Cit Vs. K.M. Sinha and Bros.

.....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. orderheard shri a.n. mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant; and shri dhananjay awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue.2. the following question of law has been referred to this court for opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the commissioner (appeals) directing the income tax officer to frame separate assessments for the periods 24-1-1977 to 9-12-1977 and 10-12-1977 to 11-2-1978 ?'3. in cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) , it has been held that if one of the partners dies and there is no clause in the partnership deed that if any of the partners dies the partnership shall dissolved, two separate assessments are to be made.4. in view of the above decision, the order of the appellate tribunal holding that two separate assessments be made is justified and legally correct and we answer the question referred to above in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the commissioner.5. the reference is accordingly disposed of. as none appeared for the assessee there will be no orders as to costs.