Summarize the following court judgment. 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. 79/67). B. Sen	 S.P. Nayar and 1. Ramamurthi for the Appellant (in both appeals). G.K. 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 64(1) 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 1/13th 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 36	857.16 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 15	000 and odd acres out of the first category	 has been leased by the assessee fro.m 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 16	000 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. 5	000/ . 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 land	before 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 Srikrishna;(1) and Megh Raj vs Allah Rakha;(2) and C.I.T. West Bengal	 Calcutta	 vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy	(3) 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) A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 401. (2) A.I.R. 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) S.C.R.p. 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 U.P. & Ors.	(1) 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.

Under s.5 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 S.C.R. 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 U.P. & 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]