KRISHNA RAO L BALEKAI Vs. THIRD WEALTH TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is assessed to wealth-tax during the asst. yrs. 1957-58 and 1958-59, has these petitions challenging the validity of the assessments made on him. Two contentions were urged in support of these petitions. THEy are : (i) Parliament had no competence to enact any law imposing tax on the capital value of the land; and (ii) on a proper appreciation of the material on record, the "land" that is in dispute in these petitions is an "agricultural land"

(2.) SRI E. S. Venkataramiah, the learned counsel for the assessee, contended that Parliament could not have enacted any law levying tax on the capital value of "land", be it agricultural or otherwise. According to him, "land" is included in the entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and, therefore, Parliament could not have enacted any law imposing tax on the capital value of "land". We do not think that there is any force in this contention. The WT Act was enacted evidently on the basis of the power conferred on Parliament under Entry 86 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which entry reads :

(3.) THIS takes us to the next question whether the "land" with which we are concerned in these cases could be considered as "agricultural land". It is conceded by both the sides that if the land with which we are concerned in these cases are considered as "agricultural land" then no tax can be levied on the net value of the land on the basis of the WT Act. Therefore, the question that has to be decided is whether the land in question is an "agricultural land". It is not denied that at one time this land was "agricultural land". That was requisitioned by the Government some time in the year 1944 or 1945 for the purpose of locating a military aerodrome. We are told that the land in question has now been levelled and an air strip constructed thereon. For the last over 15 years this land has been used as an air strip. But Sri Venkataramiah contended that the fact that at present it is utilised for a non-agricultural purpose is irrelevant while deciding its basic character and what is relevant is its general characteristics. "Agricultural land" has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the WT Act. Therefore, we have to take into consideration the ordinary meaning attached to that expression. Normally, when we say that a land is an "agricultural land", we mean that that land is used or is capable of being used for "agricultural purpose". It is not what use it can be put to by changing its character. In the instant cases, as mentioned earlier, for well over 15 years this land has been used for non-agricultural purposes. It may be that at some future time the Government may de-requisition the land, and thereafter, the owner of the land may take steps to convert it into an "agricultural land". But that is not relevant consideration. We have to see its present characteristics. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to s. 63 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code which imposes some restrictions on the owners of "agricultural lands" in the matters of their utilisation. We do not think that that provision is of any assistance in finding out the true meaning of the expression "agricultural land".