Fahimur Rahman Siddiqui Son of Sri Nisar Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Principle Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Commission 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. - we find that this case does not stand on better footing, since the petitioner admittedly submitted an affidavit in the prescribed proforma and the omission of the word 'bhai (brother)' was relevant and vital to the issue to be considered by the indian oil corporation.a.k. yog and r.k. rastogi, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the contesting respondents.2. in view of our judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed in civil misc. writ petition no. 54400 of 2006 smt. omitri rai v. general manager and anr. we find that this case does not stand on better footing, since the petitioner admittedly submitted an affidavit in the prescribed proforma and the omission of the word 'bhai (brother)' was relevant and vital to the issue to be considered by the indian oil corporation. it cannot be said to be a merely typographical or inadvertent mistake.3. learned counsel for petitioner has however, referred to the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the bench of hon. mr. justice jagdish bhalla and hon. mr. justice d.v. sharma in writ petition no. 6473 (m/b) of 2006 pramod kumar v. indian oil corporation ltd. and ors. which is quoted as under:the petitioner while making an application for grant of licence, by typographical error, mentioned in the affidavit that he is a married person, but according to the petitioner he is still a bachelor. it has been brought to our knowledge that the status of the petitioner being inadvertently mentioned as 'married' he will not be considered for grant of licence.in the light of the fact that the petitioner is still a bachelor, it is directed that in case the petitioner is otherwise eligible, his case shall be considered provided the petitioner files a correct affidavit indicating not only his marital status, but also the fact whether any of his relative has been granted licence as per appendix-a. sri anil kumar states that he will inform the authority concerned.with these observations and consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 4. the aforesaid judgment cannot be said to be a binding precedent for the reasons that it was passed with the consent of the parties without referring to the specific terms and conditions contained in the relevant advertisement. those terms and conditions and their effect has been dismissed by us in the case of smt. omitri rai v. general manager and anr. (supra) and in this view of the matter the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 is per incuriam and cannot be treated as a binding precedent.5. in this way, there is no manifest error of law apparent on the face of record in the decision taken by the indian oil corporation, and so this writ petition has got no force.6. writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.7. no order as to costs.