Dr. O.P. Agarwal Vs. Cit

.....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. orderwe have heard sri p.m.n. singh, the learned additional advocate general for the assessee and sri sri krishna, the learned counsel for the revenue.2. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents on record, it appears that the plea raised in the instant writ petition is only a circuitous process to delay and avoid payment of taxes and to comply with the order in assessment proceeding. the claim made in the writ petition is that the application under section 154 of the income tax act, 1961 has not been disposed of by the commissioner, bareilly, respondent no. 1. in our view, there is no apparent error on the face of the record, which is required to be considered and, as such, we cannot accept the plea raised by the learned advocate for the assessee.3. there being no merit, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. however, it will be open to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the tribunal if the same is already not time-barred.