STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. MAHARAJ DHARMINDER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23-9-1969. We have gone through the effective judgment of the High Court rendered by Justice Lakshmi Prasad and we find ourselves with complete agreement with the view taken by the learned judge as also with the reasons given by him.

(2.) Mr. Dikshit appearing for the appellant/State submitted two points before us. In the first place it was argued that in view of the provisions of S.44 (b) of the U. P..Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Rule 37 (A) and Rule 38 in assessing the compensation, the amount on account of agricultural income-tax to be paid for the previous year had to be taken into consideration. It was submitted that although the respondent had filed appeals against the District Agricultural Income-tax Officer who was the Collector to the appellate court and ultimately succeeded in getting the order of the Collector set aside by the Commissioner who remanded the case for a fresh assessment, the decision of the Commissioner was wholly irrelevant because under S.44 (b) it was the amount which was assessed by the first authority which alone had to be considered. Section 44 (b) runs thus:-

(3.) Rule 37 (A) also gives the basis on which the income-tax is to be deducted. Rule 38 however requires the Collector to forward to every Compensation officer in From 25 the agricultural income-tax assessed upon the intermediary in his district during the previous agricultural year. We are however unable to agree with the argument of Mr. Dikshit because, what S. 44 (b) read with the Rules contemplates is that the agricultural income-tax which is to be taken into account should be the amount of income-tax which has been finally assessed and not one which is under appeal. Justice Lakshmi Prasad in his well-reasoned judgment has pointed out that the Government itself issued various circulars to the Compensation officers not to finalise the compensation and to await the decision of various references and appeals made against the Collector's order assessing the agricultural income-tax. For these reasons therefore, the first contention raised by Mr. Dikshit is overruled.