Land recorded as agricultural land in revenue records and assessed as such, even if not used for agriculture, is presumed to continue to be agricultural land unless it is shown that it has been put to some non-agricultural use or there is some relevant circumstance to indicate that it cannot be properly regarded as agricultural land.

JUDGMENT - Chandurkar J. - The question which has been referred in this reference at the instance of the Revenue under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is as follows :

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the land Survey No. 699 Hissa No. 1 situated on the outskirts of Poona City measuring' about 30 gunthas owned by the assessee was agricultural land within the meaning of section 2 (e) (l)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on the valuation date and as such the value thereof was not includible in computing the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?”

2. The assessee is admittedly the owner of a piece of land bearing survey No. 699 Hissa No. 1 situated on Poona Satara Road and was purchas ed by the assessee in the year 1955. In the course of the assessment proceed ing under the Wealth Tax Act the assessee claimed that the property in ques tion was agricultural land for which land revenue was being paid, and that it was liable to be excluded for the purposes of computation of wealth of the assessee having regard to the provision in section 2(e)(1)(i) of the Act. The valuation report of the property was accepted by the Wealth Tax Officer who declined to exclude the value of the land while computing the net wealth of the assessee.

3. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also took the same view. He found that having regard to the situation of the plot and other surrounding circumstances the land could not be said to be agricultural land. In appeal by the assessee the Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land and was, therefore, not liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. The Revenue being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal had sought the reference of the question reproduced above. On facts there is no dispute in this case. It has been established that Survey No. 699 Hissa No.l is recorded in the revenue records as agricultural land; it is assessed to land revenue; it is situated on the outskirts of Poona City; and there are perma nent structures in the form of bungalows adjacent to this plot of land. It is also not in dispute that there are temporary corrugated sheds in one of which the assessee himself is staying and part of it is occupied by an unauthorised tenant. One shed is used for storing articles and the other for cattle. In another shed which is made of stones and mud the servants are staying. The land was cultivated upto 1963 when the assessee was growing some inferior type of bajri known as nilva but it has remained uncultivated thereafter.

4. Mr. Naik appearing on behalf of the Revenue has on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in (Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards), Paigah)1, contended that the mere fact that the land was capable of being used for agricultural purposes was not enough to treat the land as agricultural land for the purposes of sec tion 2 (e) (1) (i) of the Act. The learned counsel wants to point out that the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Officer-in-charge (Court of Wards) v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax)2 relying on which the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee that the land in question was agricultural land has now been reversed and secondly having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above in which the Full Bench decision of the High Court has been reversed, the land in question, could not be described as agricultural land. The learned counsel pointed out that the land -in question, is situated within the limits of the Poona Municipal Corporation and having regard to its location and surroundings the land could not be treated as agricultural land and the value thereof was liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee.

5. Mr. Pandit appearing on behalf of the assessee has, however, con tended that the land in question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document