PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAJA JITENDRA SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1972 BENCH: ACT: U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 and Rules made thereunder-Rule 6-A coming into force out 23 April 1958-Rule whether applicable to assessment year 1365 Fasli- Jurisdiction of High Court in matter of construction of Rule. HEADNOTE: The he Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 came into force on 1 July 1957. The Rules under the Act were published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23 November 1957. Rule 6-A was added to the Rules by in amendment on 23 April 1958. Rule 6-A states that where any land holdings has been legally sub-let by a disabled landholder mentioned in subsection (1) of section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the holding tax hall be remitted to the extent of that, chargeable on the land sub-let if its annual value was arrived at by multiplying the rent by 10 1/2. The respondent was prior to the abolition of Zamindari in Uttar Pradesh, the Raja of properties consisting of '-IS villages in District Rai Bareilly. He was a minor till 3 March 1958 and attained majority on 4 March 1958. The properties were under the management of the Court of Wards from 1945 to 1953, and, thereafter, under the management of the District Judge Rai Bareilly tip to 4 March 1958. On 1 April, 1958, the Tax Assessment Officer served a notice, under s. 7(2) of the 1957 Act on the respondent, for the assessment Fasli year 1365 commencing on 1 July 1957 and ending on 30 June. 1958. The respondent filed a return and claimed benefit of exemption under Rule 6-A of the said Rules in respect of land which had been sub-let to tenants under the order of the Court of Wards and the District Judge when the respondent's properties were under their management. The claim was rejected. The Commissioner in appeal held that Rule 6-A was not applicable to assessment for the year 1365 Fasli year. The writ petition filed by the respondent chal- langing the Commissioner's order was allowed by the Single Judge. In appeal by special leave the State contended before this Court that (i) The tax was to be assessed on the annual value of the landholding as on i July 1957, and, in as much as Rule 6-A did not come into existence on 1 July 1957, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the rule; (ii). Rule 6-A was not applicable because it was not proved that the land was lawfully stabler; (iii) The High Court was Nvrong in issuing the writ on the ground of misconstruction of Rule 6-A by the assessing authorities it was not a patent error. Held : (i) (a) Rule 6-A is to he 'read with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. Assessment was for the entire agricultural year from 1 July 1957 upto 30 June 1958. The land which had been lawfully sub-let by the Court of Ward, and the District Judge could not be in the possession of the respondent in the assessment year. Therefore, in assessing the land holding for the year 1365 Fasli. the respondent was entitled to claim benefit under Rule 6-A in respect of land which had been legally sub-let. The fact that, he became a major from 4 March 1958 did not deprive him of the benefit. [102 D-F] 100 (b) The Act came into force on 1 July 1957. The assessment was to be made for the year commencing 1 July 1957. Rules were made under s. 29 of the Act. Rules, obviously came into existence subsequent to the Act coming into force. Rules are procedural. Rules relate to assessments. The assessment is for the entire year. The assessment in the particular instance was made after Rule 6-A came into force. The assessment was pursuant to notice which was delivered on 1 April 1958. The assessment was for the whole year ending 30 June 1958. Therefore, Ride 6-A would be applicable to the assessment which was not only pending but would be upto 30 June, 1958 within which period the rule became effective for the assessment year. The contention that Rule 6-A was not made retrospective and therefore did not apply for an assessment for Fasli 1365 was devoid of merit. [102 H-103 C] (ii) In the High Court, the State did not dispute the legality of subletting. It was, therefore, not open to the State to raise the contention that the land had not been legally sub-let. [103 D] (iii) The respondent raised a contention as to the application of Rule 6-A. This is a question of construction of the statute and rules in respect of assessment. The High Court was justified in issuing the writ. [103 E] JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 238 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 9. 1965
of the Allababad High Court in Special Appeal No. 310 of
1960.
G. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the appellant.
J. P. Goyal and R. A. Gupta, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment
dated 9 February, 1965 of the High Court at Allahabad
dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing
the assessments of the respondent under the Uttar Pradesh
Large Land Holding-, Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) and further holding that the
respondent was entitled to the benefit under rule 6-A of the
Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Rules. 1957 (hereinafter
referred to as the said Rules).
The respondent Raja was prior to the abolition Of Zamindari
in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Raja of the properties
known a Chandapur Raj consisting of 28 village,; in the
Tahsil Maharajoanj in the District of Rae Bareli. The
respondent was a minor till 3 March, 1958 and he attained
majority on 4 March, 1958. The properties were under the
management of the Court of Wards from 1945 to 1953 and
thereafter under the management of the .District Judge, Rae
Bareli tip to 4 March, 1958.
101
on 1 April, 1958 the Tax Assessment Officer, Maharajganj
Sub-Division served a notice under section 7(2) of the 1957
Act on the respondent for the assessment Fasli year 1365
commencing on 1 July, 1957 and ending on 30 June, 1958. The
respondent was required by the said notice to file a return
for the agricultural year of the land holding of the
respondent. The respondent filed a return and claimed
benefit of exemption under rule 6-A of the said Rules in
respect of the agricultural land which had been sub-let to
tenants under the orders of the Court of Wards and the
District Judge when the respondent’s properties were under
their management. On 16 July, 1958 the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Maharajganj being the Assessing Officer dismissed
the respondent’s claim for exemption in respect of the land
holding sub-let and passed an assessment order imposing tax
on the land holding of the respondent for the sum of Rs.
62,011.39. It may be stated that the assessment according to
the respondent should have been Rs. 34,274-6-10 as a result
of the exemption under rule 6-A. Tile respondent preferred
an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division. The
appeal was dismissed. On 9 September, .1958 the
Commissioner held that rule 6-A was not applicable to
assessment of tax for the 1365 Fasli year.
The respondent thereafter on 29 September, 1958 filed a writ
petition in the High Court at Allahabad challenging the
validity of the Act and for quashing the assessment orders.
The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High, Court on 29
February, 1960 held that the Act was valid and allowed the
writ petition in part by holding that the respondent was
entitled to the benefit of rule 6-A and therefore quashed
the assessment order. The State filed an appeal. The High
Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge.
Counsel on behalf of the State raised three contentions.
First, it was said that tax was to be, assessed on the
annual value of land holding as on 1 July, 1957 and inasmuch
rule 6-A did not come into existence on 1 July, 1957 the
respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the rule.
Secondly, it was said that rule 6-A was not at all
applicable, because it was not proved that the land was
lawfully sub-let. Thirdly, it was said that the High Court
was wrong in issuing the writ on the ground of
misconstruction of rule 6-A by the assessing authorities
because it was not a patent error.
The, 1957 Act came into force on 1 July, 1957. Section 29
of the Act empowered the State Government to make, rules for
carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rules were
published in the U.P. Gazette, Extraordinary dated 23
November, 1957. Rule 6-A was added to the Rules by an
amendment on 23 April,
102
1958. The contention on behalf of the State was that
because rule 6-A was not made retrospective with effect
from 1 July, 1957 but that rule 6-A came into existence on
23 April, 1958, the said rule would not be applicable in
respect of assessment commencing 1 July, .1957. This
contention is unacceptable as it is unsound. Under section
3 of the Act holding tax at the rates specified in the
Schedule of the Act is levied for the agricultural year on
the annual value of each land holding. Section 4 of the Act
defines ‘land holding’. Section 5 of the Act deals with
annual value of the land. Rule 6-A states that where any
land holding has been legally sub-let by a disabled land-
holder mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 157 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the
holding tax shall be remitted to the extent of that
chargeable on the land sublet if its annual value were
arrived at by multiplying the rent payable by 10 1/2. The
respondent was a disabled land-holder within the meaning of
section 157 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950. The land had been lawfully sub-let while the
properties were under the management of the Court of Wards
and thereafter the District Judge. The contention of the
appellant that the respondent became a major on 4 March,
1958 and therefore he could not get benefit of the rule is
untenable. Rule 6-A refers to land which has been legally
sub-let. Therefore, the sub-letting must be anterior to the
making of the rule on 23 April, 1958. The entire fallacy of
the appellant is that to make rule 6-A effective from 23
April, 1958 would be to rob rule 6-A of its extent and
content in respect of assessment. Rule 6-A is to be read
with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, The assessment was for
the entire agricultural year from 1 July, 1957 up to 30
June, 1958. The land which had been lawfully sub-let could
not be in the possession of the respondent in the assessment
year. Therefore in assessing the land holding for the year
1365 Fasli the respondent was entitled to claim benefit
under Rule 6-A in respect of land which had be-en legally
sub-let.
Rules are made for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
One of the purposes is to assess the land holding for the
agricultural year. Rules are in regard to filing of the
return and manner and mode of computation of annual value.
Exemption under rule 6-A is a benefit in relation to
assessment by reason of the process of computing the
valuation of land holding.
The contention on behalf of the State that Rule 6-A was not
made retrospective and therefore it does not apply is devoid
of merit. To accede to the contention of the State would
mean that the rules which came into existence on 23
November, 1957 would not at all the applicable to the
assessment which commenced on 1 July, 1957. That would be
an absurd position. The Act came into force on 1 July,
1957. The assessment was to be made for the
103
year commencing 1 July, 1957. Rules were Made under section
29 of the Act. Rules obviously came into existence
subsequent to the Act coming into force. Rules are
procedural. Rules relate to the assessments. The
assessment is for the entire year. The assessment in the
particular instance was made after rule 6-A came into
effect. The assessment was pursuant to notice which was
delivered on 1 April, 1958. The assessment was for the
whole year ending 30 June, 1958. Therefore, rule 6-A would
be applicable to the assessment which was not only pending
but would be up to 30 June, 1958 within which period the
rule became effective for the assessment year. It is also
important to notice that the benefit under rule 6-A enures
to the land holding which has legally sub-let. The land
holding fulfils that character during the assessment year
with the result that rule 6-A is attracted by the quality of
land for quantifying the assessment.
The second contention of the State that the land had not
been legally sub-let cannot be entertained. In the High
Court the State did not dispute the legality of sub-letting.
It is, therefore, no,, open to the State to raise that
contention.
The third contention of the State that there is no patent
error and therefore the High Court was wrong in issuing a
writ is unacceptable. The respondent Raja raised a
contention as to the application of rule 6-A. This is a
question of construction of the statute and rules in respect
of assessment. The High Court was justified in issuing the
writ.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
104