Cwt Vs. Kapoor Chand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the allahabad high court dr. b.s. chauhan & ghanshyam dass, 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. orderthis reference under section 27 of the wealth tax act, 1957 has been made by the tribunal for our decision on the following question :'whether the hon'ble tribunal was correct in law in its finding that rule 1bb of the wealth tax rules, 1957 has not been made effective from 1-4-1979 was to apply even in respect of pending assessments for orders prior to assessment year 1979-802. this issue has been considered by the hon'ble supreme court in cwt v. sharvan kumar swarup & sons : 1995ecr425(sc) wherein it has been held that 1bb of the rule 1957 partakes of the character of rule of evidence. it deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of particular method of relaxation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979 when the rules came into force.3. in view of above reference is answered in affirmative against department in favour of the assessee.4. this reference is disposed of as above.

Judgment:
ORDER

This reference under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 has been made by the Tribunal for our decision on the following question :

'Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 has not been made effective from 1-4-1979 was to apply even in respect of pending assessments for orders prior to assessment year 1979-80

2. This issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) wherein it has been held that 1BB of the rule 1957 partakes of the character of rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of particular method of relaxation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. Rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on 1-4-1979 when the Rules came into force.

3. In view of above reference is answered in affirmative against department in favour of the assessee.

4. This reference is disposed of as above.