JUDGMENT

KHANNA, J.:— This judgment would dispose of four civil appeals Nos. 1076 to 1079 of 1971 which have been filed by special leave by Ratna Sugar Mills Ltd. against the judgment of Allahabad High Court affirming on appeal the decision of the learned single Judge whereby the appellants four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated December 18, 1963 of the Board of Revenue directing the levy of holding tax under the U. P. Large Land Holdings Act, 1957 (U. P. Act No. 31 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the land of the appellant for the assessment years 1365, 1366, 1367 and 1368 Fasli had been dismissed.

2. In 1951 the appellant acquired land measuring 277.08 acres situated in village Argupur Kalan, tahsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur. According to the appellant, the said land was acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory for the production of paper and pulp. A licence was granted to the appellant in that connection. The appellant filed an application under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for treating its land situated in village Argupur Kalan as industrial land. In the course of those proceedings, the Tahsildar submitted a report on August 24, 1959 as under:

"As regards Argupur Kalan the whole area is recorded as sirdari of Ratna Sugar Mills and they pay Rs. 1495/- as annual land revenue. It is recorded in the Mills from before Zamindari Abolition and Mills Authorities continue to pay the recorded land revenue to Government. The whole area is lying Banjar and lies on both the sides of the railway line and Belwai Station. In has not at all been brought under cultivation nor the Mill has derived any benefit from it. It is really meant for industrial purposes but due to financial difficulties, they could not use it as such."

The Sub-Divisional Officer, however, rejected the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Sec. 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The result was that the land in dispute could not be declared to be land for industrial purpose. Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was dismissed by the Collector.

3. While the proceedings under Section 143 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were pending, the Commissioner held for assessment years 1365 and 1366 Fasli in an appeal filed by the appellant that the land in dispute was meant for industrial purposes and had on that account remained uncultivated. The appellant was held not liable to pay holdings tax for the land in dispute for the assessment years 1365 and 1366 Fasli. Two revisions were filed by the State against the above order of the Commissioner. Subsequently for the years 1367 and 1368 Fasli the Commissioner held that the appellant was liable to pay holdings tax for the land in dispute under the Act. The appellant filed two revisions to the Board of Revenue against that order of the Commissioner. The four revisions, two filed by the State and two filed by the appellant, were decided by the Board of Revenue by a common order dated December 18, 1963. The revisions filed by the State were accepted by the Board, while those filed by the appellant were rejected. The Board held that as the land held by the appellant was sirdari and not Bhumidari land, it could not be declared to be meant for industrial purposes. The appellant was held liable to pay holdings tax for the land in question. Four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution were thereupon filed by the appellant to challenge the order of the 1744 Board of Revenue. The learned single Judge held that the land in dispute constituted land as defined in the Act and the appellant was liable to pay holdings tax for the same. The order of the learned single Judge, Judge, as already mentioned, was affirmed on appeal by the Division Bench.

4. Before dealing with the question involved in these appeals, it would be appropriate to