Gram Panchayat and anr. 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. 1. the gram panchayats basta raipur; khadar, tehsil chandpur; rasoolpur; rehar; jai singh jot; kotwali; basantpur; gohawar, and gohawar hallu, district bijnor have filed these writ petitions, for quashing a letter dated 17.1.2004, issued by chief development officer, bijnor to sub divisional magistrate, chandpur directing him, that, except, for village kasampur garhi and seervasu chand, the tehbazari, shall be collected by the contractors of zila panchayat, bijnor in accordance with the bye-laws, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their right to collect the tehbazari from the markets situate in their territorial limits.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. the dispute in these writ petitions is between the petitioner gram panchayats and the zila panchayat, bijnor for collection of tehbazari. in writ petition no. 15251/2002, filed by gram panchayat kasampur garhi and gram panchayat seervasu chand, tehsil dhampur, district bijnor, this court by its judgment dated 18.4.2002, directed the state government to decide the petitioner's representation. the state government by its order dated 5.5.2003 (annexure-1 to writ petition no. 5382/2004), held that the markets had vested in the gram panchayats under section 117, of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950, and hence the gram panchayats have a right to manage and develop the markets and to realise tehbazari.4. aggrieved by the order of the state government dated 5.5.2003, the zila panchayat bijnor filed a writ petition no. 22013/2003 between zila panchayat bijnor and ors. v. state of u.p. and ors., which was disposed of by judgment dated 21.5.2003, directing the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under section 256 of u.p. kshettra panchayat and zila panchayat adhiniyam. the judgment is quoted as below :'in our opinion, the petitioners have an alternative remedy under section 256 of the u.p. kshettra panchayat and zila panchayat adhiniyam to approach the state government for resolution of this dispute, [vide 1996 (2) uplbec 1091]. this petition is dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy.however, if the petitioners approach the state government, the state government shall decide the dispute after hearing the parties concerned, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order in accordance with law. we are also of the opinion that the state government under section 256 of the adhiniyam has power to grant interim order pending the final decision of the matter. hence if the petitioners are so advised they can file a stay application which shall be decided preferably within two weeks from production of a certified copy of this order.'5. the zila panchayat bijnor, instead of availing the alternative remedy approached the chief development officer, bijnor, for a direction to allow the contractors appointed by the zila panchayat, to collect tehbazari and to make adequate arrangement for police protection for such realisation. the chief development officer, bijnor in his letter dated 17.1.2004, to the sub divisional magistrate chandpur has relied upon the order dated 5.5.2003, of the state government and observed that it is applicable only to gram panchayat kasampur garhi and gram panchayat seervasu chand. he has further observed that the order dated 5.5.2003 does not operate in favour of any other gram panchayats in district bijnor, and thus the nagar panchayat, bijnor is entitled to eviction and realise tehbazari, in accordance with its bye-laws.6. section 256 of the u.p. kshettra panchayat and zila panchayat adhiniyam, 1961, provides for a statutory mechanism for resolution of the dispute by the state government. the court had already given liberty to the zila panchayat bijnor, to get the dispute resolved through the state government. in our opinion, in view of the provisions of section 256 of the act the chief development officer, bijnor, did not have any authority to issue the directions, even in respect of those gram panchayats which were not covered by order of the state government.7. the writ petition is accordingly allowed. the letter of the chief development officer dated 17.1.2004, is set aside. it will be open to the zila panchayat, bijnor, to approach the state government to decide the dispute under section 256 of the u.p. kshettra panchayats and zila panchayats adhiniyam, 1961. no order as to costs.