Case: Mun. Corp. Of Delhi  Vs. Naresh Kumar

2. The respondent owns an extent of about 13 Bighas in the Revenue estate of Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. According to him, he carries on agricultural operations thereon. He constructed a building on the said land, which, according to him, is occupied for purposes connected with agricultural operations on the said land and wherein the respondent and his family members stay wherever they visit the farm. According to the respondent, further the building is not occupied on a permanent basis but only occasionally as and when they visit the farm. The contention of the respondent before the High Court was that since the said building, is connected with the agriculture being carried on over the said extent of 13 Bighas, it is exempt from tax under Section 115(4)(c) notwithstanding the fact that it is a dwelling house. On the other hand, the case of the Corporation was that since the said building is a ?dwelling house? within the meaning of Section 115(4)(c), it is subject to general tax. According to the Corporation, it is immaterial whether the dwelling house is occupied on a permanent basis or only occasionally. It is equally immaterial, says the Corporation, whether the dwelling house is occupied for the purpose of agriculture being carried on over the adjacent lands or otherwise. It is enough that it is a dwelling unit, says the Corporation. It is taxable. The High Court has not accepted the contention urged by the Corporation. The High Court has opined that a dwelling unit is exempted from general tax if it is mainly oroccupied or used for agricultural purposes. This is what the High Court said:?We are, therefore, of the view that so far as the exemption provision in Section 115(4)(c) is concerned, the test is not whether buildings or farmhouses are usedin connection with agricultural operations. In our view, the said exemption applies toor farm houses used ?substantially?, if not solely, for agricultural purposes. If this test is satisfied, the building or farm house falls outside theSo far as the exclusionary wordsthan dwelling houses? are concerned, we are again of the view that the buildings or farm houses must be solely or substantially used for dwelling purposes, that is to say, with a degree of continuity and permanency, and not solely or substantially for agricultural purposes, then such buildings will fall inside theWe do not visualise any third category of buildings or farm houses which do not fall into one or other categories above stated. Assuming however that any such intermediate category arises, we are of the view that the person claiming the exemption will not be entitled to exemption from property tax unless he proves that the building is solely or substantially used for agricultural purposes. Whether a given building is used substantially for agricultural purposes, is a question depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on what, according to general principles of law could be said to be the meaning of the words agricultural purposes.?

Court's reasoning:
Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is a mixed question of fact and law, which has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the each case. We are not prepared to go into details, to determine whether the land involved in this appeal is ?agricultural land?, since that question has not been gone into by the High Court. The three issues set out by the High Court do not take in this issue. It is enough to say for the purposes of this appeal that a dwelling house situated on an agricultural land is not exempt from general tax and that a dwelling house includes within its ambit such appurtenant land as is necessary for a proper and convenient enjoyment of the dwelling house. No more can be said, nor need be said, in this appeal.