TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1970 (12) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd their valuation was determined as rupees one lakh by the Wealth-tax Officer, " A " Ward, Amritsar. The assessee had declared the value of this land as Rs. 9,450. In the appear, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax reduced the value of the land on the two valuation dates to Rs. 62,250 and Rs. 82,000, respectively. The assessee filed a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which reduced the value of the land to Rs 30,000, on both the valuation dates. The contention of the assessee throughout was that the land was agricultural land and, therefore, could not be included in his wealth for the assessment of wealth-tax. This contention of the assessee was not accepted by any departmental authority, with the result that the present reference has been made to this court. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the land in question was and is agricultural land, assessed to land revenue and is being irrigated by canal water from Jethuwal distributory, which irrigates the agricultural lands situate to the east and north of the assessee's land. The land is, thus, claimed to be agricultural and nehri. It was requisitioned by the Punjab Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by and descend according to laws framed under List II, but that when the same parcel of land is used to produce something else (as often happens in this country), it should be governed by and descend according to laws framed under List III. " On the basis of these observations, it is emphasised that it is the general character of the land that has to be considered and not the use to which it may be put at a particular point of time. A similar question came up for decision before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in T. Sarojini Devi v. Sri Kristna, wherein the exact point for determination was whether a mango-grove was agricultural land within the meaning of entry No. 21 of List II and entry No. 7 of List III of Schedule 7 to the Government of India Act, 1935. Patanjali Sastri J., speaking for the court, held that the mango-grove was an agricultural land and in support of that opinion observed as under : ".... it seems to us that the expression 'agricultural land' must receive the widest meaning for it would be somewhat grotesque to suppose that Parliament intended that lands devoted to the production of one kind of crop should devolve according to laws passed by provin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s agricultural land from other land ? One thing is clear that the intention of the owner of the land to put it to any particular use at a given point of time cannot be the determining factor. Whether a land is agricultural land or not cannot depend on the fluctuating or ambulatory intention of the owner of the land. The criterion must be something more defined, something more objective, something related to the nature or character of the land and not varying with the intention of the owner as to the use to which he wants to put the land at a particular point of time. Of course when we say this, we must not be understood to mean that the intention as to user is altogether an irrelevant consideration ; it is certainly a factor which would bear on the nature or character of the land but it does not afford a sole or exclusive criterion for determining whether a land is agricultural land or not. Where the land is actually put to use, there is usually not much difficulty in ascertaining the nature or character of the land. If the land is used for agricultural purposes, ordinarily it would be correct to say that the land is-agricultural land and vice versa. But even this test may not alwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e income-tax department for their purchase for building residential accommodation for officers of the income-tax department. The learned judges reviewed the various judgments and observed as under : " After careful consideration of the matter, we are inclined to think that, though it is neither proper nor safe to lay down any hard and fast rule in this respect, the tests laid down by their Lordships of the Federal Court in Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia, and by the Madras High Court in T. Sarojini Devi v. Sri Kristna, both of which have been impliedly approved for purposes of defining agricultural land in the course of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, still hold the field and are correct tests. In the case of Megh Raj, the Federal Court was considering the meaning of the expression 'agricultural land' in entry No. 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935. After referring to the narrower as well as the wider sense in which the expression 'agricultural land' had been interpreted in various different contexts, their Lordships of the Federal Court observed that no reason had b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1945 for the purpose of locating a military aerodrome. The land had been levelled, an air strip had been constructed thereon and for over 15 years the land was being used as an air strip. On those facts, it was held that the land was not " agricultural land " within the meaning of that expression found either in the constitution or in the Wealth-tax Act and it was not exempt from the Wealth-tax Act. The fact that at some future time the Government may de-requisition the land and thereafter the owner of the land may take steps to reconvert it into agricultural land was not a relevant consideration. One of the factors taken into consideration by the learned judges was that in order to convert that land again into agricultural land, it will require a considerable expense in labour and money. In our opinion that case does not serve as a guide for the decision of the case before us. It is well-established principle of tax laws that no case can be decided on the pattern of another case if the facts are not completely identical. Even a slight difference in the facts may lead to a different decision. In the instant case the land has not been put to any use which can be said to detract from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, under section 6 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1962 (hereinafter called "the Act"), whenever the land is to be released from requisition, it has to be restored to the owner in as good a condition as it was in when possession thereof was taken subject only to the changes caused by reasonable wear and tear and irresistible force, so that if any expenses are to be incurred in restoring the land to the condition in which it was when requisitioned, the expenses will have to be incurred by the Punjab Government and not by the owner of the land. So, merely on the ground that the land has been requisitioned since 1944 or 1945 and has been used as a police parade ground for about 18/19 years prior to the dates of valuation as also on the dates of valuation cannot lead to the conclusion that the land has ceased to be agricultural land. The second factor considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was that the land had been included in a town improvement scheme. In our opinion, this fact alone does not change the nature or the kind of the land. The land will continue to be agricultural land till its possession is actually acquired by the improv....