( 1 ) I have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by my brother J. Sahai, J. , and I entirely agree with him on all the points dealt with by him and the reasons given by him. I may, however, add, that I have felt considerable difficulty on one aspect of the case which relates to the submission of Messrs, Pathak and Jagdish Swarup that the provisions of the u. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as also the schedule to the Act show that it is a lax not on land but on the person who holds the land. The Act undoubtedly lays down that a person having a small area of land has to pay proportionately a small amount of tax but, if the same and is held by another person who already holds a vast area of land, that very small portion of land would be assessed to a higher amount of tax. The incidence of tax is thus not dependent entirely on characteristics of the land itself, such as its area, quality of soil or value whether rental, annual or capitalised. Such characteristics remaining common, the same parcel of land under the Act gives rise to a larger liability of tax if it happens to be held by a person who already holds other lands as compared with the liability when the land is held by a person who does not hold any other lands, ib would appear in these circumstances that the manner, in which the tax incidence has been imposed by the Act, lends support to the view that this Act taxes not the land itself but the person holding the land, treating the land as an asset held by him; The question that arises is whether such a tax still is a tax on land and not a tax on an individual in respect of his capital assets comprised of land. It also appeared to me that this argument finds some support from the judgment of the Bombay high Court in Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad v. Gordhandas Hargovandas, AIR 1954 bom 188, where the vires of Rule 350 A, which was framed under Section 73 of Bombay Act xvii of 1926, was challenged. The plaintiffs in that case were owners of open land within the jurisdiction of the Corporation and were assessed to tax on the basis of that rule. The contention before the Bombay High Court was that the tax, which was sought to be levied, was in the nature of a capital levy and the Bombay Legislature was not authorised to impose such a tax under entry No. 42 of List II of Schedule VII at the Government of India Act, 1935, and that the relevant entry, under which such a tax could be imposed, was entry No. 55 of List I of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act, 1935, so that the Central Legislature alone had the power to impose such a fax. When discussing this aspect of the case, Gajendragadkar J. held as follows :

"i am disposed to hold that a distinction must be made between a rate or tax which is levied on land on the basis of its capital value and a tax which is levied on the capital value of the land treating it as an asset itself. "

Reliance was placed on this comment for the submission that, in the present case, the fact that the incidence of tax varies with the extent of holdings of lands by an individual means that the act taxes the landholdings treating them as assets of the landholders and is, therefore, beyond the competence of the State Legislature which could only Impose a tax on land. On a careful consideration of this submission, however, I have felt inclined to take the view that this argument must also be rejected. The first reason is that, as pointed out by my brother J. Sahai, J. , there is no material For coming to a finding that the annual value of a landholding, as calculated under the provisions of the Act, does represent the capital value of the landholding. The second reason, which has appealed even more to me, is that it is difficult to hold that the mere fact that the incidence of tax is made dependent on the extent of landholding of a particular landholder would convert a tax, which otherwise would be a tax