Shiv Raj Singh son of Har Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through It's Secretary Food and Civil Supply, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, (11.10.2006 - ALLHC) - 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. a.k. yog and r.k. rastogi, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. all the respondents are represented by the learned standing counsel, hence no notice need be issued and the writ petition can be finally decided without calling for the record of the case as contemplated under rules of court.3. the petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order dated 1-9-2006/annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the concerned sub divisional magistrate, aliganj (district etah) has suspended the fair price shop licence/agreement in favour of the petitioner on receiving certain complaint (mentioned in the said order of suspension).4. apparently, no notice appears to have been given before the said suspension order is passed. prima facie such order of suspension cannot be sustained in view of the division bench decision in the case of ganesha v. district magistrate, mahoba and anr. 2001 (43) alr 184. apart from the above, we also take note of the fact that the relevant government order (dealing on the subject matter in question) requires that as soon as the suspension order is passed (subject to satisfying other certain condition), enquiry shall be completed within one month and final orders be passed. it is being generally and usually noticed that such time schedule contemplated under relevant g.o. (dealing on the subject matter in question) is not being adhered to, as a consequence thereof, aggrieved persons are compelled to approach this court by filing writ petition under article 226, constitution of india.5. in our opinion, in the existing context and flow of frivolous litigation arising due to in-action or apathy on the part of the government officers when the enquiry is not being concluded within the time schedule perceived by the said government order, it is high time that this court may, in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, constitution of india, provide that in case the enquiry is not concluded within the time schedule contemplated under the relevant g.o., the suspension order shall automatically cease or shall be deemed revoked.6. in the result, we find that the impugned order of suspension dated 1-9-2006/annexure-1 to the writ petition suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record and it is accordingly set aside with direction to the concerned authority to complete the enquiry and take action as may be warranted on the basis of the record under the provisions of the relevant g.o. (dealing with the subject matter).7. writ petition stands allowed. 8. no order as to costs.