Civil Appeals Nos
2000 2001 of 1969
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 17 10 1968 of the Kerala High Court in Income Tax Referred Case No 7967
B Sen SP Nayar and 1
Ramamurthi for the Appellant in both appeals
GK Viswanatha lyer K Jayaram and R Chandrasekar for the Respondent in both appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
Civil Appeals Nos 2000 2001 of 1969 from the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court are by grant of special leave by this Court filed on the ground that these appeals raise a question of wide general importance
This question was thus framed in a reference made by the Madras Bench of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 641 of the  Whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in having included the value of the forest lands in the total value of the Estate for the purpose of Estate Duty  The assessee had claimed that large tracts of forest land covered with wild and natural forest growths situated in the erstwhile Malabar District were agricultural  lands not liable to estate duty under the of 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
According to the Revenue duty had become leviable on the death of the former owners Smt
Jayalakshmi Devi who died on 6 3 1954 and Shri Madhava Rajah of Kollengode who died on 9th May 1955 each owning 113th share in the Tarwad properties on the dates of their deaths
348 No question as to the effect of any amendment of the law upon liability of agricultural laud to Estate duty was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court
Nevertheless it seems to have been considered by reason of the general nature of the question referred involving a determination of the correctness of the inclusion of the value of forest land in the total value of the estate
We may observe here that the question framed seems to rest on the assumption that the land under consideration was forest land
Howev er the general nature of the question framed and the ques tions argued and decided by the Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court indicated that the real contest was about the very nature of the land involved in order to determine whether it was liable to estate duty
The High Court had observed that the Tribunal s findings that land to the extent of 3685716 acres was not agri cultural land was solely based on the absence of evidence or the assessee s failure to prove that the disputed forest lands are agricultural lands
The High Court had also mentioned the basis of this finding relating to two types of land about which it had disagreed with the Appellate Tribunal while agreeing with the Tribunal that 500 acres of rocky land was non agricul tural land
This basis was given by quoting the fol lowing two passages from the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal 1 According to the valuers the remaining extent of 15000 and odd acres out of the first category has been leased by the assessee from time to time for cutting of timber and fuel wood and has never been used by him either by himself or through lessees to bring it under cultivation for any purpose
There is no material on record from which it can be said that this area can at all be brought under cultivation for any purpose
Even if it is assumed that there is a bare possibility of this area being brought under cultivation the assessee has not placed any material before us from which it can be said that a prudent owner would undertake any process of farming in respect of this land
2 With regard to the second category of the land of the extent of 16000 and odd acres the report of the valuers does not throw any light upon the nature of this land and the only information available is that these lands have been held by the Kerala Government under a perpetual lease on an annual rent of Rs 5000 
The assessee has not shown whether this land was being cultivated
by the Kerala Government or whether it was Only being exploited by the Kerala Government for its timber value
On the material on record it is not possible for these lands to come
under the catego ry of agricultural lands
349 The High Court had set out the provisions of Section 5 of the Act as they stood before a slight amendment in 1956
It read 5
Levy of estate duty 1 In the case of every person dying after the commencement of this Act there shall save as hereinafter expressly provided be levied and paid upon the principal value ascertained as hereinafter provided of all property settled or not settled including agricultural land situate in the States specified in the First Schedule to this Act which passes on the death of such person a duty called estate duty  at the rates fixed in accordance with Section 35
2 The Central Government may by notifica tion in the official Gazette and the names of any other States to the First Schedule in respect whereof resolutions have been passed by the Legislatures of those States adopting this Act under clause 1 of Article 252 of the Constitution in respect of estate duty on agricultural lands situate in those States and on the issue of any such notification the States so added shall be deemed to be States specified in the First Schedule within the meaning of sub section 1
After pointing out that agricultural land falls under item 48 of List II or the State List in the Seventh Sched ule of the Constitution the High Court held that estate duty on the land under consideration would become leviable provided it was agricultural land on the passing of resolu tions by the legislature of the State of Madras as provid ed by Section 5 2 set out above
These resolutions having been passed on 2 4 1955 the State of Madras was added in the First Schedule to the Act with effect from 6th June 1955
Hence the High Court held that the estate duty was not leviable under the Act on agricultural landbefore 6th June 1955 in the Madras State to which the land under consideration had belonged at the time when it was said to have become subject to a levy of estate duty
Thus the principal question which arose was What is the meaning of agricultural land as that term is used in the Act  The High Court of Kerala which had to deal with this reference decided the question on two grounds firstly that according to the views expressed in Sarojni Devi vs Srikrishna1 and Megh Raj vs Allah Rakha2 and CIT West Bengal Calcutta vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy3 the words agricultural land should be interpreted in their widest significance and secondly that although the burden rested upon an assesee to establish an exemption from liability to estate duty in respect of any part of his estate yet if he claimed immunity on the ground that the subject matter does not fall within the ambit of the taxing power of the legislature imposing 1 AIR 1944 Mad 401
2 AIR 1942 PC 27
3 350 the duty the Revenue had to establish that the subject matter involved is taxable
It then gave its opinion in the following terms It is well known that the extensive areas of different varieties of plantation that we have got in this State were once forest lands and it is also equally well known that year after year large areas of forest lands in this State are being cleared and converted into valuable planta tions
In the absence of exceptional circum stances such as the land being entirely rocky or barren for other reasons all forest lands in this State are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes
There is no case that the forest lands concerned in this case or any part thereof are unfit for agricultural exploitation
So far as the correct interpretation of the term agricultural laud in a taxing statute such as the one before us is concerned we have already dealt with the question in our judgment in Commis sioner of Wealth tax Andhra Pradesh vs Officer in Charge Court of Wards Paigah C where we have said We think that it is not correct to give as wide a meaning as possible to terms used in a statute simply because the statute does not define an expression
The correct rule is that we have to endeavour to find out the exact sense in which the words have been used in a particular context
We are entitled to look at the statute as a whole and give an interpretation in consonance with the purposes of the statute and what legally follows from the terms used
We are to avoid absurd re sults
If we were to give the widest possible connotation to the words agricultural land  as the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court seemed inclined to give to the term agricultural land  we would reach the conclusion that practi cally all land even that covered by buildings is agricultural land  is as much as its potential or possible use could be agricultural
The object of the Wealth Tax Act is to tax surplus wealth
It is clear that all land is not excluded from the definition of assets
It is only agricultural land  which could be exempted
Therefore it is imperative to give reasonable limits to the scope of the agricultural land  or in other words this exemption had to be necessarily given a more re stricted meaning than the very wide ambit given to it by the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench
Learned Counsel for the respondents had sought to rely strongly upon State of Kerala  4nr
vs The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Wvg Co Ltd etc
2 where the question under consideration was whether the Kerala Pri vate Forests Vesting and Assignment Act 26 of 1971 pur porting to acquire forest lands held on Janmam 1  2 1974 1 SCRp
671 682
351 right  without payment of compensation for implementing a scheme of agrarian reform by assigning lands or leasing them to poorer sections of rural agricultural population was acquiring agricultural land for purposes  stated in
the Preamble to the Act before this Court for interpretation
This Court interpreted the Preamble as having the effect of an earmarking by Legislature of certain forest lands for conversion into land meant for agriculture
We do not think that the forest land involved in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Wvg Co Ltds  case supra which had become linked up with agricultural purposes and earmarked for them by reason of a special statute for special purpose can bear comparison with forest land with spontaneous or natural and wild growths of for est which is involved in the case now before us
The decision in Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Wvg Co s case supra obviously depended upon the special facts of that case and the character of provisions to be interpreted
This Court keeping in view the special features of that case in the context of certain judicial pronouncements mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons for the statute to be interpreted observed there at p 683 It is therefore manifest that when the legislature stated in the Preamble that the private forests are agricultural land they merely wanted to convey that they are lands which by and large could be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes
It seems clear to us that this Court by explaining why for certain special reasons and in an unusual context certain land described as forest land was to be treated as though it had become agricultural implied that ordinarily this is not so
In Rajah Anand Brahma Shah vs State of UP  Ors1 this Court held forest land to be nonarable which meant non agricultural
We think that without evidence to show that such land had been cleared and pre pared or earmarked for agricultural purposes it must be treated as prima facie nonagricultural land
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent stated before us that the lands under consideration had also been subsequently acquired by the Govt
and put to agricultural uses
There is however no finding or evidence before us to that effect
Apparently the learned Counsel meant that forest land subsequent to the levy of estate duty had been acquired by the State to be converted and used for agricul tural purposes
There being no evidence or finding of such a character before the events which attracted the estate duty we cannot take notice of such a statement by Counsel
It is irrelevant for the purpose of the cases before us
So far as the question of burden of proof is concerned we think that to proceed on the assumption that all land is prima facie capable of cultivation so that the State must prove that it is non agricultural in order to establish that it could be the subject matter of legislation 1  at p 379 352 which was within Parliament s legislative competence and therefore covered by the Act is to mix up the question of legislative competence and that of taxability of what is on the face of it taxable as part of the estate or property of the assessee within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act set out above
Indeed the question of legislative competence of Parliament was neither in issue nor part of the question referred even if such a question could have been referred at all by a Tribunal functioning under the Act
We think that the burden of establishing the exemption lay upon the asses see respondent as was rightly held by the High Court
We think that the High Court was not correct in placing the burden upon the Department after it was admitted that it was forest land on the ground that the further question of an immunity of the subject matter from taxation by Par liament arose here and that therefore the onus lay on the Department
Even if there could be such an onus here it was we think sufficiently discharged by the admission that this was forest land covered with natural or wild growths
After that at any rate the assessee had to prove change of its character
In Commissioner of Wealth Tax Andhra Pradesh vs Offi cer incharge Court of Wards Paigah supra in which we heard arguments together with arguments in the case now before us we found that there was some evidence of the agricultural character of land in the shape of entries in revenue record
We do not find what could similarly consti tute evidence of agricultural character of the land involved in this case
On the other hand the assessee s admission that the land under consideration was forest land covered by wild and natural growth of forests constituted evidence to the contrary
We think that unless there was evidence that such lands had been in some way set apart or earmarked for or linked up with an agricultural purpose by their owners or occupiers it could not be held that they are agricultural lands
We think that the view of the Kerala High Court that all forest lands in this State are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploit ed for agricultural purposes is too wide
It is erroneous for the reasons we have already set out in our judgment in the case from the Andhra Pradesh High Court
The question has to be decided on evidence of actual or intended user for which land may have been prepared or set apart
In the case before us now the Tribunal said in its referring order The Tribunal permitted the accountable person to raise the contention that the value of the forest lands has to be excluded as they were agricultural lands
So far as this contention was concerned the following facts were not in dispute viz that the forest consisted of trees of sponta neous growth that no operations in the nature of forest development were being carried on and that only operations in the nature of exploitation of the forest were being conducted
The account able person however contended that these lands were capable of being brought under cultivation at a future 353 date and that therefore they must be deemed to be agricultural lands
Reliance was sought to be placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Sarojini Devi vs Shri Krishna AIR 1944 Madras p 401 in which it was held that the expression agricultural lands  must be taken to include lands which are used or are capable of being used for raising any valuable plants or trees or for any other purpose of husbandry
The Tribunal was however of the view that in the said decision their Lordships did not intend to lay down a defi nition of the expression agricultural lands  for all purposes and that on the other hand they clearly indicated that the expression admits of different interpretations and that it was only from the context of the particular enactment in which this expression is used that  its meaning has to be inferred
The Tribunal observed that the very wide definition of the expression agricultural lands  laid down in the above cited decision was not applicable to cases under the 
The Tribunal therefore negatived the contention of the accountable person that the forest lands had to be excluded from the value of the assessable estate of the deceased
Thus it is clear that the assessee after having been given due opportunity to lead evidence to show that what was prima facie nonagricultural land in the sense that it was covered by the spontaneous or natural growth of forests was really agricultural land had led no such evidence
It was not shown that the assessee or his predecessor in interest did anything to develop the forest in the sense that any particular trees were planted deliberately
It appears that the nature of exploitation of the forest lands was simply to give contracts for cutting of the trees
The assessee not having led any evidence of any intention to prepare or appropriate or ear mark the land for any agricultural use or purpose but  on the other hand having contended that mere possibility of using such land for agricultural purposes in future was enough could not be said to have discharged his onus of proof
After the assessee s admission that it was forest land which presumably prevented cultivation no evidence was led as we have already observed to indicate any change of character of this land or its conversion into agricultural land
We therefore think that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in expressing the view it had taken and the conclusions it had recorded
And no case is made out for sending the case back to the Tribunal for any fresh decision
Consequently we allow these appeals set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court
The parties will bear their own costs


Summary:
Under s5 of the  all property including agricultural land situate in the States specified in the First Schedule to the Act which passes on the death of the owner is subject to estate duty
The State of Madras was added in the First Schedule with effect from 6th June 1955
The assessee claimed that large tracts of land covered with wild and natural forest growths situate in the Malabar District of the Madras State were agricultural lands and that they were not liable to estate duty because the former owners died before 6th June 1955
The High Court held that the property was agricultural land and not liable to estate duty because 1 the words agricultural land  should be interpreted in their widest significance so that
in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as the land being entirely rocky or barren for other reasons all forest lands in the State of Kerala in which the District of Malabar was since included are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricul tural purposes and 2 although the burden rested upon an assessee to establish an exemption from liability to estate duty in respect of any part of his estate yet if he claimed immunity on the ground that the subject matter does not fall within the ambit of the taxing power of the legis lature imposing the duty the Revenue had to establish that the subject matter involved is taxable
Allowing the appeal to this Court HELD 1 The expression agricultural land  has to be given a restricted meaning and not the wide meaning given by the High Court
The question whether land is agricultural land has to be decided on evidence of actual or intended user for an agricultural purpose for which the land may have been prepared or set apart
352 F Commissioner of Wealth tax Andhra Pradesh vs Officer in Charge Court of Wards Paigah 1977 1 SCR 146 followed
a The land in the present case was covered by sponta neous or natural growth of forests
It was not shown that the assessee or his predecessor in interest did anything to develop the forest in the sense that any particular trees were planted deliberately
The exploitation of the forest lands was simply to give contracts for cutting trees
It must therefore be treated prima facie as non agricultural land
353 E b The decision in State of Kerala vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Wvg Co Ltd  depended upon the special facts of that case and the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests Vesting and Assessment Act 1971 interpreted therein
This Court in that case ex plained why for certain special reasons and m an unusual context certain land described as forest land  was to he treated as agricultural 
Forest land ordinarily means non arable that is non agricultural land
351 C  E Rajah Anand Brahma Shah vs State of UP  Ors  followed
347 c Assuring that the forest land subsequent to the levy of estate duty had been acquired by the State to be converted and used for agricultural purposes there being no evidence or finding of such a character before the events which attracted the estate duty it is an irrelevant circum stance of which the Court cannot take notice
351 G 2 a The burden of establishing the exemption lay upon the assessel
The High Court was not correct in placing the burden upon the Revenue when it was admitted that the land was forest land
The reason given by the High Court that a question of immunity of the subject matter from taxation by Parliament arose here and that therefore the onus lay on the Department mixes up the questions of legis lative competence and of taxability
Even if there could be such an onus it was sufficiently discharged in the present case by the admission of the assessee that the land was forest land covered with natural or wild growths
352 A C b The assessee was given due opportunity to lead evidence to show that what was prima facie non agricultural land was really agricultural land but he led no evidence to prove his intention to put the land to agricultural use or purpose
On the other hand he contended that the mere possibility of using such land for agricultural purposes in future was enough
Therefore he had not discharged his onus and no case is made out for sending the case back to the Tribunal for any fresh decision
353 D F