ORDER

S.N. Singh, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of three assessment orders passed by the Assessment authorities in respect of three years, 1365, 1366 and 1367F under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act.

2. M/s. Ramgarh Farms and Industries Limited, Calcutta the Petitioner held a total area of 8874 Bighas in 11 villages of Pargana Burhapur, district Bijnor. This area had been granted to them through a registered lease executed by Raja of Kashipur on 25th January, 1951. The land in village Burhapur is the subject matter of dispute. The Petitioner was assessed to tax for the aforesaid mentioned years by the Assessing Officer Nagina by its order dated 15th February 1960. The above order was appealed against but the appeals were dismissed.

3. There were three revisions before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner which also failed. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed challenging the orders of the Assessing authorities in respect of the three assessment years. An objection having been taken by the State that there could not be a single writ petition in respect of the three assessment years the Petitioner has deposited court fees in respect of two more writ petitions and in accordance with the precedent of this Court I have permitted the Petitioner to deposit the requisite court fees. Now in this way this petition is in order and has to be dealt with on merits.

4. The Petitioner who is a lessee by virtue of the lease dated 25th January 1951 was given a lease of 8374 Bighas. According to Clause 6 of the lease deed he was entitled to reclaim 100 acres of land every year. There is nothing on the record to show as to how much land had actually been reclaimed by the Petitioner during the years 1365, 1366 and 1367F in dispute. The Petitioner objected to the assessment of tax on the entire area on the ground that the land which was assessed by the Assessing authorities was not the land held by the Petitioner for under the terms of the lease deed he could not have brought the entire land under cultivation, he could only have cultivated 100 acres a year under the terms of the deed. The Petitioner's contention was that he could be assessed only in respect of the land actually cultivated.

5. The second objection of the Petitioner was that in pursuance of an agreement between the Petitioner and M/s. Escorts (Agriculture and Machines) Ltd. executed on 3rd July 1951 the new company was to be constituted which was to take over the management and the cultivation of this land as well as some other land which is not in dispute. It was said that in terms of that agreement a farm called M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. was formed oh 30th November 1951 and in pursuance of the above agreement a transfer deed was executed on 19th May 1959 by the Petitioner in favour of the new company and by virtue of that transfer deed the new company was considered to have acquired the right in the land in suit from November 30, 1951, as such the Petitioner was not liable to be assessed in any of the three years.

6. Both these contentions of the Petitioner were overruled by the three assessing authorities and the Petitioner was assessed for the three years. The Assessing Officer repelled the contention of the Petitioner about the transfer deed dated 19th May 1959 on the ground that no land could be transferred through a deed of release and that the transfer, if any, being in excess of 12 1/2 acres was ineffective in view of the provisions of the UPZA and LR Act. The Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division,, maintained the order of the Assessing authority in respect of 1367F on the ground that as a Taxing Authority he was not required to go into the question of title and right for in view of the decision of the Board of Revenue the person who was recorded as a land-holder was liable to pay the tax under the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act and the same view was taken by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Boa