitted that the main contesting respondent kusum devi is contesting the matter and sri h.p. misra has advanced his submissions.it was pointed out that the order impugned would be unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this court in the full bench decision in the case of ram adhar v. state of u.p. and ors. 1985 alj 615, on this issue. learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law. the order impugned dated 23.4.2008 does not proceed to support the conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence which was allegedly led by the parties.this fact has also been noticed by this court when the interim order dated 30.4.2008 was granted. the aforesaid position could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for the respondents but it has been pointed out that the difference of votes is only four, as such it was a fit case for recounting relying on the decision of this court in the case of shobh nath v. state of u.p. and ors. : 1999(1)awc451 .3. having heard learned counsel for the represented parties as well as the learned standing counsel, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be supported on the basis of the conclusions drawn. the order rather renders an opinion of a simple doubt without there being any conclusion drawn by the officer on the basis of evidence led. the order of recounting in the opinion of the court cannot be passed on the basis of mere doubts and therefore, the order dated 23.4.2008 in view of the law laid down in ram adhara's case (supra) is unsustainable.4. accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.4.2008 is set aside with a direction to the competent authority to proceed to pass an order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. it goes without saying that the other respondent nos. 9 to 15 who were impleaded under orders of this court on 9.7.2008 shall also be at liberty to advance their submissions before the concerned authority.5. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. the order dated 23.4.2008, is quashed. the matter is remanded back with the aforesaid direction to the concerned authority. the concerned authority shall proceed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of presentation of this order before him.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.P. Sahi, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Nigam learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Misra for the respondent No. 7 and the learned standing counsellor the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. This Court had earlier Issued notices to the other respondents for which steps have been taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but no Counsel has put in appearance. It is further submitted that the main contesting respondent Kusum Devi is contesting the matter and Sri H.P. Misra has advanced his submissions.

It was pointed out that the order impugned would be unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Adhar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1985 ALJ 615, on this issue. Learned Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law. The order impugned dated 23.4.2008 does not proceed to support the conclusion drawn on the basis of the evidence which was allegedly led by the parties.

This fact has also been noticed by this Court when the interim order dated 30.4.2008 was granted. The aforesaid position could not be dislodged by the learned Counsel for the respondents but it has been pointed out that the difference of votes is only four, as such it was a fit case for recounting relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Shobh Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 1999(1)AWC451 .

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the represented parties as well as the learned standing Counsel, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be supported on the basis of the conclusions drawn. The order rather renders an opinion of a simple doubt without there being any conclusion drawn by the officer on the basis of evidence led. The order of recounting in the opinion of the Court cannot be passed on the basis of mere doubts and therefore, the order dated 23.4.2008 in view of the law laid down in Ram Adhara's case (supra) is unsustainable.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.4.2008 is set aside with a direction to the competent authority to proceed to pass an order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It goes without saying that the other respondent Nos. 9 to 15 who were impleaded under orders of this Court on 9.7.2008 shall also be at liberty to advance their submissions before the concerned authority.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.4.2008, is quashed. The matter is remanded back with the aforesaid direction to the concerned authority. The concerned authority shall proceed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of presentation of this order before him.