Cwt Vs. Pramod Kumar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
head note: income tax wealth tax valuation of assets--reversionary value of landheld: the reversionary value of the land of cinema building owned by firm could not be added to the value worked out on yield basis for the assessment year 1976-77. wealth tax act, 1957 s.7 wealth tax act, 1957 s.27(1) wealth tax exemption under section 5(1)(iv)--cinema buildingheld: the assessee was not entitled to the exemption in terms of section 5(1)(iv) in respect of the immovable property of the firm for the assessment year 1976-77. wealth tax act, 1957 s.5(1)(iv) wealth tax act, 1957 s.27(1) in the allahabad high court 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 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. orderin this case there is an office report dated 27-2-1984 that notice has been served on the assessee. none has appeared on his behalf. since this is an old reference we are not adjourning the case.2. this is a wealth tax reference under section 27(1) of the wealth tax act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :1. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption in terms of section 5(1)(iv) of the wealth tax act, 1957 in respect of the immovable property of the firm m/s. raj kamal talkies for the assessment year 1976-77 ?2. whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal is correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building owned by m/s. raj kamal talkies could not be added to the value worked out on yield basis for the assessment year 1976-77 ?3. the first question is covered in favour of the department by our judgment in cwt v. j.k. gupta (wtr 238 of 1981, dated 23-9-2003).4. the second question is covered against the department by a division bench decision of this court in cwt v. rain saran kajriwal (1987) 168 itr 485. hence we answer the first question in the negative that is in favour of the department and against the assessee but the second question is in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Judgment:
ORDER

In this case there is an office report dated 27-2-1984 that notice has been served on the assessee. None has appeared on his behalf. Since this is an old reference we are not adjourning the case.

2. This is a wealth tax reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption in terms of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in respect of the immovable property of the firm M/s. Raj Kamal Talkies for the assessment year 1976-77 ?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reversionary value of the land of the cinema building owned by M/s. Raj Kamal Talkies could not be added to the value worked out on yield basis for the assessment year 1976-77 ?

3. The first question is covered in favour of the department by our judgment in CWT v. J.K. Gupta (WTR 238 of 1981, dated 23-9-2003).

4. The second question is covered against the department by a Division Bench decision of this court in CWT v. Rain Saran Kajriwal (1987) 168 ITR 485. Hence we answer the first question in the negative that is in favour of the department and against the assessee but the second question is in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee and against the department.