Chandan Lal Vs. Vth A.D.J. 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. anjani kumar, j.1. this writ petition filed by the tenant against the order passed by the revisional court dated 5.2.1980 under section 25 of provincial small cause courts act, 1887, whereby the revisional court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlord for ejectment of the tenant.2. the facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under :'that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of structural alteration as contemplated under section 20 (2)(c) of u. p. act no. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the act'). the trial court by the judgment dated 25.1.1978, dismissed the suit. aggrieved thereby the landlord preferred a revision before the revisional court. the revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the trial court and decreed the suit throughout filed by the plaintiff-landlord.'3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been decreed on the ground that the provisions of section 20 (2)(c) of u. p. act no. 13 of 1972 are attracted. for ready reference the provisions of section 20 (2)(c) are quoted below :'20 (2)(c)--that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it.'4. from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that there has to be pleadings and according to that the case of the plaintiff has to be proved in order to attract the provisions of section 20 (2)(c). the plaintiff has to plead that the tenant without consent of the landlord in writing has altered the accommodation in dispute including the structural alteration which diminished the valuation of the building. from the perusal of the plaint it is clear that there is no such pleading and in absence of such it is settled that the suit could not have decreed.5. in this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. the order of the revisional court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, is set aside because no useful purpose will be served by sending it back to the revisional court as there is no pleading. the writ petition is allowed. the order of the revisional court is set aside and the order of the trial court is maintained. there will be no order as to costs.