The argument on this point is based on section 5(1) of the Abolition Act, which we have quoted earlier, and is in two parts: firstly, it is contended that if clauses (a) (1) (2) (3) (191O) (4) (5) 403 and (b) of sub section (1) of section 5 are read together, the only reasonable conclusion is that clause (a) is merely declaratory and clause (b) is the operative clause and according to that operative clause, the persons who become liable for payment of land revenue are only two in number, namely, (1) a taluqdar holding any taluqdari land and (2) a cadet of a taluqdari family holding any taluqdari land with hereditary rights for the purpose of maintenance immediately before the coming into force of the Abolition Act, and, therefore, the holder of " Lal liti " lands, assuming them to be taluqdari lands, has no liability under section 5(1); secondly, it is contended that even if clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 5 are read distributively the holder of Lal liti " lands has still no liability, because cl.