Committee of Management Sarswati Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Sarswati Intermediate College Through Its Manager Smt. Shila Singh W/O Late Harish Chandra Singh Through Its Manager Vs. Yaduraj Singh S/O Late Beni Madhav Singh 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. - maya niranjan, appeared to fill two capacities, namely that of deputy director of education as well as that of the joint director of education. the success of the appeal from the interim order will in no manner fetter the discretion of the hon ole single judge in deciding upon the merits of the writ in substance.ajoy nath ray, c.j. and ashok bhushan, j.1. this is an appeal from an interim order passed by an hon'ble judge in aid of a writ application filed by the respondents. the order is dated 20 june, 2005. the effect of the said order is to stay the recognition granted to the present committee of management and as a result thereof, where the impugned order to stand, the district inspector of schools would immediately take over the day to day management2. the learned judge has remarked at the beginning of the order that respondent no. 2, one smt. maya niranjan, appeared to fill two capacities, namely that of deputy director of education as well as that of the joint director of education. however the reason for passing of the drastic order of the- stay is not dearly the filling of two capacities by the same person, which may be unusual but is not in any manner illegal, at least not yet so pronounced even by the learned single judge, his lordship was deeply swayed by the fact that two caveat applications appeared to have been filed by the appellant, who is the manager of the committee of management, without having got the order of recognition yet served upon the successful committee. his lordship then said it is obvious that the order has been passed and dispatched in serious suspicious circumstances as indicated therein above....3. affidavits were thus called for and because of the suspicion entertained by his lordship the whole sole order of stay was passed.4. we are afraid, arid we say this with greatest of respect that' his lordship has misconstrued the basic purpose of a caveat a caveat is filed on an apprehension. the apprehension might be of various types, it might; be in relation to litigation which .is apprehended to be filed in regard to rights already exist and it might be in apprehension of litigation which is likely to be filed in defiance of rights which are about to accrue. the present caveat is of the second type. the committee of management was expecting recognition. the present manager has been the manager previously. it does not appear that there exist alternative committee, which have had a closely contested election and by one means or the other the present committee has managed to obtain recognition behind the back of the other group.5. our order and observations are without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties and subject to the decision which will be taken on merits on affidavits in the court below.6. we find that the time for filing affidavits there has run out. it is for the concerned respondents in the writ petition to obtain extension of time by making appropriate prayers bebe the learned single judge. it will be in his lordship discretion to decide whether further time is granted or affidavits will be shut out.7. the order under appeal is set-aside. the appeal is allowed. the success of the appeal from the interim order will in no manner fetter the discretion of the hon ole single judge in deciding upon the merits of the writ in substance.8. no order as to cotsts.