B.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relief is sought in respect of liability to agricultural in come tax in respect of a sum of Rs. 37,747 -15 -0 on account of arrears of rent realized by the Petitioner in the year 1360F. The arrears were of one year 1359F and earlier years. These arrears were taxed by the assessing authority under the UP Agricultural Income tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) by order dated October 15, 1956 in the assessment year 1361F.
(2.) THE Petitioner is an ex -taluqedar and his estate comprised of villages in the districts of Sultanpur, Faizabad and Rae Barreilly. Upon the abolition of Zamindari, by reason of the notification dated July 1, 1952, the estate of the Petitioner vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from that date except parts of some villages within the municipal limits of Sultanpur and Faizabad. In para, 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it has been stated the arrears of rent in question were in respect of the land which had ceased to belong to the Petitioner & had vested in the State under the notification. This statement of fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. It is also an admitted fact that the arrears of rent were in respect of the year 1359F and earlier years. The Petitioner disputed his liability to agricultural income tax in respect of these arrears on the short ground that as he was divested of property under the notification dated July 1, 1952 in respect of which arrears arose and did not "own or hold" the same in the previous year (July 1, 1952 to June 30, 1953), he was not a "person" within the meaning of the Act, and it was only the agricultural income of the previous year of a person "that can be taxed in any year (assessment year) under the Act".
(3.) THE assessing authority under the Act over ruled the contention in the following words: The Assessee filed his return but at the same time challenged the validity of the AI Tax on the income derived as arrears of rent in l360F on the ground that be was not a 'person' within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Assessee but am unable to agree with the contention in view of the amendment of the section and the insertion of a new Section 3 by the Amendment Act of 1953, which clearly lays down that it is not necessary that a person should hold or own property in the year for which the tax is to be charged.;