Krishna 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. anjani kumar, j.1. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. in view of the order that i purpose to pass, it is not necessary to invite a counter affidavit.2. the petitioner, by means of present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, has challenged the order dated 21st february, 2003, passed by respondent no. 2, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby the commandant, 38th battalian, p.a.c. aligarh informed the petitioner that under the provisions of u.p. subordinate police officers (punishment and appeal) rules, 1991, departmental enquiry will be conducted against the petitioner by me. it is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner giving reference of annexure-'2' to the writ petition, which is a copy of the letter/complaint dated 18th april, 2000 on the basis of which a f.i.r. has been lodged against the petitioner on 23rd october, 2000, has relied upon a decision reported in ii (1998) all india administrative tribunal law times (sc) 468, kusheshwar dubey v. bharat coking coal ltd. andors., in civil appeal no. 3129 of 1988 (s.l.p.(c) 10467 of 1987), decided on 6th september, 1988, wherein the apex court has ruled 'as we have already stated that it is neither possible, not advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight-jacked formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual-situation. for the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline.'4. in this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the criminal proceedings are pending, the departmental proceedings must be stayed, cannot be accepted. this writ petition being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed. however, the parties shall bear their own costs.