Ram Babu S/O Gokul Ram Vs. State of U.P. Through Home Secretary, - 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. - however, where the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are based on the same offence and where evidence in the departmental proceedings could jeopardise the petitioner's case before the criminal court, in that event, the petitioner may apply before the departmental enquiry officer for a stay of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the proceedings. consequently the best judge can be the enquiry officer to assess and guage the situation.tarun agarwala, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the departmental enquiry proceedings. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that on similar charges a criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and, on the same charges, a domestic enquiry has been initiated. consequently, the departmental enquiry proceedings should be stayed. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that two enquiries on the same charges could not proceed simultaneously and, therefore the domestic enquiry proceedings should be quashed.3. the supreme court in number of decisions in delhi cloth and general mills ltd. v. kushal bhan, : (1960)illj520sc , kushewar dubey v. bharat coking coal ltd. and anr, : (1988)iillj470sc , capt. m. paul anthony v. bharat gold mines ltd. and anr., 1999 [82] flr 627 and in state bank of india and ors. v. r.b. sharma, 2004 llr 950 have held that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings could go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts and that the evidence in both the proceedings were common, in that eventuality, the departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial. however, in no circumstances, the departmental proceedings could be quashed.4. the petitioner in the present case has prayed for the quashing of the departmental proceedings on the ground that both the criminal and departmental proceedings could not proceed simultaneously on the principles of 'autre fois acquit' and the common law rule embodied in the maxim 'nemo debit bis vexari', which means that a person could not be put twice in peril for the same offence. in my opinion, the aforesaid principle is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.5. the law propounded by the supreme court, leaves no scope for doubt that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously. however, where the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings are based on the same offence and where evidence in the departmental proceedings could jeopardise the petitioner's case before the criminal court, in that event, the petitioner may apply before the departmental enquiry officer for a stay of the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the proceedings. this court is not in a position to assess as to whether the evidence which is going to be led or has been led would be the same and that the evidence so led in the departmental proceedings would jeopardise the criminal proceedings. consequently the best judge can be the enquiry officer to assess and guage the situation.6. in view of the aforesaid, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. it is however, open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the enquiry officer, who would consider and decide the matter in the light of the observations made above.