Cit Vs. Mahendra Kumar

.....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 sri a.n. mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant, and sri vikram gulati, learned counsel for the respondent.2. the reference has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 31-7-1981 passed in ita no. 2044 (del) of 1980. the following questions of law were referred :'1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the share income from m/s. goverdhan dass mahendra kumar amounting to rs. 39,510 cannot be included in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was legally correct in holding that the interest income of rs. 4,596 from m/s. goverdhan dass mahendra kumar cannot be included in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?3. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was already correct in holding that the share income of rs. 2,256 from m/s. sisona gur and khandsari udyog cannot be validly included in the hands of the assessee during the assessment year 1976-77?'the question regarding validity of partition was considered in parallel and similar case of cit v. shyam lal 2001 uptc 777 wherein it was held that it was not necessary to define the share of each member of each group and that partition by allotting a share of the property to a group was valid.3. in view of the said decision the views of the tribunal on all questions referred to above are upheld. the reference application is accordingly disposed of.4. the parties shall, however, bear their own costs.