Sri Jagannath Prasad Bajpai Son of Late Sri Roop NaraIn Bajpai Vs. District Inspector of School, - 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. - under the rules, the petitioner could have only applied till 1.7.2000 in that particular year, clearly the application of the petitioner itself was not maintainable. even though the district inspector of schools countersigned the application of the petitioner on 10.7.2002. 3. when the petitioner came to know about this, the petitioner withdrew his option on 27.8.2002. the petitioner date of birth is 2.7.1944 and he was to attain the age of superannuation on 13.6.2003. 4. it is the contentions of the petitioner that since the petitioner withdrew his option to retire at 58 years, he should have continued till 13.6.2005. the ground taken in the writ petition is that in the scheme as provided in the relevant government order as well as in the relevant rules of the year 1981, acceptance of the option to retire at 58 years could have only been done by the deputy director and communication thereof was necessary to the employee concerned.bharati sapru, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. the petitioner had filed an application on 6.7.2002 opting to retire at the age of 58 years. under the rules, the petitioner could have only applied till 1.7.2000 in that particular year, clearly the application of the petitioner itself was not maintainable. even though the district inspector of schools countersigned the application of the petitioner on 10.7.2002.3. when the petitioner came to know about this, the petitioner withdrew his option on 27.8.2002. the petitioner date of birth is 2.7.1944 and he was to attain the age of superannuation on 13.6.2003.4. it is the contentions of the petitioner that since the petitioner withdrew his option to retire at 58 years, he should have continued till 13.6.2005. the ground taken in the writ petition is that in the scheme as provided in the relevant government order as well as in the relevant rules of the year 1981, acceptance of the option to retire at 58 years could have only been done by the deputy director and communication thereof was necessary to the employee concerned. mere signature of the district inspector of schools on such option as was shown in the present case on 10.7.2002 could not be taken neither as acceptance nor could any kind of finality be attached to such counter signature.5. in support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a full bench decision of this court in the case of smt. prabha kakkar v. joint director of education and ors. reported in 2000 (2) esc 1118 (all.).6. in view of the full bench decision in the case of smt. prabha kakkar (supra), the present petition is liable to be allowed. as the order passed by the district inspector of schools dated 10.7.2002 cannot be said to be full-fledged acceptance of the option to retire voluntarily, the petitioner will be deemed to be continued till attaining the age of 62 years as his prevalent now.7. the writ petition is allowed as above. there will be no order as to costs.