AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sethi, C.J.—Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant-Society filed a writ petition with a prayer for quashing the said order and granting the appellant the consequential benefits.
The admitted position is that before delivery of possession of the land to the appellant-Society, the State Government had passed an order u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such an action could not be challenged by the Society in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Others Vs. Godrej and Boyce, .
This Court cannot direct the State, either to acquire or not to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as the impugned order was actuated by mala fides and extraneous considerations, the same should have been quashed by allowing the writ petition. In support of his contention he has referred to the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition.
The allegations made in the writ petition are vague and ambiguous which could not be made a basis for holding that the action of the respondents was either actuated by extraneous consideration or was the result of the mala fides. Despite levelling vague allegations against a local M.L.A. and the Irrigation Minister, the appellant in its wisdom chose not to implead them as party-respondents in this case. The allegations of mala fide could not either be adjudicated or accepted in the absence of the aforesaid two persons.
There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order impugned requiring our interference. No merit. Dismissed.