United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Awadh Kishore 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. order1. this appeal is directed against the award of motor accident claims tribunal, jhansi awarding a sum of rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.2. the claim petition was filed with the allegation that smt. phula the wife of respondent no. 2 died in the accident caused by tampo no. up 93e-278.3. the appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds.4. the tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tampo in question.5. vw have heard mr. amaresh sinha, learned counsel for the appellant.6. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence on record that this vehicle at the time of the accident, was driven by amar singh.7. we have perused the impugned order of the tribunal and the material placed before us. the tribunal has recorded finding that the vehicle was driven by amar singh.8. learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the amount of the award is too excessive.9. we have examined the order of the tribunal, the tribunal has awarded the amount after consideration of evidence on record. we do not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the tribunal.10. the appeal is according dismissed.11. rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this court, shall be remitted by the registry of this court to the motor accident claims tribunal concerned within one month from today for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to me claimant-respondents.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhansi awarding a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondents.

2. The claim petition was filed with the allegation that Smt. Phula the wife of respondent No. 2 died in the accident caused by Tampo No. UP 93E-278.

3. The appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds.

4. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tampo in question.

5. VW have heard Mr. Amaresh Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence on record that this vehicle at the time of the accident, was driven by Amar Singh.

7. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the material placed before us. The Tribunal has recorded finding that the vehicle was driven by Amar Singh.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the amount of the award is too excessive.

9. We have examined the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has awarded the amount after consideration of evidence on record. We do not find any legal infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

10. The appeal is according dismissed.

11. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court, shall be remitted by the Registry of this Court to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned within one month from today for payment/adjustment of the amount payable by the appellant to me claimant-respondents.