( 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 a