SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th April, 1962
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another, Respondents.
Petition No. 327 of 1960,
Advocates appeared
Mr. J.P. Goyal, Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. K. L. Misra, Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, M/s. C. B. Aggarwala and K. S. Hajela, Senior Advocates, (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with them), for Respondents.
U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 - Validity - Challenge - Grounds - Legislative competence - Violation of fundamental rights - Rates fixed by the Schedule - Validity - Confiscatory nature of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Taluqdar of Rehwan Estate in District Rai Bareli, challenged the validity of the U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957 (the Act), on the grounds of legislative incompetence, violation of fundamental rights, and confiscatory nature of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was within the legislative competence of the U. P. Legislature, as the word "lands" in Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution included agricultural lands. The Court also held that the Act did not violate Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, as the rates fixed by the Schedule were not discriminatory, did not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property, and were not confiscatory.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act was within the legislative competence of the U. P. Legislature? 2. Whether the Act violated Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the rates fixed by the Schedule were confiscatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "lands" in Entry 49 of List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution includes agricultural lands. 2. The Act did not violate Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution, as the rates fixed by the Schedule were not discriminatory, did not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property, and were not confiscatory.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The petitioner Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh was a Taluqdar of Rehwan Estate in District Rai Bareli, Under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act I of 1951), the petitioner s Zamindari property vested in the State Government, and the groves and other agricultural land were left with the petitioner as a Bhumidar under the said Act. In 1957, the U. P, Legislature passed the U. P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act (No. XXXI of 1957) (hereinafter called the Act) and under Section 7(2) of the Act the petitioner was served with a notice along with a provisional assessment of the annual value of the land in his possession for the year 1365 fasli. Similar notices were served on the petitioner subsequently for the years 1366 and 1367 fasli. In response to the said notices, the petitioner filed his returns and objected to the annual value of the land calculated by the assessing authority. After the petitioner received notices for the years 1365 and 1366 fasli, he filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the validity, of the said notices on the ground that the material provisions of the Act on which the said notices were based were ultra vires and unconstitutional. These writ petitions were numbered 3146 of 1958 and 1354 of 1959 in the said High Court. Several other writ petitions had also been filed by other assessees challenging the validity of the Act, and the whole group of these petitions was heard together by the Allahabad High Court. In substance, the pleas made by the petitioners challenging the validity of the Act were rejected by the High Court and it was held that the Act was valid and constitutional, vide Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., Hargaon v. State of U. P. AIR 1960 All 136. This decision was pronounced on the 12th of October, 1959.
2. On the 22nd November, 1960, the petitioner filed three petitions in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. These petitions were Nos. 325, 326 and 327 of 1960. These three petitions were directed against the notices served on the petitioner for the years 1365, 1366 and 1367 fasli respectively. Out of these petitions, the first two were dismissed on the ground that they were barred by Res Judicata. It is common ground that after the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner s writ petitions, he applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court to appeal to this Court, but he failed to deposit the necessary security for printing charges as required by the rules of the Allahabad High Court, and, in consequence, on the 9th August, 1960, the certificate granted to him was cancelled. That is how the two writ petitions which purported to challenge the validity of the notices served on the petitioner for the two years 1,365 and 1366 fasli were held to be barred by res judicata. On the petitioner s writ petition No. 327 of 1960 which is concerned with the assessment for the year 1367 fasli, rule was ordered to be issued by this Court and it is on this rule that the present petition has come for final disposal before us today. This writ petition is confined to the assessment levied on the petitioner for the year 1367 fasli.
3. It appears that for the relevant year a notice has been served on the petitioner under S. 7(2) of the Act and a tax of Rupees 15.838/92 nP. was assessed on his total holding of l152-A-11B-1B with a valuation of Rs. 44,464./88nP. After hearing the petitioner the Assessing Authority has decided that the amount recoverable from the petitioner by way of tax for the relevant year is Rs. 14,882/86nP. The petitioner contends that since the Act is unconstitutional, it is not open to respondent No. 1, the State of U. P. and respondent No. 2, the assessing authority, to claim the said tax from him on his holding.
4. The petitioner s case is that the relevant provisions of the Act are unconstitutional because the U. P. Legislature was not competent to pass the Act. He also contends alternatively that the said Ac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.