Hanif Khan Vs. Viiith Additional District Judge 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. s.u. khan, j.1. this is tenant's writ petition. petitioner on 18th june, 1973 filed application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute. in para 1 of the writ petition it is stated that it was actually given on rent to him by landlord-respondent no. 4 w.e.f., 1st july, 1973. it appears that the matter of allotment remained pending for five years and on 30th june, 1978 rent control and eviction officer, allotted the building in dispute to respondent no. 3. respondent no. 3 had filed allotment application on 24th june, 1977. in between petitioner's allotment application and order of allotment in favour of respondent no. 3, section 14 of up. act no. 13 of 1972, had been amended w.e.f., 5th july, 1976 and tenancy without allotment prior to the said amendment had been regularised. against order dated 30th june, 1978, petitioner filed revision which dismissed against which petitioner filed a writ petition no. 10357 of 1979. the said writ petition was allowed on 16th august, 1982 vide annexure-4 to the instant writ petition and the matter was remanded to the revisional court. revisional court by order dated 21st december, 1982 again dismissed the revision which order is challenged in the instant writ petition. the only point taken by the revisional court is that the petitioner did not get his allotment application renewed, after every year. nothing has been discussed by the revisional court regarding section 14 of the act, as amended in 1976.2. heard learned counsel for the petitioner. no one has appeared for respondent no. 9. respondent no. 4 inspite of sufficient service has not engaged any counsel.3. in my opinion the entire exercise done by the revisional court was in vain as petitioner's tenancy stood regularised in view of section 14 of the act.4. accordingly, writ petition is allowed. judgment and order dated 21st december, 1982 passed by viiith application district judge, kanpur in rent revision no. 100 of 1978 and the allotment order dated 30th june, 1978 passed by rent control and eviction officer, allotting the building in dispute in favour of respondent no. 3 mustaq ahmad are quashed.