Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. - 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. orderamar saran, j.1. heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned a.g.a. appearing for the state.2. in this case, the revisionists were initially charge-sheeted under sections 323, 504, 506, i.p.c. in case crime no. 731-a of 2001, but later a charge has been framed against them also under section 307, i.p.c. it is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the said application has been made by way of counter-blast to a charge-sheet, which was submitted against the opposite party no. 2 and others at the instance of the revisionists under sections 308, 323, 504 and 506, i.p.c.3. learned counsel for the revisionists has confined his prayer to the effect that the revisionists be permitted to continue on the same bail subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned. although by order of the additional district judge (fast track court no. 5), saharanpur dated 21-10-2004 the charge is to be framed in this case under section 307, i.p.c. however, as the allegations were that the fire that was made by the accused did not cause any injury to the victim, hence for this offence under section 307, i.p.c., the maximum punishment is only up to 10 years r.i. as a punishment, up to imprisonment for life is provided only when 'hurt is caused to any person by such act.' this is not the allegation in the present case.4. now section 437(1)(i) restrains the court other than high court, or court of sessions (i.e. the magistrate) from granting bail only in those cases, where a reasonable ground appears for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. in this view of the matter, there is no fetter on the magistrate's right to grant bail in this case and the decision of the apex court in prahlad singh bhati v. n.c.t., delhi reported in (2001) 4 scc 280 : (air 2001 sc 1444 : 2001 cri lj 1730), does not come in the way of this court permitting the revisionists to continue on the earlier bail granted to them by the magistrate. accordingly, this revision is allowed to this extent and the revisionists are permitted to continue to remain on bail also under section 307, i.p.c., provided they furnish fresh bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned.5. the revision is disposed of as above.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amar Saran, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. In this case, the revisionists were initially charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 731-A of 2001, but later a charge has been framed against them also under Section 307, I.P.C. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the said application has been made by way of counter-blast to a charge-sheet, which was submitted against the opposite party No. 2 and others at the instance of the revisionists under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has confined his prayer to the effect that the revisionists be permitted to continue on the same bail subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. Although by order of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 5), Saharanpur dated 21-10-2004 the charge is to be framed in this case under Section 307, I.P.C. however, as the allegations were that the fire that was made by the accused did not cause any injury to the victim, hence for this offence under Section 307, I.P.C., the maximum punishment is only up to 10 years R.I. as a punishment, up to imprisonment for life is provided only when 'hurt is caused to any person by such act.' This is not the allegation in the present case.

4. Now Section 437(1)(i) restrains the Court other than High Court, or Court of Sessions (i.e. the Magistrate) from granting bail only in those cases, where a reasonable ground appears for believing that a person is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In this view of the matter, there is no fetter on the Magistrate's right to grant bail in this case and the decision of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T., Delhi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 : (AIR 2001 SC 1444 : 2001 Cri LJ 1730), does not come in the way of this Court permitting the revisionists to continue on the earlier bail granted to them by the Magistrate. Accordingly, this revision is allowed to this extent and the revisionists are permitted to continue to remain on bail also under Section 307, I.P.C., provided they furnish fresh bail bonds with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

5. The revision is disposed of as above.