AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivaraj Patil, J.—The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 9375 of 1984. The said writ petition was dismissed by the order
dated 3.7.1992 by the learned single Judge, aggrieved by which, this appeal is filed.
The appellant is a Trust. The second respondent herein initiated proceedings for assessing the lands to an extent of 1.75 acres in Survey Nos.
537/5 and 538/4 for levying tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (for short, ''the Act''). The appellant was
directed to appear for an enquiry on 23.5.1983. He appeared on that date and presented a petition on 24.5.1983 requesting for a week''s time.
Time was granted till 5.6.1983 on which date he did not turn up.
The second respondent passed an order holding that the said lands were liable for assessment from 1381 fasli onwards as the Adangal extracts
from Fasli years 1381 to 1390 indicated that the lands were lying waste and not cultivated. The appellant took up the matter in revision before the
first respondent who dismissed revision petition by his order dated 31.8.1984. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 9375 of 1984 against the said
order.
The learned single Judge on consideration of the materials placed and contentions raised before him, dismissed the writ petition on 3.7.1992
finding no merit in it. Hence this writ appeal is filed.
The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that-
(i) the land in question are exempted from levy of urban land tax in view of Section 2(13) of the Act;
(ii) As per G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973, lands which were registered as wet land which were under cultivation of dry crops for
five fasli years prior to the date of coming into force of the Act, and which continued to be under cultivation as per the revenue accounts, are
exempt from the levy of urban land tax; and
(iii) unless the lands were converted into building sites, or some construction was put up, they continue to be agricultural lands. In support of his
submissions he placed reliance on the following two decisions of this Court viz., M.N. Sankaranarayanan v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented
by the Assistant Commissioner, U.L.T., Madurai East 1981 T.L.N.J. 183 and S. Sarangapani Iyengar Vs. The Asst. Commr. Urban Land Tax,
On the other hand the learned Government Advocate submitted that the learned single Judge, having considered all aspects, has passed the
impugned order and even the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are quite justified having regard to the facts pleaded and the materials placed
before them.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. We are dealing with the contentions of the learned Counsel
for the appellant in seriatim.
It is not disputed that the lands in question are recorded as wet lands in the revenue accounts of the Government, but the dispute was whether
they were used for cultivation of wet crops. The second respondent in his order has stated, ""A perusal of the adangal extract for fasli from 1381 to
1390 reveals that the lands belonging to the said trust were lying waste. Therefore the lands belonging to the trust are brought to assessment from
fasli 1381 onwards."" He has also noticed that in spite of granting time to the appellant till 5.6.1983 the appellant did not turn up to put-forth its
case.
The first respondent dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 31.8.1984 after hearing the appellant. In the said order he has dealt with
the contentions raised by the appellant. He has held that though the lands are registered as wet in the Revenue records, they could not be
automatically exempted from tax u/s 2(13) of the Act because the Adangals from Faslis 1381 to 1390 showed that the lands were not continuously
cultivated and were lying waste. The appellant did not turn up for enquiry before the second respondent even though time was granted. As regards
the application of G.O.Ms. No. 3526, Revenue, dated 15.6.1973 he has stated that the lands which were registered as wet and which were under
cultivation of dry crops for five fasli years prior to the date of coming into force of the Act can be exempted, but as there was no continuous
cultivation of the lands, which were evident from the Adangal extracts for fasli years 1381 to 1390, the said G.O.Ms. No. 3526 was of no avail to
the appellant.
The learned single Judge in the order under appeal took the view that the lands did not satisfy one of the two conditions as required in Section
2(13) of the Act, viz., that the lands were used for cultivation of wet crops. The learned Judge took the view that M.N. Sankaranarayanan''s case
1981 T.L.N.J. 183 aforementioned had no application to the facts of the case, and observed that the interpretation given by the learned Judge in
the said decision was against the express terms of the section, and that it was not necessary for him to express his dissent in the case as the facts
were distinguishable. We agree with this view of the learned single Judge.
The learned single Judge in the impugned order has also stated that the appellant did not have a definite case as to whether the lands were used
for cultivation of wet crops. He gave a statement before the second respondent on 8.3.1983 that as per the Adangals for Faslis 1381 to 1390 the
land in Survey No. 537/5 was lying waste, but in the revision petition filed before the first respondent the appellant changed his plea. In the revision
petition before the first respondent he has stated there was a well in the land which caved long ago and it has been non-existing for the past several
years; The trust lands could not receive any water supply from Selva Chinthamani Tank for about 12 fasli years or more; therefore for the past
about 12 faslis or so only rainfed crops such as Ragi, Cholam, honsegram, were being raised.
From the materials placed on record and the stand of the appellant taken before respondents 1 and 2, we are not able to agree with the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. No doubt the lands in question are recorded as wet lands in the Revenue accounts.
There is no documentary evidence including entries in Adangal to show that the lands were used for the cultivation of wet crops. In the grounds
raised in the revision by the appellant himself before the first respondent, the appellant has stated that the lands had no irrigation facilities for more
than 12 years inasmuch as the distributory channels drawing water from the tank were destroyed and the well was caved; and the lands did not
receive water supply from the tank for the past 12 years or more. If that be so, it cannot be said that the lands were used for cultivation of wet
crops during the relevant period.
Section 2(13) of the Act reads:
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.
Explanation : For the purposes of this clause, any site on which any building has been constructed shall be deemed to be urban land."" A plain
reading of the above provision makes it clear, without any doubt or ambiguity, that the two conditions are to be satisfied in order to exclude the
land from the meaning of urban land, viz., (i) the land should have been registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government, and (ii) used
for the cultivation of wet crops.
In the light of the materials placed on record including the statement of the appellant made before the second respondent in the first instance,
and as a ground raised in the revision petition before the first respondent, and the absence of entry in the Adangal for the relevant years that wet
crops were grown in the lands, we have no hesitation to say that the appellant has failed to show that the lands were used for the cultivation of wet
crops. Hence, the appellant''s claim for exemption u/s 2(13) of the Act was not rightly accepted by the respondents 1 and 2, and the learned single
Judge, as the second requirement of the said provision was not satisfied, as already stated above. Added to this, whether the lands were used for
cultivation of wet crops was a question of fact. The respondents 1 and 2 and the learned single Judge on an analysis and examination of the
materials on record have concurrently found that the lands were not used for cultivation of wet crops. In this view, WJ have no reason to take a
different view on this question of fact.
Here itself we may state that the aforementioned two decisions of-the learned single Judges cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in
our view, do not help the appellant, for two reasons, viz., (i) they are distinguishable on facts, and (ii) any interpretation given against the very plain,
unambiguous and express provision of a statute is not acceptable. Since Section 2(13) of the Act is plain and clear in its language without any
ambiguity, we do not feel persuaded to apply the said decisions to support the case of the appellant claiming exemption.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 3526,
Revenue, dated 15.6.1973, also cannot be accepted. We think it is appropriate to extract the said Government order for appreciation of the
argument of the learned Counsel in this regard. It reads:
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (Tamil Nadu Act 12 of
1966) the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the urban land are:
(a) registered as wet and which were under cultivation of dry crops for five fasli years prior to the dates of coming into force of the said Act in the
City of Madras, City of Madurai and the Municipal Towns of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirapalli and which continue to be under cultivation as
per revenue accounts; and
(b) registered as dry and which were under cultivation of wet or dry crops for five fasli years prior to the dates of coming into force of the said Act
in the City of Madras, City of Madurai and the Municipal Towns of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirapalli and which continue to be under
cultivation as per revenue accounts,
From payment of the Urban Land Tax retrospectively on and from the 1st July, 1972.
As already stated above, the appellant failed to establish that the lands were used for cultivation of wet crops during the relevant period, the
Act having come into force in Coimbatore on 10th November, 1971. There is also no record to show that the lands were under cultivation of dry
crops for five fasli years prior to the date of coming into force of the Act. It is relevant to state here that the Adangal extracts for five fasli years
prior to the date of commencement of the Act in Coimbatore, relating to the lands of the appellant as observed by respondents 1 and 2 and taken
note of by the learned single Judge, do not show that dry crops were raised in these lands.
In order to apply the aforementioned G.O.Ms. No. 3526, we must look to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said Government Order. Paragraph
(a) is not attracted as the lands were registered as wet but it was not established that they were under cultivation of dry crops for five fasli years
prior to the date of coming into force of the said Act. The appellant also did not satisfy about paragraph (b) as the lands were not registered as dry
lands and that they were under cultivation of wet or dry crops for five fasli years prior to the date of coming into force of the Act. Thus the
appellant did not satisfy the requirements of either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) having regard to the findings of fact recorded by the respondents
1 and 2 and the learned single Judge on the materials brought on record.
As already stated above by us, there is no warrant in law having regard to the clear provision in Section 2(13) of the Act that the lands cannot
be considered as urban lands unless the lands are converted into building sites or constructions are made on the lands. Any such interpretation will
run contrary to the clear and express provision of law. Such a construction or interpretation is not permissible in law. In this view, with respect, we
are unable to agree with the decision of the learned single Judge in S. Sarangapani Iyengar Vs. The Asst. Commr. Urban Land Tax, . We may add
here, the very provision in Section 2(13) states that even a land capable of being used as a building site can be an urban land. Hence we have no
hesitation to reject the third contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
In the result, for the reasons stated, we find no merit in the appeal. As such it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. We make
no order as to costs.