S. Sarangapani Iyengar vs The Asst. Commr. Urban Land Tax

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—This revision is directed against the order of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Chingleput (hereinafter referred to as

the ''Tribunal'') holding that the agricultural lands in S. Nos. 27/2, 27/4A and 125/4 are liable to be assessed to Urban Land Tax.

The petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned lands in Sithalpakkam Village which have been assessed to Urban Land Tax under the

Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax. This assessment has been

upheld by the Tribunal holding that the lands have been kept vacant during the fasli years 1381 to 1385 and the lands cannot, therefore, be held to

be agricultural lands.

The contention which is raised in this revision petition on behalf of the petitioner is that being agricultural lands, they are not liable to assessment

to Urban Land Tax. The learned Additional Government Pleader, however, contended that the only land which is exempted from being assessed is

land which is registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet crops as contemplated by the

definition of ''Urban land'' in Section 2(13). It is argued that since the lands in question are not wet lands, they were liable to be assessed to tax.

At the threshold, it is difficult to uphold the finding given by the Tribunal that the lands in question are not agricultural lands. ''The Tribunal seems

to have taken a view that merely because the lands were kept vacant during the fasli years 1381-85, they ceased to be agricultural lands. For such

a proposition, there does not seem to be any support in any statutory provision. The lands are registered as agricultural lands in the revenue

records. There are adangal records which undoubtedly show that the lands were uncultivated. They also show that they are dry lands. Whether it is

agricultural land or not will depend on the nature of the lands and the purpose to which the lands are normally put. Merely because an agricultural

land is not cultivated for some time, the land does not cease to be agricultural land especially when it is not put to any other use. It is difficult to

appreciate the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the petitioner has merely stated that the lands in question are dry lands and that they have been

reserved for formation of horticultural garden, the lands could be said to have ceased to be agricultural lands.

It is also difficult to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that these lands are capable of being used as house sites. This finding was obviously

recorded by the Tribunal with a view to bring the land within the definition of ''urban land'' u/s 2(13). Section 2(13) of the Act which defines ''urban

land'' reads as follows:

''Urban land'' means any land which is used or is capable of being used as a building site and includes garden or grounds, if any, appurtenant to a

building but does not include any land which is registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet

crops.

We are not concerned in this case with the question as to whether the land in question falls within the exception in the latter part of the definition.

The Taxing Authority must satisfy itself that a dry land is an urban land, which means that it is either used as a building site or is capable of being

used as a building suit. There is of course the inclusive part which would become applicable only if the land is appurtenant to an existing building. In

respect of vacant land, the only part of the definition which becomes material is that part which refers to the land which is capable of being used as

a building site. Every land which is vacant may not necessarily be capable of being used as a building site much less agricultural land. When we deal

with agricultural land, it must be taken into account that the presumption would be that it is going to be used for the purpose of agriculture. An

agricultural land is not normally used for a building site and in any case it is not capable of being used as a building site in the normal course unless

of course the owner sets a part of it apart by way of a lay out or intends to construct a building in some part of the property. Normally agricultural

lands must be construed as agricultural lands and since agricultural lands are not normally used for building sites, it must be assumed that they are

not capable of being used as building sites unless steps have been taken to have it used as building site. Agricultural lands will, therefore, stand

excluded from the definition of ''urban land'' unless they are intended to be converted for building purposes or house sites. In this view of the

matter, the orders of assessment in respect of the agricultural lands in question will have to be set aside.

The petition is allowed. The orders of the Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner are set aside. There will, however, be no orders as to costs.