P.V. Dixit, C.J.

This is an application unders 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the ex-proprietor of Bhadra Zamindan which was an estate under Section 2(3) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act. On the abolition of proprietary rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, the Compensation Officer deter-mined the compensation payable to the Petitioner at Rs. 2,21,330 12 6. The compensation payable to the applicant under the Act and the rules contained in Schedule I of the Act is ten times the net income of the estate determined in accordance with the rules in Schedule f Under Rule 2(2)(c) the net income of an estate is required to be calculated by deducting from the gross income inter alia the amount constituting "the average of the income-tax paid in respect of the income received from big forest during the period of thirty agricultural years preceding the agricultural year in which the relevant date falls". In arriving at the "average of the income-tax" for the purpose of deduction, the Compensation Officer took into account the amount of super tax also paid by the Petitioner in the relevant thirty agricultural years. According to the Petitioner, the average of the income-tax paid by him during the material thirty years was only Rs. 3,760-2-9, that the average calculated by the Compensation Officer after including super tax was Rs. 7,070-8-0, that thus the net income of the estate was lowered by an amount of Rs, 3,310-5-3; and that consequently he was deprived of an amount of compensation equivalent to ten times the difference viz. Rs. 3,310-5-3.

The Petitioner contends that the amount of super tax paid by him during the material thirty agricultural years was not "income-tax paid in respect of the income received from big forest" and it could not, therefore, be taken into account while calculating the average of the income-tax for deduction purposes. He, therefore, prays that a writ quashing the order of the Respondents dealing with this deduction be issued and an appropriate direction be given to them for computing the net income after making deduction under Rule 2(2)(c) only on account of the income-tax.

In our opinion, the permissible deduction under Clause (c) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Schedule I of the Act is only on account of income-tax and not on account of any super tax. This is clear from the wording of the clause and the concept of income tax and super tax under the Indian Income-tax Act. Clause (c) speaks of deduction of the "average of the income-tax paid in respect of the income" received from big forest. The words "in respect of" are significant. They obviously mean that the income-tax paid must have direct nexus with the forest income. A remote connection is not enough. Now under Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, super tax is no doubt "an additional duty of income-tax at the rate or rates laid down for a particular year by a Central Act". But this additional duty of income-tax, as the opening words of Section 55 say, is charged, levied and paid for the material year "in respect of the total income of the previous year" (underlining is ours). Super tax is imposed on total income when it exceeds a specified amount. For the purpose of super tax it is the total income of any Assessee from all sources that has to be taken into account. It is a tax in respect of the total income of the Assessee and not in respect of the income received from any particular source. Thus where super tax is charged and levied on the total income of the Assessee, it cannot be said that the super tax has a direct connection with income under any particular head in the sense that but for the income under that head the super tax would not have been imposed. Super tax is a tax in respect of the total income. It is not in respect of an income under any particular head though it may be indirectly a tax on the income from that source. Therefore, though income-tax may include s