Nigam, J. - (1.) Smt. Indrani Kunwar (now succeeded by her legal representatives) has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order passed by opposite party No. 1 the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow copy Annexure 4, the order passed by opposite party No. 2 the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi copy Annexure 2 and the order passed by opposite party No. 3 the Assessing Officer Sub-Divisional Officer Maudaha District Hamirpur copy annexure 1.
(2.) In the petition I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Standing Counsel.
(3.) The petition states that Manni Lal the husband of Smt. Indrani Kunwar had tenancy land in three villages in Tahsil Maudaha and two villages in Tahsil Mahoba in district Hamirpur. After his death there was a private partition between the petitioner and her two sons Har Prasad and Mata Prasad. Then the petitioner got her share in village Gahrauli. The personal cultivation of Manni Lal in villages Basauth ang Ganj went to the two sons under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner was assessed under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Taxes Act 1957 in respect of 1368F to a tax of Rs. 2126.50 nP. The petitioner contested her liability alleging that the sons were living separate and that she was not the karta of the family. Her contention was rejected by the Assessing Officer. She preferred an appeal which has been dismissed. A revision application filed before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed. It appears to me that this writ petition must be allowed. Section 4 of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act 1957 permits in terms of the proviso to that section for land held by a member of the family of the landholder to form a part of the holding of the landholder under certain circumstances. There are two objections to the holding of the sons being included as part of the holding of the original petitioner. The first objection is that it could not be said that the land entered in the name of the sons was held by them benami for the original petitioner. The other objection is that the original petitioner being a lady could not be the head or karta of the family and therefore there would be no question of their being 'members of the family of the landholder'. For that reason also the land held by the alleged members of the family would not be tagged on to the land held by the original petitioner for purposes of taxation under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957.;