Cit Vs. Ramesh Chandra - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the allahabad high court m. katju & prakash krishna, 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 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. orderm. katju, j.this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act. in paragraph 5 of the statement of the case the question referred to this court for its opinion is as under :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of partial partition was valid and was rightly accepted by the appellate assistant commissioner ?'the facts of this case are covered by the supreme court decision in apoorva shantilal shah v. cit : [1983]141itr558(sc) . following the said decision, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju, J.

This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. In paragraph 5 of the statement of the case the question referred to this court for its opinion is as under :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the claim of partial partition was valid and was rightly accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'

The facts of this case are covered by the Supreme Court decision in Apoorva Shantilal Shah v. CIT : [1983]141ITR558(SC) . Following the said decision, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.