Cit Vs. K. Mahim

.....of option given under section 49(1) is only available to the owner and not anybody including any person interested or occupier tenant. the expression of opinion to acquire the entire building need not be in any particular form, but the expression of his desire should be clear for acquisition of the entire building. the above expression of opinion should be made before passing of the award. the owner of the building has a right to withdraw the option exercised before passing of the award. if the option of the owner to acquire the entire building as provided under section 49(1) is accepted by the land acquisition officer, tenant cannot challenge that decision. if the desire exercised by the owner to acquire the entire building is not acceptable, the only option for the land acquisition officer is to withdraw from the acquisition. -- section 49 (1): acquisition of whole of such house or manufactory or building meaning held, the words whole of such house or manufactory or building includes land in which it is situated. in other words, when entire building is acquired, the land in which the building is situated also has to be acquired by the government; if the owner expresses his opinion only to acquire the building materials excluding the land in which it is situated, it is not an option exercised under section 49(1). orders. sankarasubban, j.these civil miscellaneous petitions had been filed to recall the judgment dated 8-10-1999 in it ref. no. 180 to 192 of 1997 (reported as cit v. k. mahim udma : [2000]242itr133(ker) ). an affidavit has been filed by sri. george k. george, who appeared in the above income-tax reference cases. it is stated in the affidavit that twelve connected cases were disposed of by common judgment dated 8-10-1999 (supra). the earliest of the assessment year concerned was 1972-73. it is stated that by judgment dated 5-11-1994, cit v. k. mahlin (1995) 213 itr 820, this honourable court directed the tribunal to considered afresh the earlier order. after the remand, the tribunal considered the question afresh in the light of the observations in (1995) 213 itr 820 (supra). the tribunal reversed its earlier finding and passed the order on 13-3-1996. but, this order was not brought to the notice of this court. the case was argued on the basis of the earlier findings of the tribunal which was the subject-matter of (1995) 213 itr 820 (supra). hence, it is prayed that the judgment dated 8-10-1999, may be recalled. after hearing both sides, and also on the facts stated in the affidavit, we recall the judgment dated 8-10-1999, in it ref. nos. 180 to 192 of 1997.post it ref. nos. 180 to 192 of 1997 along with it ref. nos. 13 to 16 of 2000, on 2-1-2001.