JUDGMENT
Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. These writ petitions have been directed against the order dated June 12, 1981, passed by the second respondent rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the first respondent for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.
2. The petitioner himself has applied under section 65(1) of the Act for compounding and on that basis assessments have been made. Against the orders of assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional authority has verified the records and found that the assessee did not apply for reducing the holdings in Form No. VIII-B and that he agreed to be assessed along with the lands purchased by the wives. The Assessing Officer has assessed the property of Tmt. Velammal with that of the petitioner and his wife, Murugayammal, on the ground that both the ladies and the petitioner are commonly enjoying the property and that the petitioner had already given his consent for inclusion of the lands in the names of the two wives for purposes of assessment in his name.
3. It seems that pattas have been issued separately to Velammal and Murugayammal stating that they are the wives of the petitioner. Since the petitioner himself has committed to the fact that the lands are all enjoyed under one roof, I do not see any error in the order impugned. The question of splitting of the acreage based on the actual extent enjoyed by the individuals has to be considered by the authorities only if the petitioner applies for the reduction of his holding. The other point raised by the petitioner is that Velammal is not his legally wedded wife. But, unfortunately, the petitioner himself has given his option to include the entire lands for the assessment under section 65 of the Act. When the petitioner himself has given his consent for the inclusion of the entire extent of lands, as per the well-settled principles laid down by this court with regard to the scope of section 65 of the Act, the petitioner cannot now wriggle out from the stand taken by him. As such, I do not find any error apparent to be corrected by issuing writs of certiorari as prayed for. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
