- (1.) The Petitioner was assessed to large land holdings tax for the years 1365 F. to 1371 F. In appeal by the Petitioner, the assessment orders were quashed by the appellate authority and a direction was issued to the assessing authority to frame fresh assessments. The Petitioner was again assessed to tax for those years. A dispute was raised by the Petitioner that he was not liable to tax in respect of land Occupied by sirtans. The dispute was carried in appeal but the appellate authority has rejected the contention and dismissed the appeals. The Petitioner proceeded in revision. The Board has dismissed the revision applications. It was urged before the Board that the Petitioner was a hissedar and was not "liable to tax in respect of land occupied by sirtans. The Board has referred to Section 2(16) of the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act and pointed out that siirtans were not liable to tax, and upon that view has held that the land must be assessed in the hands of the hissedar. The Petitioner prays for certiorari. This and the connected writ petitions relate to the different years 1365 F. to 1371 F.
(2.) Section 3 of the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act imposes a tax on the annual value of each, land holding for each agricultural year. A "land holding" has been defined by Section 4(1) to mean the aggregate of 11 land held or occupied on the first day of July each year by a land-holder, A "landholder" has been defined by Section 2(16) as follows: "landholder" means-- (i) an intermediary, Where the land is in his personal cultivation or is held as sir, khudkasht, or grove, and (ii) any other person who holds or occupies land otherwise than as-- (a) an asami, (b) a sub-tenant, (c) a tenant of sir, or (d) a sirtan, and includes a managed or a principal officer, as the case may be; From a perusal of the two clauses it appears that a land-holder who is an intermediary is covered by Clause (i) while a person who is not an intermediary is covered by Clause (ii). Only that intermediary who personally cultivates the land or holds the land as sir, khudkasht or grove is a land-holder for the purposes of the Act. That is Clause (i). A person who is not an intermediary and who holds or occupies land otherwise than as an asami, a subtenant, a tenant of sir or a sirtan is a landholder by virtue of Clause (ii). That appears so from the plain language of Section 2(16), and indeed it is not disputed by Learned Counsel for the Respondents that that is the reasonable interpretation to be given to that provision. Then, Section 2(14) defines an "intermediary" to include a hissedar. Clearly, therefore, if the Petitioner is a hissedar, he is an intermediary, and inasmuch as the land in question is not in his personal cultivation or is held as sir, khudkasht or grove, he is not a landholder for the purposes of the Act. We find from paras. 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner is said to be a hissedar of land in possession of sirtans. Indeed, the Board has also proceeded on the basis that the Petitioner is a hissedar of such land. In the order made by it, which is impugned before us, it has observed: In these cases the main question was whether the land of Sirtans should be excluded from the land of Hissedar. and has then come to the conclusion that the land in the occupation of the sirtans was required to be included in that of the hissedars. It has come to that conclusion because it reasons that if the sirtans are exempt from tax, the liability must be visited on the hissedar of the land occupied by the sirtans. The assumption appears to be that the legislation contemplates the imposition of tax in respect of all land. That assumption is unwarranted and proceeds upon an entirely erroneous approach. In order to fasten liability to tax, the Revenue must show that the Assessee falls within the letter of the law imposing the tax. Merely because sirtans are excluded from liability to tax does not ipso facto imply that the hissedar of the land occupied by the sirtans is liable. All hissedars are not liable to tax. It is only those hissedars who are land-holders within the definition set out in Section 2(16). If they fall within the definition, the land is a land holding Under Section 4(1), and it is only then that the charging provision of Section 3 is attracted. As we have pointed out, a hissedar is an intermediary as defined Under Section 2(14), and an intermediary is a "land-holder" Under Section 2(16) only if the land is in his personal cultivation or is held as sir, khudkasht or grove. Upon these considerations, we must hold that the Petitioner, not being a land-holder within the meaning of Section 2(16), is not liable to the tax assessed against him in respect of this land.
(3.) The assessment orders, the appellate orders and the orders made by the Board in revision are liable to be quashed.;