Cit Vs. Shan Elahi

.....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. orderthis is an income tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, in which following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the rectification under section 154 made in the above case was barred by limitation ?'2. section 154(7) of the income tax act as it stood in the relevant assessment year 1971-72 states :'save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) to section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after expiry of four years from the date of order sought to be amended.'3. in the petition present case the assessment order was passed on 21-8-1971 and the first rectification under section 154 was made on 28-2-1977. the second rectification with which we are concerned was made on 8-2-1977. the question is whether four years will run from the original assessment order or from 28-2-1997. the facts of this case are covered by the supreme court decisions in hind wire industries ltd. v. cit : [1995]212itr639(sc) and waldies ltd. v. cit : [1997]223itr163(sc) .4. following the aforesaid decisions the question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee.