Sanjeev Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Vice-chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith (University) 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. arun tandon, j.1. heard sri namwar singh advocate on behalf of the petitioner and sri ajay bhanot advocate on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.2. the petitioner who was admitted as a regular student in m.com. two years degree course in mahatma gandhi kashi vidyapeeth (university), varanasi, in the academic year 2001-2002, had appeared in the examination of m.com. part-i examination conducted by the said university in the year 2002 and passed the said examination. thereafter the petitioner did not seek admission in m.com. part-ii and pursued his studies in other courses. in the year 2004 he again applied for admission as a regular student for m. com. part-ii for the academic year 2004-2005. the university has refused admission to the petitioner in m.com. part-ii relying upon the provisions of para 26 of the ordinance as framed by the university under section 51 of the state universities act, bearing the heading 'pravesh niyamavali'.3. it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of the university refusing admission to the petitioner is illegal and is based on misreading of the provisions of para 26 of the ordinance.4. on behalf of the university it is stated that the decision taken by the university is in accordance with para 26 of the said ordinance and no interference is called for by this court under article 226 of the constitution of india.5. for the purposes of appreciating the controversy it is necessary to reproduce para 26 of the said ordinance, which reads as follows :^^;fn dksbz nk= lkrdkskjikb~;e ds izfke [k.m dh ijh{kk mkh.kz djds mlh e esa izkjehk vxys l= dsf}rh; [k.m esa izos'k ugha ysrk gs rks mls hkfo'; esa iqu% izos'kkfkzvkosnu djuk gksxk vksj mls izos'k rhkh feysxk tc izfke [k.m esa mls v/;kfirikb~;e vfkok iz'u i= f}rh; [k.m esa gksa izfrcu/k ;g gs fd izos'k dh ;g lqfo/kkdsoy nks o'kz rd gh izkir gksxha**6. from a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is apparently clear that a gap within two years is permitted for the student who has passed part-i of post graduate degree course for being granted admission as a regular student in the final year of the same course.7. from the facts as have been noticed hereinabove it is apparently clear that the petitioner after being successful in the academic session 2001-2002 did not seek admission in m.com. part ii course in the academic session 2002-2003 (examination held in the year 2003) and in the academic session 2003-2004 (examination held in the year 2004) and has now applied for being admitted after a gap of more than two years in m.com. part-ii in the academic session 2004-2005. since the admission applied for by the petitioner is beyond the maximum permissible period of two years, as contained in para 26 of the ordinance, the university authorities were justified in refusing admission to the petitioner. there is no illegality in the decision taken by the university.