Maqsood Ahmad Vs. Executive Engineer 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 and umeshwar pandey, jj. 1. this special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single judge (hon'ble s. l. sarraf, j.) dated 30.9.1997 by which he dismissed the writ petition. 2. the impugned judgment is very cryptic which does not even give reasons. 3. the impugned judgment states : 'heard learned counsel for the parties. i have gone through the petition and find no merit. the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. there will be no order as to costs.' 4. a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it has given no reasons for dismissing the writ petition. it has repeatedly been held by the supreme court that the high court cannot dismiss a writ petition without giving reasons. it has been held by the supreme court in arun mohadeorao damka v. addl. inspector general of police and anr., air 1986 sc 1497 and gram panchayat, bart v. collector, sonepat and anr., air 1991 sc 1082, that a writ petition should not be dismissed without giving reasons. 5. in view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned single judge is set aside. the matter is remanded to the appropriate learned single judge for deciding the writ petition on merits expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing counsel for the parties.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.

1. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge (Hon'ble S. L. Sarraf, J.) dated 30.9.1997 by which he dismissed the writ petition.

2. The impugned judgment is very cryptic which does not even give reasons.

3. The impugned judgment states :

'Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the petition and find no merit. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.'

4. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it has given no reasons for dismissing the writ petition. It has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court that the High Court cannot dismiss a writ petition without giving reasons. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Arun Mohadeorao Damka v. Addl. Inspector General of Police and Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1497 and Gram Panchayat, Bart v. Collector, Sonepat and Anr., AIR 1991 SC 1082, that a writ petition should not be dismissed without giving reasons.

5. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appropriate learned single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing counsel for the parties.