STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJA JITENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment, dated 9/02/1965, of the High court at Allahabad dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the assessments of the respondent under the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit under Rule 6-A of the Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules).

(2.) The respondent Raja was prior to the abolition of zamindari in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Raja of the properties known as Chandapur Raj consisting of 28 villages in the Tahsil Maharajganj in the District-of Rae Bareli. The respondent was a minor till 3/03/1958 and he attained majority on 4/03/1958. The properties were under the management of the court of Wards from 1943 to 1953 and thereafter under the management of the District Judge, Rae Bareli up to 4/03/1958.

(3.) On 1/04/1958, the Tax Assessment Officer, Maharajganj Sub-division served a notice, under S. 7 (2) of the 1957 Act, on the respondent for the assessment Fasli year 1365 commencing on 1/07/1957, and ending on 30/06/1958. The respondent was required by the said notice to file a return for the agricultural year of the land holding of the respondent. The respondent filed a return and claimed benefit of exemption under Rule 6-A of the said Rules in respect of the agricultural land which had been sub-let to tenants under the orders of the court of Wards and the District Judge when the respondent's properties were under their management. On 16/07/1958, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj being the. Assessing Officer dismissed the respondent's claim for exemption in respect of the land holding sub-let and passed an assessment order imposing tax on the land holding of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 62,011.39. It may be stated that the assessment according to the respondent should have been Rs. 34,274.60 as a result of the exemption under Rule 6-A. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division. The appeal was dismissed. On 9/09/1958, the Commissioner held that Rule 6-A was not applicable to assessment of tax for the 1365 Fasli year.