indrasen Singh Son of Sri Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, - 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. heard sri vashistha tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. 4. accordingly, the order dated 21.5.1999 passed by district magistrate, deoria as well as the order dated 4.4.2003 passed by commissioner, gorakhpur division, gorakhpur in the appeal filed by the petitioner, both are quashed.vineet saran, j.1. heard sri vashistha tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. the brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was granted an arms license. a notice for cancellation of his license was issued to the petitioner on 24.10.1995. then by order dated 26.8.1997, his arms license had been placed under suspension. by an order dated 21.5.1999 passed by district magistrate, deoria such license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that he is an accused in cases under sections 25/27 arms act; under section 120b i.p.c. and also under sections 107/ 116 cr.p.c.; and that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the commissioner, gorakhpur division, gorakhpur on 4.4.2003 primarily on the grounds as mentioned in the order of the district magistrate. a fresh ground has also been taken in the appellate order that persons of criminal antecedents visit the petitioner to whom he supplies cartridges. challenging the aforesaid orders of the district magistrate and the commissioner, gorkahpur division, gorakhpur dated 21.5.1999 and 4.4.2003 respectively the petitioner has filed this writ petition, with a further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the fire arm of the petitioner.3. from the record it is clear that the petitioner was never an accused in any case under sections 25/27 of the arms act. it is also borne out from the record that the case against the petitioner under section 107/116 cr.p.c. had been dropped on the basis of a compromise by order dated 5.3.1997 prior to the order canceling his arms license. in the case under section 120b i.p.c. the petitioner has admittedly been acquitted. besides this, there is no other case which is said to have been filed or pending against the petitioner. accordingly, it is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner has been either acquitted or discharged in all the cases which had been filed against him. there is no allegation of mis-use of his weapon or that he has flouted any terms of the arms license. the additional ground taken by. the commissioner that persons of criminal antecedents visit the petitioner to whom he supplies cartridges, is absolutely vague and baseless as the same is not justified by any document on record or any report of the police. as such, in my view, the order directing cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner was wholly unjustified and so was the order of the commissioner passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. it is the right of a person to possess an arms license, unless for valid reasons he may be debarred or prohibited from possessing the same. in the facts and circumstances of this case there appears to be no justification for denying such license to the petitioner or cancelling his arms license which had already been granted to him.4. accordingly, the order dated 21.5.1999 passed by district magistrate, deoria as well as the order dated 4.4.2003 passed by commissioner, gorakhpur division, gorakhpur in the appeal filed by the petitioner, both are quashed. the respondents are directed to release the fire arm of the petitioner which had been deposited by him after his arm license had been suspended on 26.8.1997.5. the writ petition stands allowed. no order as to cost.