Civil Appeals Nos
1076 1079 of 1971
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 8th January 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in special appeals Nos
965 to 968 of 1964
V M Tarkunde EC Agarwala and Miss Manik Tarkunde for the appellant
G N Dikshit Shivapujan Singh advocate for O P Rana for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
This judgment would dispose of four civil appeals Nos
1076 to 1079 of 1971 which have been filed by special leave by Ratna Sugar Mills Ltd against the judgment of Allahabad High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge 1063 whereby the appellant s four petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated December 18 1963 of the Board of Revenue directing the levy of holding tax under the UP Large Land Holdings Act 1957 UP Act No 31 of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the land of the appellant for the assessment years 1365 1366 1367 and 1368 Fasli had been dismissed
In 1951 the appellant acquired land measuring 27708 acres situated in village Argupur Kalan tehsil Shahganj district Jaunpur
According to the appellant the said land was acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory for the production of paper and pulp
A licence was granted to the appellant in that connection
The appellant filed an application under section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for treating its land situated in village Agrupur Kalan as industrial land
In the course of those proceedings the Tahsildar submitted a report on August 24 1959 as under As regards Argupur Kalan the whole area is recorded as sirdari of Ratna Sugar Mills and they pay Rs 1495 as annual land revenue
It is recorded in the Mills from before Zamindari Abolition and Mills Authorities continue to pay the recorded land revenue to Government
The whole area is lying Banjir and lies on both the sides of the railway line and Belwai Station
It has not at all been brought under cultivation nor the Mill has derived any benefit from it
It is really meant for industrial purposes but due to financial difficulties they could not use it as such
 The Sub Divisional Officer however rejected the application filed on behalf of the appellant under section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
The result was that the land in dispute could not be declared to be land for industrial purpose
Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed by the Collector
While the proceedings under section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were pending the Commissioner held for assessment years 1365 and 1366 Fasli in an appeal filed by the appellant that the land in dispute was meant for industrial purposes and had on that account remained uncultivated
The appellant was held not liable to pay holdings tax for the land in dispute for the assessment years 1365 and 1366 Fasli
Two revisions were filed by the State against the above order of the Commissioner
Subsequently for the years 1367 and 1368 Fasli the Commissioner held that the appellant was liable to pay holdings tax for the land in dispute under the Act
The appellant filed two revisions to the Board of Revenue against that order of the Commissioner
The four revisions two filed by the State and two filed by the appellant were decided by the Board of Revenue by a common order dated December 18 1963
The revisions filed by the State were accepted by the Board while those filed by the appellant were rejected
The 1064 Board held that as the land held by the appellant was sirdari and not Bhumidari land it could not be declared to be meant for industrial purposes
The appellant was held liable to pay holdings tax for the land in question
Four petitions under article 226 of the Constitution were thereupon filed by the appellant to challenge the order of the Board of Revenue
The learned single Judge held that the land in dispute constituted land as defined in the Act and the appellant was liable to pay holdings tax for the same
The order of the learned single Judge as already mentioned was affirmed on appeal by the Division Bench
Before dealing with the question involved in these appeals it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions as well as the objects and reasons
The Act was published on November 1 1957 but according to sub section 3 of section 1 it was to be deemed to have come in force on the first day of July 1957
The objects and reasons which were mentioned in the Bill were as under For securing successful implementation of the Second Five Year Plan it has become necessary to augment the revenues of the State
The Agricultural Income Tax Act which was enacted at a time when zamindari system was in force has become out of date in the context of post war zamindari era
The principle of social justice enshrined in our Constitution also demands that disparities between agricultural incomes be reduced
More efficient exploitation of agricultural lands is essential for increasing the food production in the State
Those big holders who do not fulfil their duty towards society will have to sell up as they should if they fail in making increased contribution to the exchequer in the form of holding tax under this legislation
With these objects in view the Agricultural Income Tax Act 1948 is being replaced and this Bill is being introduced
The Bill seeks to levy a holding tax on all land holdings the annual value of which exceeds Rs 3600
A cultivator who does not cultivate more than 30 acres of land would be exempt from this tax
The Bill is so designed as not to affect the small cultivator
It is proposed to levy the tax on a graduated scale so that the larger the holding the greater the incidence of the tax
 Section 3 of the Act is the charging section
According to sub section 1 of that section there shall save as hereinafter provided be charged levied and paid for each agricultural year on the annual value of each land holding a tax called the holding tax at the rates specified in the Schedule provided that no such tax shall be charged on any land holding the area whereof does not exceed thirty acres
Section 215 of the Act defines land as under 15 land  means land whether assessed to land revenue or not which is held or occupied for a purpose 1065 connected with agriculture horticulture animal husbandry pisciculture or poultry farming and includes uncultivated land held by a landholder as such The definition of land holder is given in section 216 and the same reads as under 16 land holder  means i an intermediary where the land is in his personal cultivation or is held as sir khudkasht or grove and ii any other person who holds or occupies land otherwise than as a an asami
b a sub tenant
c a tenant of sir or d a sirtan
and includes a manager or a principal officer as the case may be Explanation In this clause asami does not include an asami of Gaon Samaj The Act took the place of the UP Agricultural Income Tax Act 1948 which stood repealed in pursuance of section 28 of the Act from the date the Act came into force
It may also be pointed out that this Act has been itself subsequently repealed by section 45 of the UP Imposition of Ceilings on Land holdings Act 1961 as from June 30 1961
In appeal before us Mr Tarkunde on behalf of the appellant has argued that the land in question does not constitute land as defined in section 215 of the Act and as such the appellant is not liable to pay holding tax on the said land
The land in question according to the learned counsel is held for industrial purposes and not for purposes of agriculture horticulture animal husbandry pisciculture or poultry farming
The above contentions have been controverted by Mr Dikshit on behalf of the State and in our opinion the contentions are not well founded
The land in dispute is shown to be Banjar land in the revenue records
Although the appellant acquired the land in 1951 for the purpose of setting up a factory somehow the factory could not be set up and the land remained uncultivated
The appellant holds the land as a sirdr
An application was filed by the appellant for permission to use the land in question for industrial purposes but that permission was not granted the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in this respect was affirmed on appeal by the Collector
A sirdar under section 146 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has the right to the exclusive possession of the land and entitled to use it for any purpose connected with agriculture horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming
It is therefore apparent that after the order which was 1066 made on the appellant s application under section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act the appellant cannot be said to hold the land in dispute for industrial purpose
The purpose for which the appellant could after that date use the land was agriculture horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming
The fact that the appellant did not cultivate the land in question would not warrant exemption from the liability to pay the holding tax
The definition of the land includes uncultivated land held by a land holder as such
The High Court held that the words as such did not pertain to the purpose for which the land is held but have reference to the land being held by the land holder in his capacity as a landholder
We see no sufficient ground to take a different view
In any case even if the words as such be construed to mean that the land should be held for the purpose of agriculture horticulture animal husbandry pisciculture or poultry farming the land in question should be taken to satisfy that requirement because those are the only purposes for which the said land can now be used
The word lands used in the Act as mentioned in the case of Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Anr is wide enough to include all lands whether agricultural or not
The object of the Act as mentioned in the objects and reasons is more efficiency exploitation of agricultural land for increased food production
The appellant in our opinion cannot escape liability for payment of holding tax by keeping the land in question uncultivated
There is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed with costs
One hearing fee
MR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant acquired some land in district Jaunpur for setting up a factory but did not use the land for such purpose
Under the UP Large Land Holdings Act 1957 he was required to pay holdings tax for the assessment years 1365 to 1368 Fasli
The appellant s application section 143 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for treating his land as industrial land was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer
On appeal the Collector affirmed the order
In further appeal to the Commissioner the appellant succeeded as regards the years 1365 and 1366 Fasli
The State filed revision petitions
Subsequently the Commissioner held that the appellant was liable to pay holdings tax for the years 1367 and 1368 Fasli
The appellant also preferred revision applications
The Board of Revenue decided all the revision petitions in favour of the State holding that the appellant s land was sirdari and not bhumidari and it could not be meant for industrial purposes
The appellant s petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were rejected by a Single Judge of the High Court on the ground that the disputed land constituted land as defined in the Act and that he was liable to pay the tax
On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order
It was contended before this Court that the land is held for industrial purposes and is not land under sec
215 of the Act
Dismissing the appeals the Court  HELD The appellant holds the land as a sirdar
Permission to use the land in question for industrial purposes was not granted
The word lands used in the Act is wide enough to include all lands whether agricultural or not
The appellant cannot escape liability for payment of holding tax by keeping the land in question uncultivated
1065 G 1066C D Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another   referred to