.....under section 9 of the u. p. urban buildings (regulation of letting rent & eviction) act, 1972 for the assessment year 1977-78.
income tax act, 1961 s.17(2)
in the high court of allahabad m. katju & umeshwar pandey, jj
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under 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.....orderthis is an income tax reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 in which the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in directing that. the value of the perquisite in respect of residential accommodation provided to the assessee in modi bhavan, should be limited to tile value fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent & eviction) act, 1972 for the assessment year 1977-78 ?2. identical question has been decided by the delhi high court in favour of the assessee, in cit v. smt. dayawati modi : [2003]259itr375(delhi) , we are in respectful agreement with the delhi high court. hence, this reference is also decided in the affirmative, i.e., ill favour of the assessee and against the department.