# MAHANT SRI SRINIV AS RAMNUJ DAS, MAHANT OF EMAR MATH, PURI v. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI & ANR

- **Citation:** [1979] 1 S.C.R. 656
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1770 of 1972
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, V. D. Tulzapurkar, R. S. Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahant-sri-sriniv-as-ramnuj-das-mahant-of-emar-math-puri-v-the-agricultural-7523
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947, S. 8(1), whether .'>uflers fro1n
the vice of discrimination and as such hit by Art. 14 of the ConstitutionScope of 8(1), 9 and 16 of the Act.
The appellant is the Mahant of Ernar Math of Puri which is an ancient I
C
Public Hindu Religious Trust.
Being a trustee, the appellant has been assessed
in the status of an "individual" under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax
.i-\ct. 1947 for the assessment years
1948-49 to
1967-68 in respe;;t of the
income derived fron1 agricultural lands owned by the trust.
These
assess~
ments were made after granting the exemption undet s. 8 ( 1) of the Act \vhich
provides that "any sum derived from land held under such trust and actually
spent for the said purpose (charitable· or religious:purposes) shall not be includD
ed in the total agricultural income of such assessee."
E
F
G
II
The aippellant challenged the constitutional validity of s. S ( 1) of the r\ct
under which the assessments were made principally on the ground that s. 8(1)
was discriminatory and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, in a; much as
under the said provision, in respect of non-public muslim trusts created for
religious or charitable purposes the exemption contemplated therein was confined to such agricultural income -or was actually spent for the publiC purposes
of charitable or religious nature, while in the case of muslim trusts (Waqfs)
the entire agricultural income whether spent for charitable or religious purpose or not, was exempt from the operation of the Act under s. 9 of the
Act. The Orissa High Court, negatived the said contention on an examination
cf the provisions of Sections 8 and
~1 in
the context o~ the sche1ne of the
Act and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Dismissing the appea.l by special leave the Court.
HELD: (I) S. 8(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 is ·-<:"
free from the vice of discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. and
l
the said provision is perfectly valid and constitutional. [663 G-HJ
(2) The scheme of the Act is that under the charging provision agricultural
income-tax is levied on the total agricu1tural income of the previous year of
every assessee subject to the exemption which have been provided for under
Sections 8, 9 and 16. [661 C-DJ
The legislative intent of granting of limited exemption is brought out by
Sections 8(1) and 16 of the Act. Whereas exemption in regard to the amount
actually spent for charitable purposes under S. 8(1) is in relation to the agricultural income of a public charitable trust, the exemption of similar nature
and extent contemplated by s. 16 is in regard to the agricultural income of
any assessee who may not be a tn1stce owning lands under a public charitable
trust, in other words, in either case, the exemption is confined to such part
of the agricultural income which is achlally spent by the assessee fcir charit<tble
purposes. [661 D-EJ
(_ .
\ .. •
MAHANT SRINIVAS v. I.T .. 0. (Tulzapurkar, J.)
657
•
(3) Section 9 of the Act, in terms, says that the exemption !hereunder is
conJined to Muslim Trusts "referred to in s. 3 of the Musalman Waqf Validating
Act, 1913''.
S. 3 of the Validating Act refers only to muslim trusts which
are in 1he nature of Waqf-alal-aulad.
The exemption in s. 9 of the Act,
therefore clearly applies only to Muslim trusts which arc in the nature of
Waqf-alal-aulad.
The marginal note to s. 9 as well as the proviso to the
section make this clear [662 B, 663 B· Cj
If that be so, then all muslim trusts other than Waqf-alal-aulad squarely
fall under s. 8(1) and to all such waqfs the limited exemption contemplated
therein would apply.
If that be so, the gravamen of complaint that all waqfs
(Muslim Trusts) other than waqf-alal-aulad are receiving favourable treatment
as against non-Muslim public charitable trusts must fall to the ground. [663 C,
El
A
B
As regards h-fuslim trusts which are in the nature of waqf-alal-aulad
C
which alone are covered 'by s. 9· the proviso clearly shows that

## Text

A
B
656
MAHANT SRI SRINIV AS RAMNUJ DAS,
MAHANT OF EMAR MATH, PURI
v.
THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX
OFFICER, PURI & ANR.
September 12, 1978
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1947, S. 8(1), whether .'>uflers fro1n
the vice of discrimination and as such hit by Art. 14 of the ConstitutionScope of 8(1), 9 and 16 of the Act.
The appellant is the Mahant of Ernar Math of Puri which is an ancient I
C
Public Hindu Religious Trust.
Being a trustee, the appellant has been assessed
in the status of an "individual" under the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax
.i-\ct. 1947 for the assessment years
1948-49 to
1967-68 in respe;;t of the
income derived fron1 agricultural lands owned by the trust.
These
assess~
ments were made after granting the exemption undet s. 8 ( 1) of the Act \vhich
provides that "any sum derived from land held under such trust and actually
spent for the said purpose (charitable· or religious:purposes) shall not be includD
ed in the total agricultural income of such assessee."
E
F
G
II
The aippellant challenged the constitutional validity of s. S ( 1) of the r\ct
under which the assessments were made principally on the ground that s. 8(1)
was discriminatory and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution, in a; much as
under the said provision, in respect of non-public muslim trusts created for
religious or charitable purposes the exemption contemplated therein was confined to such agricultural income -or was actually spent for the publiC purposes
of charitable or religious nature, while in the case of muslim trusts (Waqfs)
the entire agricultural income whether spent for charitable or religious purpose or not, was exempt from the operation of the Act under s. 9 of the
Act. The Orissa High Court, negatived the said contention on an examination
cf the provisions of Sections 8 and
~1 in
the context o~ the sche1ne of the
Act and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Dismissing the appea.l by special leave the Court.
HELD: (I) S. 8(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947 is ·-<:"
free from the vice of discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution. and
l
the said provision is perfectly valid and constitutional. [663 G-HJ
(2) The scheme of the Act is that under the charging provision agricultural
income-tax is levied on the total agricu1tural income of the previous year of
every assessee subject to the exemption which have been provided for under
Sections 8, 9 and 16. [661 C-DJ
The legislative intent of granting of limited exemption is brought out by
Sections 8(1) and 16 of the Act. Whereas exemption in regard to the amount
actually spent for charitable purposes under S. 8(1) is in relation to the agricultural income of a public charitable trust, the exemption of similar nature
and extent contemplated by s. 16 is in regard to the agricultural income of
any assessee who may not be a tn1stce owning lands under a public charitable
trust, in other words, in either case, the exemption is confined to such part
of the agricultural income which is achlally spent by the assessee fcir charit<tble
purposes. [661 D-EJ
(_ .
\ .. •
MAHANT SRINIVAS v. I.T .. 0. (Tulzapurkar, J.)
657
•
(3) Section 9 of the Act, in terms, says that the exemption !hereunder is
conJined to Muslim Trusts "referred to in s. 3 of the Musalman Waqf Validating
Act, 1913''.
S. 3 of the Validating Act refers only to muslim trusts which
are in 1he nature of Waqf-alal-aulad.
The exemption in s. 9 of the Act,
therefore clearly applies only to Muslim trusts which arc in the nature of
Waqf-alal-aulad.
The marginal note to s. 9 as well as the proviso to the
section make this clear [662 B, 663 B· Cj
If that be so, then all muslim trusts other than Waqf-alal-aulad squarely
fall under s. 8(1) and to all such waqfs the limited exemption contemplated
therein would apply.
If that be so, the gravamen of complaint that all waqfs
(Muslim Trusts) other than waqf-alal-aulad are receiving favourable treatment
as against non-Muslim public charitable trusts must fall to the ground. [663 C,
El
A
B
As regards h-fuslim trusts which are in the nature of waqf-alal-aulad
C
which alone are covered 'by s. 9· the proviso clearly shows that the share of
the beneficiary under such a trust far from being exempted is brought to tax
and the tax is made realisable from !tie mutawali and read with the proviso
the main provision really confines the benefit of exemption only to ultimate
illusory or remote public charitable or religious purpose and is thus
com~
pletely ~onsistent with the object and scheme of the Act. [663 F-GJ
Fazlul Rabbi Pradhan v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1965
SC 1722, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeal
No. 1770 of
1972.
D
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 30th
November, 1971 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 48 of J 968.
E
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Dass for the Appellant.
S. V. Gupte, Attorney General and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
r
TULZAPURKAR, J.-The short question raised in this appeal
by
F
special leave is whether s. 8 ( 1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income
Ta'!: Act, 1947 suffers from the vice of discrimination and as such is
hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution ?
The appellant is the Mahant of Emar Math at Puri, which is an
ancient public Hindu Religious Trust. The trust owns considerable
endowed properties both agricultural and non-agricultural.
After the
passing of the Orissa Agricultural Income Tax Act, 194 7
(hereinafter called 'the Act'), the appellant as a trustee has been assessed
in the status of an 'individual' under the Act for the assessment years
1948-49 to 1967-68 in respect of the income derived from agricultural lands owned by the trust. It appears that these
assessments
have been made after granting the exemption under s. 8 ( 1) of the
Act which provides that "any sum derived from land
held
under
such trust and actually spent for the said purposes
(charitable
or
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] 1 s.c.11.
religious purposes) shall not be included in the total
agricultural
income of such assessee". By a Writ Petition No. 48 of 1968, filed
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the appellant challenged the constitutional validity of s. 8 (1) of the Act under which the
assessments were made principally on the ground that s. 8 ( l)
was
discriminatory and hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as
under the ~aid provision in respect of
non-Muslim
public
trusts
created for religious or charitable purposes the exemption contemplated thereii) was confined to such agricultural income as was actually
spent for the public purposes of charitable or religious nature while
in the case of Muslim trusts (wakfs) the entire agricultural income,.
whether spent for charitable or religious purposes or not, was exempt
from the operation of the Act under s. 9 of the Act. The contention was
refuted on behalf of the respondents.
On an examination of
the
provisions of ss. 8 and 9 in the context of the scheme of the Act
the Orissa High Court negatived the said contention and dismissed
the Writ Petition on November 30, 1971. The appellant has come
up in appeal to this Court.
Since counsel for the appellant raised the self-same contention
before us in support of the appeal .it will be desirable to set out the
provisions of ss. 8 and 9 of the Act in order to appreciate his submissions on the point.
Section 8 runs thus ;
"8. Exemptitm
of charitable or religinus
trusts :-
( 1) Where the assessee is a trustee and the trust under
which he holds the property is a trust, created for public
purposes of a charitable or religious nature, any sum derived from land held under such trust and actually spent for
the said purposes, shall not be iticluded in the total agricultural income of such assessee.
( 2) In this section purposes of
a
charitable
nature
inclnde relief of the poor, education, medical
relief
and
advancement of any other object of general public utility."
G
Section 9 runs thus :
H
"9. Exemption of
Wakf-alal-aulad.-All
agricultiiral
income of Muslim trusts referred to in section 3 of
the
Musalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, created before the
commencement of this Act, shall be excluded
from
the
operation of this Act :
Provided that the share of a beneficiary under a trust
under the aforesaid Act, commonly known as Wakf-alal-
..
.·
'
-" . .
\
MAHANT SRINIVAS v. I.T,.O. (Tulzapurkar, /.)
659
aulad, shall not be exempted and the tax may be realised
from the mutawali and the bMis of taxation shall be the
share of each beneficiary.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a beneficiary means the settler, his family, children and descenA
~:
B
Since s. 9 refers to Muslim trusts 'referred to in section 3 of the
Musalman W ak:f Validating Act, 1913 ', it would be proper to set
out the provisions of s. 3 of the Musalman Wakf Validating
Act,
1913. Section 3 of that Act runs as follows :-
"3. Power of Mussa/mans to create certain wakfs.-lt
shall be lawful for any person professing the
Mussalman
faith to create a wak:f which in all other respects is in accordance with the provisions of Musalman law, for the following among other purposes :-
(a) for the maintenance and support wholly or partially
of his family, children or descendants, and
(b) where the person creating a wak:f is a Hanafi Mussalman, also for his own maintenance
and
support
during his life-time or for the payment of his debts
out of the rents and profits of the property dedicated:
Provided that the ultimate benefit is
in
such
cases
expres.;ly or impliedly reserved for the poor or for any other
purpose recognised by the Mussalman law as a religious,
pious or charitable purpose of a permanent character."
Mr. Mukherjee for the appellant contended that the exemption
contemplated by s. 8 ( 1) of the Act is confined only to such part of
the income derived from agricultural lands held under a public charitable or rdigious trust as is actually spent for
the charitable or
religious purpose11 while under s. 9 all agricultural income of M usalman trusts ( wakfs) irrespective of whether the same is
spent on
public purpoees of charitable or religious nature or not is
exempt
from the operation of the Act; in other words in the matter of granting exemption between the agricultural income of two types Of public
trust created for charitable or religious purposes, the Act has practised hostile discrimination against agricultural income of non-Muslim
public trusts, the classification having no reas~ab~e nexus wi~h the
object sought to be achieved by the statute which 1:' to tax agnc1'.1tural income derived from lands and to exempt the mcome so denved
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1979] l s.C.R.
by a public charitable or religious trust.
AccMding to him though
s. 9 refers to all agricultural income of Muslim. trusts "referred to in
s. 3 of the Musalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, (Act VI of 1913),
the wakfs contemplated by s. 3 of the said Act (Act VI of 1913)
include not merely Wakf-a/al-aulad but also other wakfs where property has been permanently dedicated for any purposes recognised by
the Musalmau Law as religious, pious or charitable and this,
he
argued, becomes clear from sub-clause (a) of s. 3 which speaks of
wakf created by a Muslim for the maintenance and support wholly
or partially of his family, children or descendants; in other words,
according to Mr. Mukherjee, s. 9 of the. Act is not
confined
to
Muslim trusts known as wakf-alal-aulad but is applicable to all wakfs
and, therefore, in case of wakfs other than wakf-alal-aulad the exemption granted by s. 9 of the Act which is in respect of all agricultural
income must be regarded as discriminatory as against the exemption ·
granted by s. 8 ( 1) of the Act.
He, therefore, nrged that s. 8 ( 1)
which grants a .limited exemption would be violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
On the other hand, the learned Attorney-General
appearing for the respondents contended that s. 9
is
confined
to
Muslim trusts commonly known as wakf-alal-aulad
and
all
other
Muslim trusts are covered by s. 8 (1) of the Act with the result that
to all such Muslim trusts, other than wakf-alal-aulad, the limited
exemption is applicable.
He urged that wakfs-alal-aulad do
stand
E
in a class by themselves and as such have been dealt with by s. 9 in
keeping
with
the
objective of the Act.
He further urged
that
sections 8 ( 1), 9 and 1(1 showed the scheme of the Act and if these
provisions were considered in ligh( of the main objective
of
the
enactment it was clear that s. 8 (1) could not be held to be discriminatory or violative of Art. 14.
F
Before considering the rival contentions touching the constitutional validity of s. 8 ( 1) of the Act it would be proper to keep in
mind the main objective as well as the scheme of the Act, particularly
in regard to the charging provision and the provisions dealing with
exemptions contained therein. The Act, as its preamble would
G
indicate, has been put on the Statute Book with the object of imposing
a tax on agricultural income derived from lands
situated
in the
State of Orissa. Section 2(a) defines the expression "agricultural
income" comprehensively.
T]ie charging provisiou is contained in
s. 3 which provides that agricultural income tax at the rate or rates
specified in the Schedule shall be charged for each financial year in
H
accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act on the
total agricultural income of the previous year of every person; the
proviso, however, states that no agricultural income tax
shall
be
I
(_
•
MAHANT SRINIVAS v. !.T.O. (Tulzapurkar, J.)
661
eharged on the agricultural income of the Central Government or any
State Govel'lllllent or any local body. Section 5 prescribes limits of
taxable income while s. 6 prescribes the method
and manner
of
determining the agricultural income of every assessee.
Then i:ome
the two material provisions dealing with exemptions, namely, ss. 8 and
9 which have been reproduced above.
The other material section
which deals with exemption is s. 16 which provides that agricultural
income t:aX shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of any
A
B
\
amount actually spent by him out of his total agricultural income for
the benefit of the people of the State or for charitable purposes, but
this exemption is subject to the proviso that agricultural income tax
\
shall be payable on the remainder of the total agricultural income of
such assessee at the rate which would have been applicable if such
deduction had not been made. It is unnecessary to refer to other
provisions as they are not material for our purposes. The scheme if
the Act, as disclosed by the aforesaid provision, is that under the
charging provision agricultural income tax is levied on the total
agricultural income of the previous year of every assessee subject to
tile exemptions which have been provided for under ss. 8, 9 and 16.
It is also clear that whereas the exemption in regard to the amount
actually spent for charitable purposes under s. 8 (1) is in relation to
the agricultural income of a public charitable trust, the exemption
of similar nature and extent contemplated by s. 16 is in regard to the
agrkultural income of any assessee who may not be a trustee owing
lands under a public charitable trust; in other words, in either case
the exemption is confined to such part of the agricultural income
which is actually spent by the assessee for charitable purposes. The
legislative intent of granting such a limited exemption having been
Y. thus clearly brought out by ss. 88(1) and 16 of the Act, the question
would be whether by enacting s. 9 the Legislature really intended to
accord or has actually accorded favourable treatment to Muslim
trusts in the matter of granting exemption in the manner suggested by
counsel for the appellant ?
Having regard to the submissions made by
counsel for
the
c
D
E
F
appellant the question raised for determination may be formulated
G
,
thus : Whether ss. 8 and 9 while providing for exemption to charitable or religious trusts discriminate between agricultural income derived from lands held under non··Muslim public ·trusts and those held
under Muslim trusts and accord to the latter a favourable treatment
as against the former by confining the exemption in the former case
to such income as has been actually spent for public purposes of
H
· ~ ,.
charitable or religious nature? In other words is s. 8 ( 1) which confers
a limited exemption as compared to s. 9 hit by Art. 14 ? It
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1979] 1 s.c.R.
has not been disputed before us that Muslim trusts known as W akfalal-aulad constitute a distinct class from other types of wakfs
but
the discrimination complained of is founded upon plea that s. 9 of
the Act covers all Musalman wakfs and not merely wakfs known as
the Wakf-alal-aulad and, therefoce, it will be necessary to examine
the pr\)visions of s. 9 in order to ascertain whether the plea
that
it covers all Mu!alman wakfs is warranted or not.
Section 9 in terms
says that the exeinptiou thereunder is confined
to Muslim trusts
"referred to in s. 3 of the Musalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913"
and the question is what wakfs are referred in s. 3 of the Musalman
Wakf Validating Act, 1913 (hereinafter called 'the Validating Act').
The Validating Act, as we shall indicate presently, was enacted only
for the purpose of validating wakfs in the nature of wakf-alal-aulad.
As has been pointed out by this Court in Fazlul Rabbi Pradhan v.
State of West Bengal and others,(') wakfs (which were primarily
family settlements) in which the benefits to charity or religion were
either illusory or postponed indefinitely while the. property so dedicated was being enjoyed from generation to generation by the family
of the wakif were regarded as opposed to the rule against perpetuity
as contained in the Indian Succession Act and the Transfer
of
Property Act.
The leading decision of the Privy Council in that
behalf rendered in Abul Fata Mahomed Ishak and Others v. Russomoy Dhur Chowdhery and Others,(') caused . considerable dissatisfaction in the Muslim community in India resulting in a representation
being made to the Government of India and consequently the Validating Act came to be enacted with the primary object of removing the
difficulties created by that decision.
The preamble of the Act makes ·
this very dear. Section 3 declares the right of a person professing
Musalman faith to create a wakf (which in all other respects is in
accordance with the provisions of Musalman law) for the maintenance
and support wholly or partially of his family, children or descendants
and in the case of a Hanafi Mussalman also for his own maintenance
and support during the life time or for payment of his debts out of
the rents of the property de.dicated provided that the ultimate benefit
is in such cases expressly or impliedly reserved for the poor or for
any other purpose recognised by the Musalman law as a religious,
pious or charitable purpose of a permanent character. Section 4
also declares that no such wakf as is referred to in s. 3 shall
b~ .
deemed to be invalid merely because of remoteness of
benefit
to
charity.
In fact, s. 3 s declaratory of a right of
a
Muslim
!o
(I) A. I. R. 1965 SC 1722.
(2) 22 Indian Appeals 76.
' J
I
"'\
\
\
MAHANT SRlN!VAS v. J.T.O. (Tulzapurkar, J.)
663
create a valid wakf of the type described therein and the proviso
makes it clear that but for the reservation of ultimate benefit to
charity that has to be made, such family settle111ent {private wakfs)
would be invalid. It is conceivable that a deed or instrument of
wakf may be a composite one, partly incorporating public wakf and
partly private wakf but s. 3 of the Validating Act unquestionably
refers to that part of the instrument which incorporates a private
wakf-wakf-alal-aulad, the vaildity of which must depend upon whether in that part of the instrument the ultimate benefit is expressly
or impliedly reserved for charitable or religious purposes or not. It
is thus ciear that s. 3 of the Validating Act refers only to Muslim
trusts which are in the nature of wakf-alal-aulad.
The exemption
in s. 9 of the Act, therefore, clearly applies only to Muslim trusts
which are in the nature of w.akf-alal-aulad.
This is also clear from
the marginal note to s. 9 as well as the proviso to the section.
If
that be so then all other wakfs would squarely fall under s. 8 { 1) and
to all such wakfs the limited exemption contemplated therein would
apply.
Even if the instrument of wakf is a composite one partly
incorporating a public wakf and partly a private wakf
that
part
which deals with public wakf will. fall under s. 8(1) and the other
part will be covered by s. 9, for, the language of s. 8(1) is wide
enough to include such a deed to the extent that it incorporates a
public wakf.
In other words, Muslim trusts i.e. walds other than
wakf-alal-aulad would be covered by s. (8) (1) and to such wakfs
the iimited exemption contemplated by s. 8(1) would apply. If that
be so, the gravamen of complaint that all walds (Muslim
trusts)
other than wakf-alal-aulad are receiving favourable
treatment
as
against non-Muslim public charitable trusts must fall tq the ground.
A
B
c
D
E
)'--
As regards Muslim trusts which are in the nature of wakf-alalF
au/ad which alone are covered by s. 9, the proviso clearly
show's
that the share of the beneficiary under such a trust far from being
exempted is brought to tax and the tax is made realisable from the
mutawali and read with the proviso the main provision really confines
the benefit of exemption only to ultimate illusory or remote public
charitable or religious purpose and is thus completely consistent with
G
the object and scheme of the Act.
In the result, we are clearly of the view that s. 8(1) of the A~t
is free from the vice of discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution and the said provision is perfectly valid and constitutional.
The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
S.R.
Appeal dismissed.