Om Prakash 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. orderm. katju, a.c.j. and umeshwar pandey, j.1. heard sri a. m. zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel. 2. this special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of learned single judge dated 10.5.2004. by that judgment, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the u. p. public services tribunal. 3. it may be mentioned that the u. p. public services tribunal act, 1976, was amended in the year 2000. according to the amendment there must be some order against which the petitioner can go to the tribunal. if there is no order, a party cannot go to the tribunal. this view was also taken by the supreme court in public service tribunal bar association v. state of u. p. and anr., 2003 (2) awc 968 (sc) : (2003) 1 uplbec 780. 4. following the said decision, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.5.2004 is set aside. we remand the case to the learned single judge for passing a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law expeditiously.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju, A.C.J. and Umeshwar Pandey, J.

1. Heard Sri A. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel.

2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned order of learned single Judge dated 10.5.2004. By that judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal.

3. It may be mentioned that the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, was amended in the year 2000. According to the amendment there must be some order against which the petitioner can go to the Tribunal. If there is no order, a party cannot go to the Tribunal. This view was also taken by the Supreme Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U. P. and Anr., 2003 (2) AWC 968 (SC) : (2003) 1 UPLBEC 780.

4. Following the said decision, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.5.2004 is set aside. We remand the case to the learned single Judge for passing a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law expeditiously.