# Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-15
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 3 of 1993
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/northern-india-iron-press-work-p-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43224
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Stamp Act-Section-47(2)-Market valueexplained
petitioner
purchased
agricultural land-on circle rate of Rs.
66000/-paid stamp duty on 77000/-on
complaint
by
private
person-notice
issued to pay additional duty as the land
being used for running cement factorywithout evidence-held-market value-is
the value general buyer may offer-and
not future use-impugned order quashed.
Held: Para-32
This is very surprising that opposite
party no. 2, on the basis of some
complaint, came to the conclusion that
cement factory will be established on the
land in question, whereas except that
complaint there is no evidence on record,
which establishes that the petitioner
intends to establish a cement factory. It
is settled legal position that stamp duty
is to be paid on the basis of the use of
the land at the time of registration of
document and no inference can be drawn
for changing the nature of the land in
future by the purchaser.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2009 Alld. Pg. 31; 2008 (26) LCD Pg. 590;
1999 (90) RD Pg. 521; 2008 (104) RD Pg. 235.

## Text

2 All] Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr
503
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Misc. Single No. 3 of 1993
Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.A. Shankhdhar, Sri N.K. Seth
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Stamp Act-Section-47(2)-Market valueexplained
petitioner
purchased
agricultural land-on circle rate of Rs.
66000/-paid stamp duty on 77000/-on
complaint
by
private
person-notice
issued to pay additional duty as the land
being used for running cement factorywithout evidence-held-market value-is
the value general buyer may offer-and
not future use-impugned order quashed.
Held: Para-32
This is very surprising that opposite
party no. 2, on the basis of some
complaint, came to the conclusion that
cement factory will be established on the
land in question, whereas except that
complaint there is no evidence on record,
which establishes that the petitioner
intends to establish a cement factory. It
is settled legal position that stamp duty
is to be paid on the basis of the use of
the land at the time of registration of
document and no inference can be drawn
for changing the nature of the land in
future by the purchaser.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2009 Alld. Pg. 31; 2008 (26) LCD Pg. 590;
1999 (90) RD Pg. 521; 2008 (104) RD Pg. 235.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra
Kumar Arora, J.)
1. Heard Sri N. K. Seth, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashish
Chaturvedi and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned
Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, appearing
on behalf of opposite parties.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of the
impugned order dated 22nd September,
1992, passed by the Addl. District
Magistrate
(Finance
&
Revenue),
Lucknow by which it was directed that
since the petitioner is a company and
purchased the land in question for
industrial/commercial purposes, therefore,
the proper value of the land should be at
the rate of Rs. 13/- per square feet and not
at the rate of Rs. 14,900/- per bigha, as
claimed by the petitioner. After valuing
the said land @ Rs. 13 per square feet, the
learned Addl. District Magistrate (Finance
& Revenue), Lucknow held that the
market value of the said land is Rs.
14,68,519/- and the stamp duty should
have been paid on such value of Rs.
14,68,519/- and, as such, petitioner was
directed to deposit the deficit stamp duty
of Rs. 1,73,925/- within ten days,
otherwise, proceedings will be initiated
against the petitioner under the provisions
of Land Revenue Act.
3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
Company
under
the
provisions
of
Companies
Act,
1956,
having
its
registered office at Aishbagh, Lucknow.
Amongst other objects of the petitionercompany one of the object was to carry on
business of farming including dairy
farming etc. and the same has been clearly
504
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned in clause (c) of sub-clause 5 at
page
4
of
the
Memorandum
of
Association of the petitioner-company.
4. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner-company is that
one Smt. Jairani was the owner of Khasra
plot no. 854, measuring 3 bigha and 11
biswas and khasra plot no. 856 measuring
12 biswas, total measuring 4 bigha and 3
biswas
in
Mauja
Udaipur,
Pargana
Nigohan, Tehsil Mohanlalganj, DistrictLucknow in which she was carrying on
farming. Smt. Jairani was interested in
selling a piece of said land and the
petitioner being interested in purchasing
the same, offered a price of Rs. 77,000/-
which she accepted and a sale- deed was
executed by Smt. Jairani in favour of the
petitioner-company in respect of the said
plots of land on 30.1.1992 which was
presented before
the Sub Registrar,
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.
5. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the land
purchased by the petitioner-company was
'Harfour Matiyar". For the purposes of
stamp duty and registration, the market
value of the property is to be determined
as per the rate notified by the Collector,
Lucknow vide its order dated 24th
January, 1990.
6. At the relevant time, Collector,
Lucknow vide order dated 24th January,
1990 fixed the rate of the land of 'Har-4
Matiyar' as Rs. 12,500/- per bigha. On the
basis of the said rate the total value of the
land purchased by the petitioner comes to
Rs. 44,120/-. It is also submitted that the
Collector, Lucknow revised the said rate
vide order dated 30.1.1992 w.e.f. 1.2.1992
and fixed rate as per Rs. 15,900/- per
bigha and at such rate the total value of
the land comes to Rs. 66,000/-. However,
since the sale consideration was Rs.
77,000/-, stamp duty was paid by the
petitioner on the said value of Rs.
77,000/- which was above the value of the
land at the rate fixed by the Collector,
Lucknow.
7. In view of the above, submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the petitioner complied all the provisions
of Indian Stamp Act with respect to
payment of stamp duty for the purposes of
registration of the land.
8.
Petitioner was asked to receive
notice from opposite party no. 2 under
section 47 (2) of the Stamp Act mentioning
therein that the sale deed executed by Smt.
Jairani in favour of the petitioner-company is
under-stamped and the petitioner was
required to show-cause as to why the deficit
stamp duty and penalty be not realized from
the petitioner. The petitioner filed objection
dated 12th August, 1992 to the said notice
dated 21st July, 1992 along with the affidavit
of S/Sri Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Amit
Kumar Gupta and Pravin Kumar Gupta,
stating therein that the valuation of the land
in question was in no case over Rs. 66,000/-
but since the sale consideration agreed was
Rs. 77,000/- stamp duty on the said value
was paid and the sale deed in no case is
under-stamped. In fact, the said land was
purchased for the agricultural purposes and
not for setting up a factory. It has further
been stated that in Gosainganj, Lucknow
there is no commercial complex and the
fixation of the value of the land on
commercial basis is absolutely illegal and
arbitrary.
9. Opposite Party No. 2, without
appreciating the objection raised by the
petitioner, vide order dated 22.9.1992
2 All] Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr
505
directed the petitioner-company to pay
difference of the stamp duty as petitioner
is a company and had purchased the said
land for industrial/commercial purposes,
and, as such the proper value of the land
should be at the rate of Rs. 13/- per square
feet and not at the rate of Rs. 15,900/- per
bigha, as claimed by the petitioner. As
such, valuing the said land at the rate of
Rs. 13/- per square feet the opposite party
no. 2 held that the market value of the
said land is Rs. 14,68,519/- and the stamp
duty should have been paid on the said
value and the petitioner was directed to
pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,73,925/-.
The petitioner feeling aggrieved against
the said order has approached this Court
for setting aside the impugned order.
10. Shri N.K. Seth, learned counsel
for the petitioner also submits that the
land in question was purchased by the
petitioner for agricultural purposes, which
is also one of the object of the petitioner's
company and, therefore, the contention of
opposite party no. 2 that land was
purchased
by
the
petitioner
for
commercial
purposes
is
absolutely
misconceived. It is also submitted that at
the relevant time there was no commercial
complex in the area and fixation of the
value of land on commercial basis is
absolutely misconceived. It is very
emphatically submitted that the land for
the purposes of stamp duty cannot be
valued considering its future land use.
The land has to be valued considering its
location etc. at the time of its purchase.
11. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that at the
time of purchase, the land in question was
agricultural land and was being used for
agricultural
purposes
and
specific
averments to the same effect have been
made in para-3 of the writ petition and the
said fact has not been disputed in para-12
of the counter affidavit. Similarly, the
type of land is Har-4-Matiyar and the
same has also not been disputed by the
opposite parties in the counter affidavit.
12. Learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of his submissions
placed reliance on the judgment and order
rendered in following cases:
(1) ITC Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.; AIR
2009 Alld. Pg 31, Pr. 30, 31 and 32.
(2) Naresh Kumar Sonkar Vs. State
of U.P. and others; 2008 (26) LCD Pg.
1590 Pr. 19, 20 and 21.
(3) Smt. Har Pyari and others Vs.
District Registrar Aligarh; 1999 (90) RD
Pg 521 Pr. 6 and 11.
(4) Kishore Chandra Agarwal v.
State of U.P. and others; 2008 (104) RD
Pg 235 Pr. 16, 23 and 25.
13. It is further submitted that the
market value of the land cannot be
determined with reference to the use of
the land to which buyer intends to put it.
The market value is what a general buyer
may offer and what the officer may
reasonably expect. In determining the
market value, the potential of the land as
on the date of sale alone can be taken into
account and not what potential it may
have
in
the
distant
future.
Even
subsequent improvement or change in the
nature or use of the land, which may
result into enhancement of the market
value of the property, is not to be taken
into account.
14. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of opposite parties, in
which it has been stated that SubRegistrar,
Mohanlalganj,
Lucknow
506
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted a reference/report that the
purchaser
of
the
land
is
an
Industrial/Commercial Institution and at
the time of execution of sale deed, the
petitioner paid Stamp Duty at the
agricultural rates. However, it would be at
the rate of Rs. 13.00 per square feet. It is
also submitted that in view of the report
of Sub-Registrar, a Case No. 3138/Stamp,
State Vs. Northern India Iron Press Works
(Pvt.) Ltd. was registered against the
petitioner under the Indian Stamp Act and
during the time of proceedings of the
case, the petitioner failed to submit any
proof in its favour that the property in
question has been under the agricultural
uses. On the contrary, there was no
evidence on record that the land will not
be used for construction of Cement
Factory. It is submitted that the competent
court after examining the matter passed
the order dated 22.09.1992 and directed
the petitioner to make good the deficiency
of the stamp duties.
15. A plea of alternative remedy to
file an appeal has also been raised before
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
against the order dated 22.09.1992.
16.

I
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the record.
17. Before examining the facts of
the present case, this Court examined
various judgments on the issue of
determination of stamp duty payable on
property.
18. It is settled position that the Rule
of Alternative Remedy does not oust the
jurisdiction of the Court, if found
necessary for promotion of justice and
prevention of injustice.
19. In the case of Prakashwati Vs.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ,
Board of Revenue; 1996 AWC 1331, the
Apex Court had held that situation of a
property in an area close to a decent
colony not by itself would make it a part
thereof and should not be a factor for
approach of the authority in determining
the market value. According to the said
decision , Valuation has to be determined
on constructive materials which could be
made available before the authorities
concerned."
20. In Anirudha Kumar and Ashwini
Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, (2000 (3) AWC 2587), this
court
has
referred
the
aforesaid
Prakashwati's case (supra) and observed
as under :
"in the present case , the market
value is to be determined on the basis of
the value that would satisfy the vendor.
Thus . The question of future potential
cannot be a factor determining the market
value of such a land for the purpose of
stamp duty payable under the stamp act.
The vendee pays the price that satisfies
the vendor and,therefore, it is the utility of
the land as on the date of transfer by the
vendor and as such, if the land was an
agricultural land, it has to be treated as
such and the valuation has to be done
accordingly. Whether in Future the
purchaser puts the land into residential
use or changes the character is immaterial
for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.
The principal that has been laid down in
P. Ram Reddy (supra) can be attracted for
the purpose of determining the market
value only to the extent of potential as on
the date of transfer and not beyond. Thus,
the market value has to be determined
according to the factors , which include
2 All] Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr
507
the situation of the land, the amenities
available in and around and various other
factors, including close proximity of the
residential area as well as any transfer
made immediately before the transfer or
after the transfer in close proximity if
such documents are produced in respect
of the area that similarly situated land by
either of the parties."
21. In Rakesh Chandra Mittal and
others vs. Additional District Magistrate
(2004 (3) UPLBEC 2434, a Division
Bench of this Court held-
" It is well settled that market value
of the property has to be determined with
reference to the date on which the
document is executed. Market value as
such keeps on varying and changing. Any
subsequent improvement or change in the
nature or user of the land, which may
result into enhancement of the market
value of the property, is not to be taken
into account and it is only the value of the
property on the date of execution of the
document that is to be considered for the
purpose of determination of proper stamp
duty payable on the instrument."
22. In Shakumbari Sugar And Allied
Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. &
others,(2007 (5) ADJ 602) some land was
purchased through a Sale Deed dated
22.7.94. Since the land was agricultural in
nature, the petitioner paid the stamp duty
in accordance with the circle rate issued
by the District Magistrate. On 13.2.1995,
a notice under Section 47-A read With
section 33(4) of the Stamp Act was issued
to show cause , as to why the deficiency
of stamp duty should not be levied. In the
notice, it was alleged that the petitioner
had purchased the land for industrial
purposes and as such the stamp duty on
the property is to be paid on the basis of
market value of the land for industrial
purpose. This court placing reliance on
various citations has held that the market
value of the property is to be determined
with reference to the date on which the
document is executed.
23. Apart from the above decisions,
a Full Bench of this court in Shri Ramesh
Chandra Srivastava, Kanpur vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2007 U.P.T.C. 335 held
that the market value of the property has
to be determined with reference to the
date of which the document is executed.
24. In the case of Sarva Hitkarini
Sahkari Avas Samiti Allahabad and
another Verses State of U.P and others.
,(2007(103)RD19) it has been observed
that the rules framed for determining
market value under the Stamp Act and
circle rates circulated under said rules are
relevant only for initiation of proceedings
under section 47-A of Stamp Act.
However, after initiation of the case the
said rules become irrelevant and while
deciding the case market value shall be
determined on the basis of general
principles for determining market value
which
are
applicable
to
the
land
acquisition matters. Moreover, future use
of the property is not decisive."
25. In the case of Kishore Chandra
Agarwal; vs. State of U.P. & others,
reported in 2008 (104) RD 235, this Court
has held that the obligation to act fairly on
the part of the administrative authorities
was evolved to ensure the rule of law and
to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine
is complementary to the principles of
natural justice, which the quasi-judicial
authorities are bound to observe. An
arbitrary action is ultra virus.
508
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26. In the case of I.T.C. Ltd. vs.
State of U.P. , reported in AIR 2009
Allahabad 31, this Court has held that
market value cannot be determined with
reference to use of land for which buyer
intends to put it-stamp duty is payable on
property as it stands on date of execution
of deed. The relevant paras 30 to 32 of the
judgment read as under:
Para 30. "Thus, the legal position which
emerges out from the aforesaid cases is that
the market value of the land cannot be
determined with reference to the use of the
land to which buyer intends to put it. The
market value is what a general buyer may
offer and what the officer may reasonably
expect. In determining the market value, the
potential of the land as on the date of sale
alone can be taken into account and not what
potential it may have in the distant future.
Any subsequent improvement or change in
the nature or user of the land, which may
result into enhancement of the market value
of the property, is not to be taken into
account and it is only the value of the
property on the date of execution of the
document that is to be considered for the
purpose of determination of proper stamp
duty payable on the instrument.
Para 31 In addition to above legal
proposition, it may be pointed out that the
State Government has issued a Government
Order dated 16.9.1999 to all the Divisional
Commissioners, District Magistrates and
Additional District Magistrates (Finance &
Revenue), providing therein that while
determining the valuation of the property
under 1997 Rules, neither the future potential
or use of the property nor the status of the
purchaser (Organization, Society, Company
etc.) will not be taken into consideration. ..
Para 32. Having considered the
submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties and the materials placed
before this Court, it appears that the
authority had proceeded to determine the
value on the presumption that though the
land is agricultural land but it has not
been purchased for the said purpose. The
said presumption does not appear to be
sound and reasonable."
27.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a
Company under the provisions of Companies
Act, 1956 and as per Memorandum of
Association
of
the
petitioner-company,
amongst other objects, one of the object for
which the company was established, was to
carry on business of farming including dairy
farming etc., which has been mentioned in
Clause (c) (sub clause-5 at page 4 of the
memorandum of association of the petitioner.
The same reads as under:
"To carry on the business of farming
including
as
dairymen,
fruit,
farmers
livestock breeders, poultry farmers, timber
growers, horticulturists, seed merchants,
processors of agricultural proceeds and
generally to manage improve, farm cultivate,
acquire, lease undertake, exchange, purchase,
sell or otherwise deal with or dispose of
agricultural lands and generally to carry on
the business of advisers on problems relating
to the administration, organization and work
of farms, training of personnel thereof, of
system or process relating to the production,
storage, distribution, marketing and sale
thereof and/ or relating to the rendering of
service in connection therewith."
28.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a
Company under the provisions of Companies
Act, 1956 and as per Memorandum of
Association
of
the
petitioner-company,
amongst other objects, one of the object for
which the company was established, was to
carry on business of farming including dairy
farming etc., which has been mentioned in
2 All] Northern India Iron Press Work (P) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr
509
Clause (c) (sub clause-5 at page 4 of the
memorandum of association of the petitioner.
The same reads as under:
"To carry on the business of farming
including
as
dairymen,
fruit,
farmers
livestock breeders, poultry farmers, timber
growers, horticulturists, seed merchants,
processors of agricultural proceeds and
generally to manage improve, farm cultivate,
acquire, lease undertake, exchange, purchase,
sell or otherwise deal with or dispose of
agricultural lands and generally to carry on
the business of advisers on problems relating
to the administration, organization and work
of farms, training of personnel thereof, of
system or process relating to the production,
storage, distribution, marketing and sale
thereof and/ or relating to the rendering of
service in connection therewith."
29. The petitioner purchased a piece
of land of Khasra plot no. 854 measuring
3 Bigha and 11 Biswas and Khasra plot
no. 856, measuring 12 Biswas, total
measuring 4 Bigha and 3 Biswas in
Mauza Udaipur, Pargana Nigohan, Tehsil
Mohanlalganj, District-Lucknow at the
price of Rs. 77,000/- and the sale-deed
was executed on 30.01.1992. As per
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner, the type of land is Har-4matiyar. As per circle rate fixed by the
Collector, Lucknow, the value of the land
comes to Rs. 66,000/-, since the sale
consideration was Rs. 77,000/-, therefore,
stamp duty was paid by the petitioner at
the rate of Rs. 77,000/-, which was above
the value of land as well as fixed by the
Collector, Lucknow.
30. It appears that subsequently on the
basis of some complaint made by some
local
residents,
Sub-Registrar,
Mohanlalganj submitted a report on the
basis of which Case No. 3138/Stamp, State
Vs. Northern India Iron Press Works (Pvt.)
Ltd. was registered against the petitioner
under the provisions of Stamp Act and
notice was issued to the petitioner. After
examining the reply of the petitioner,
impugned order dated 22.09.1992 was
passed, holding that the land in question
was purchased for establishment of Cement
Factory and, therefore, petitioner's company
was required to pay stamp duty at the circle
rate fixed for commercial purposes and the
same being Rs. 13/- per square feet, the
value of land was assessed as Rs.
14,68,519/- and deficiency of stamp duty of
Rs. 1,73,925/- was raised against the
petitioner.
31. This Court has examined the
impugned order dated 22.09.1992 and
from the perusal of the same, it appears
that the opposite party no. 2 while
examining the matter of deficiency in
stamp duty in registration of document,
observed that the purchaser of land in
question
is
an
industrial/commercial
institution and will establish industry on
the same and this fact has been confirmed
by one Shri Suresh Kumar and other local
residents of the area vide their complaint
dated 22.09.1992 to the effect that on the
land in question Cement Factory will be
established and on this ground, opposite
party no. 2 came to the conclusion that the
land in question has not been purchased
for agriculture, as no evidence has been
produced with respect to agricultural
activities being carried out, therefore,
stamp duty is to be paid on the basis of
Industrial/Commercial
rates
and
accordingly passed the impugned order.
32. This is very surprising that
opposite party no. 2, on the basis of some
complaint, came to the conclusion that
510
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cement factory will be established on the
land in question, whereas except that
complaint there is no evidence on record,
which establishes that the petitioner
intends to establish a cement factory. It is
settled legal position that stamp duty is to
be paid on the basis of the use of the land
at the time of registration of document
and no inference can be drawn for
changing the nature of the land in future
by the purchaser.
33. Thus, the legal position is that
the market value of the land cannot be
determined with reference to the use of
the land to which buyer intends to put it.
The market value is what a general buyer
may offer and what the officer may
reasonably expect. In determining the
market value, the potential of the land as
on the date of sale alone can be taken into
account and not what potential it may
have in the distant future. Any subsequent
improvement or change in the nature or
user of the land, which may result into
enhancement of the market value of the
property, is not to be taken into account
and it is only the value of the property on
the date of execution of the document that
is to be considered for the purpose of
determination of proper stamp duty
payable on the instrument.
34. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed. The order dated
22.09.1992 passed by the Addl. District
Magistrate
(Finance
&
Revenue),
Lucknow is hereby quashed.
35. It has been informed by learned
counsel for the petitioner that original
sale-deed has been impounded by the
opposite
party
no.
2.
Accordingly,
opposite party no. 2 is hereby directed to
release the sale-deed within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
Misc. Bench No. 2993 of 2015
Ashish Kumar Misra [P.I.L.]
...Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Sarkar
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satish Kumar Misra, Prabuddh Tripathi,
Prashant Tripathi, Vineet Kumar Chaurasia
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., A.S.G., Anand Dwivedi
National Food Security Act 2013-Section13-Issue of Ration Card-with name of
eldest woman of family-apprehensionwhere no major women-by clause 2 of
section 13 itself clarify the situation-so
far
discrimination
with
transgender
concern-within purview of legislating
body-to enact suitable provisions-effort
of counsel raising public interest-duly
appreciated.
Held: Para-6
The object and purpose of Section 13 of
the Act was to bring about a sense of
empowerment for women. The purpose
of enacting Section 13 of the Act was to
recognize the status of a woman in every
household and it was in that context that
the statute has enacted that the head of
the household would be deemed to be
eldest woman member who is above the
age of eighteen. The recognition of the
eldest woman as the head of the
household is in contradistinction to a
male member since as we have already
noted above, sub-section (2) of Section 13