IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11238 of 2009 Between: Sri Gajula Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. H.No.4-100, Chavali Village, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads & Buildings, "J" Block, Floor-5, Room No.528, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Transport Commissioner, O/o. The Transport Commissioner, B.R.K.R.Building Complex, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Transport Commissioner, O/o. The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29-04-2009 vide Memo. No.4212/A1/2009 passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to extend the benefit of Section 10(2) of the A.P Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 to the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Tractor No.AP07R2165 & Trailer No. AP07R2166 and to record the same in the Certificate of Registration or to issue a separate certificate of benefit and by directing the 3rd respondent to pay costs of WP for framing an incorrect order by falsely coding the Act and section Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gajula Venkateswara Sai Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Transport The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondent authorities. At the request of the learned advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2. The petitioner is an owner of a tractor and trailor bearing Nos. AP07R2165 and AP07R2166 respectively. It is his case that though the tractor is being used for agricultural purpose, the respondent authorities have not granted exemption in respect of payment of tax, as per the provisions of Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’). 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that though the petitioner might be using the tractor for agricultural purpose, the extent of land owned by him is not adequate for use of a tractor and therefore he is not entitled to the exemption. 4. In para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Guntur it has been specifically stated as follows: “It is submitted that therefore after this respondent finally by proceedings Memo No.4212/A1/2009 dated 12.06.2009 passed the speaking order, after considering petitioner’s application under section 10(2) Andhra Pradesh Motor Taxation Act, the petitioners application rejected on the grounds that the land holding of the petitioner is acres 3.62 cents is too small an extent to appreciate and consider the request of the petitioner. His agricultural requirements do not match the purchase of tractor-trailor and its utility as he has invested nearly Rs.2 Lakhs for the sake of purchase of the tractor-trailor. The land holding of the petitioner is insufficient to grant benefit under provision of Section 10 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.” Thus, the sum and substance of the counter affidavit is that the agricultural land held by the petitioner is not enough so that tractor can be used by him. 5. Section 10 of the Act reads as under: “Provisions of this Act not to apply to the motor vehicles designed and used solely for agricultural and mining purposes:- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to a motor vehicle registered in the name of the owner or occupier of any agricultural land or mine if such land is under his personal cultivation or if such mine is being worked personally by him and such motor vehicle is designed and used solely for carrying out agricultural or mining operations on such land or mine or within a distance of fifteen miles from the limits of such land or mine. (2) Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Act, a tax at rupees twenty five per quarter shall be levied on any vehicle specified in sub-section (1), when the vehicle is not used solely for carrying out such agricultural or mining operations but is used by its registered owner for any other purpose of his own. Explanation-I: For the purpose of this section, the expression “agricultural operation” shall mean tilling, sowing, harvesting, crushing of agricultural produce or any other similar operation carried out for the purpose of agriculture; but shall not include the transporting or persons, manure or materials for the purpose of agriculture or the transporting of agricultural produce except when such transporting is made by the owner or occupier of the land for his own purposes:- (i) within a distance of fifteen miles from the limits of such land, or (ii) to or from the nearest market place irrespective of the distance of such market place from the limits of such land. Explanation II:- For the purpose of this section, “personal cultivation” means cultivation by a person of his own land and on his own account,-- (1) by his own labour; (2) by the labour of any member of his family; or (3) by servants on wages payable in cash or in kind or both or by hired labour under his personal supervision or under the personal supervision of any of his relatives. Explanation III:- For the purpose of this section, the expression ‘mining operation’ means any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any material.” The aforestated provisions of Section 10 of the Act clearly denote that if a tractor is to be used for agricultural purpose or for mining purpose, the provisions of the Act would not apply to it for the purpose of imposition of tax. 6. There does not appear to be any provision, which constrains a person to purchase or have a particular extent of land for the purpose of use of the tractor for agricultural operations. The learned Government Pleader was unable to point out any provision dealing with the extent of ownership of agricultural land for availing exemption under Section 10 of the Act. 7. In view of the fact that there is no provision to the effect that, to have an exemption under Section10 of the Act, an agriculturist should own land to a particular extent, in our opinion, the impugned decision of the respondent authorities cannot be justified. In our opinion, it is not for the respondent authorities to decide as to how much land a person must hold so as to use tractor for agricultural operations. The reason given is absolutely unjust and improper. In our opinion, the benefit under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act could not have been denied on the aforestated ground. 8. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 9. In our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the Act and, therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case and grant an exemption under Section 10 of the Act in accordance with law. 10. The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th July, 2009 ks