HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel. The petitioners allege that their lands have been acquired for constructing a dam and an irrigation canal.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned G. O. dated 3-9-1992 (Annexure-1 to the petition ).

(3.) IN our opinion, the judiciary must maintain restraint in such matters of fixing cut off dates and not encroach on executive or legislative functions, otherwise there is bound to be a reaction. By maintaining restraint it enhances its prestige and respect. The judiciary does not consist of administrative experts and hence it cannot claim expertise in such matters as fixing cut off dates. Hence we are not inclined to strike down the impugned G. O. on the ground that the cut off date is arbitrary. IN Tata Cullular v. Union of INdia, AIR 1996 SC 11. The Supreme Court observed that the modern trend is of restraint in interference with administrative decisions.