Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. District Judge 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. orderanjani kumar, j.1. heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.2. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below relying upon the amended provisions of order viii, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure which prescribes that the time limit for filing written statement cannot be extended beyond ninety days from the date of service of the summons, has rejected the written statement filed by the petitioner.3. in view of the recent decision of the apex court in the case of kailash v. nanhku and ors., 2005 (2) awc 1490 (sc) : 2005 air scw 2346, and the decision of this court in writ petition no. 25816 of 2005, masroor ali v. court of in-charge district judge, kanpar nagar and ors., decided on 19.5.2005, whereby the order of the courts below refusing to accept the written statement beyond ninety days is quashed and this court has directed the courts below to accept the written statement beyond ninety days in case the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this court in the case of masroor ali (supra).4. in this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. the orders dated 20.7.2004 and 9.11.2004, annexures-3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition, with the direction to the trial court to decide the objections, if any, filed against the acceptance of the written statement in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.

Judgment:
ORDER

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below relying upon the amended provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes that the time limit for filing written statement cannot be extended beyond ninety days from the date of service of the summons, has rejected the written statement filed by the petitioner.

3. In view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., 2005 (2) AWC 1490 (SC) : 2005 AIR SCW 2346, and the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 25816 of 2005, Masroor Ali v. Court of In-charge District Judge, Kanpar Nagar and Ors., decided on 19.5.2005, whereby the order of the courts below refusing to accept the written statement beyond ninety days is quashed and this Court has directed the courts below to accept the written statement beyond ninety days in case the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Masroor Ali (supra).

4. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 20.7.2004 and 9.11.2004, Annexures-3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition, with the direction to the trial court to decide the objections, if any, filed against the acceptance of the written statement in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.