Cit Vs. Adarsh Industries - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
in the allahabad high court m. katju & yatindra singh, 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. this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act in which the following question of law has been referred for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that two separate assessments should be made for the two periods?'2. one of the partners of the firm sri ramesh chandra garg died on 27-2-1980. there was nothing in the partnership deed to the effect that the partnership will continue even after the death of a partner. hence, in view of section 42 of the partnership act the firm stood dissolved and there have to be two assessments vide cit v. empire estate : [1996]218itr355(sc) .3. we, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.