Cit Vs. Ganga Cold Storage - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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. counsels: none, for the revenue v. gulati, for the assesseein the allahabad high court s.k. sen, c.j. & ashok bhushan, j.judgment by the courtat the instance of revenue the tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that in working out the income, the assessee registered firm, was entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years brought forward against the income liable to assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. none appears for the applicant. we have heard sri v. gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.3. in view of the judgment and decision of the supreme court in the case of garden silk weaving factory v. cit : [1991]189itr512(sc) , we answer the question referred to in affirmative and decide the reference in favour of assessee and against the revenue.the reference is accordingly answered.

Judgment:
Counsels:

None, for the Revenue V. Gulati, for the Assessee

In the Allahabad High Court S.K. Sen, C.J. & Ashok Bhushan, J.

Judgment

By the Court

At the instance of revenue the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in working out the income, the assessee registered firm, was entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years brought forward against the income liable to assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'

2. None appears for the applicant. We have heard Sri V. Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. In view of the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. CIT : [1991]189ITR512(SC) , We answer the question referred to in affirmative and decide the reference in favour of assessee and against the revenue.

The reference is accordingly answered.