# STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS v. RAJA nTENDRA SINGH

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 99
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 310 of 1960
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikiu, A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uitar-pradesh-ors-v-raja-ntendra-singh-5645
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Lar11e fand Ho/din[l3 Tax Act No. 31 of 1951 and Rules
mad• thereund•l<-Rule 6-A coming into force 011 23 AprU 1958-RJ.le
whether app/ir.able to assessment year 1365 Fasli-Jurisdiction of High
Court in ntatter of construction of Rule.
C
The Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1357
came into force on I July 1957. The Rules under the Act were pub!Wied in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23 November 1957.
Rule
6-A was added to the Rules by an·amendment on 23 April 1958. Rule
6-A states that where any land holdings has been legally sub-let by a
disabled landholder mentioned in sub-section ( !) of section 157 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the holdina tax
D
rJlall be remitted to the extent of thar chargeable on the land sub-Jet if
ita annual value was arrived at by mul~~ng the rent by 10}. The
respondent was prior to the abolition of
indari in Uttar Pradesh, the
Raja of properties consistlru! of 28 villages in District Rai Bareilly. He
was a mmor till 3 Mal'ch 1°§58 and attained majority on 4 March 1958.
The properties were under the management of the Court of Warda from
1945 to 1953, and, thereafter, under the management of the District
Judge Rai Bareilly up to 4 March 1958. On I April, 1958, the Tax
E
Assessment Officer sttved a notice, under s. 7(2) of the 1957 Act on
the respondent, for the assessment Fasli year 1365 commencing on 1 July
1951 and ending on 30 June, 1958. The respondent filed a return ana
claimed benefit of exemption under Rule 6-A of the said Rules in respect of land which had been sub-let to tensnts under the order of the
Court of Wards and the District Judge when the respondent's pl'operties
were under their management. The claim was rejected. The Commissioner in appeal held that Rule 6-.A was not applicable to assessment for
F
t~ year 1365 Fasli year. The writ petition filed by the respondent challel)glnf the. Commi88ioner's order was allowed by the Sinale Judge.
~n
lll'Pt• by special leave the State contended before
this Court that (1)
'111e tax was to 'be assessed on the armuaJ value of the landholding as on
1 Jillv 1957, and,' in as much as Rule f>.A did not come into existence on I
!u!y. 1957, the respondent waa not entitled to the benefit of the rule; (ii).
l\l!le 6-A was not applicable because it was not proved that the llllld was
la#Qlly. sub-let; (iii) The High Court was wrong in issu\na the writ. !>"
G
the sround of mi~onstructlon of Rule 6-A by the assess10g autbonties
because it was not a petent error.
•HeJd: (i) (a) Rule 6-A is to be l'ead with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
Act. Assessme11t was for the entire agricqJtural year from 1 July 1957
~
30 June 195&. The land whii:h had been lawfully sub·let by the
Olllrt of Ward, and the District Judge could not be in the pooseooi()ll of
the resPQDdent in the &WSlilllent year. Therefore, in assesain& the IJ.Dct
W hol~for the year 1365 Fasli, th: respondent wss entitled to claim "-'"
jt,
Rule 6-A in respect of land which had been legally sub-let. The
fact tb.ilt! he beaime a major from 4 March 1958 did not deprive hlm of'
the benefit. u 02 J>.FJ
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
(b) The Act came into force on 1 July 1957.
The assessmeat was
A
to be made for the year commencing 1 July 1957. Rules were made
under s. 29 of the Act.
Rules, obviously· came into existence subsequent
to the Act coming into force.
Rules
are procedural.
Rules relate to
assessments. The assessment is for the '1'ntire year. The assessment in
the particular instance was made after Rule 6-A came into force.
Tile
assessment was pursuant to notice which was delivered on 1 April 1958.
The assessment was for the whole year ending 30 June 1958. Therefore,
B
Rule 6-A would be applicable to the assessment which was not only pending but would be upto 30 June, 1958 within ·which period the rule became
effective for the assessment yea~. The contention that Rule 6-A was not
made retrospective and therefore did not apply for an assessme

## Text

A
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS.
v.
RAJA nTENDRA SINGH
January 18, 1972
99
B
[S. M. SIKIU, C.J., A. N. RAY AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
U.P. Lar11e fand Ho/din[l3 Tax Act No. 31 of 1951 and Rules
mad• thereund•l<-Rule 6-A coming into force 011 23 AprU 1958-RJ.le
whether app/ir.able to assessment year 1365 Fasli-Jurisdiction of High
Court in ntatter of construction of Rule.
C
The Uttar Pradesh Large Land Holdings Tax Act No. 31 of 1357
came into force on I July 1957. The Rules under the Act were pub!Wied in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23 November 1957.
Rule
6-A was added to the Rules by an·amendment on 23 April 1958. Rule
6-A states that where any land holdings has been legally sub-let by a
disabled landholder mentioned in sub-section ( !) of section 157 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 the holdina tax
D
rJlall be remitted to the extent of thar chargeable on the land sub-Jet if
ita annual value was arrived at by mul~~ng the rent by 10}. The
respondent was prior to the abolition of
indari in Uttar Pradesh, the
Raja of properties consistlru! of 28 villages in District Rai Bareilly. He
was a mmor till 3 Mal'ch 1°§58 and attained majority on 4 March 1958.
The properties were under the management of the Court of Warda from
1945 to 1953, and, thereafter, under the management of the District
Judge Rai Bareilly up to 4 March 1958. On I April, 1958, the Tax
E
Assessment Officer sttved a notice, under s. 7(2) of the 1957 Act on
the respondent, for the assessment Fasli year 1365 commencing on 1 July
1951 and ending on 30 June, 1958. The respondent filed a return ana
claimed benefit of exemption under Rule 6-A of the said Rules in respect of land which had been sub-let to tensnts under the order of the
Court of Wards and the District Judge when the respondent's pl'operties
were under their management. The claim was rejected. The Commissioner in appeal held that Rule 6-.A was not applicable to assessment for
F
t~ year 1365 Fasli year. The writ petition filed by the respondent challel)glnf the. Commi88ioner's order was allowed by the Sinale Judge.
~n
lll'Pt• by special leave the State contended before
this Court that (1)
'111e tax was to 'be assessed on the armuaJ value of the landholding as on
1 Jillv 1957, and,' in as much as Rule f>.A did not come into existence on I
!u!y. 1957, the respondent waa not entitled to the benefit of the rule; (ii).
l\l!le 6-A was not applicable because it was not proved that the llllld was
la#Qlly. sub-let; (iii) The High Court was wrong in issu\na the writ. !>"
G
the sround of mi~onstructlon of Rule 6-A by the assess10g autbonties
because it was not a petent error.
•HeJd: (i) (a) Rule 6-A is to be l'ead with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the
Act. Assessme11t was for the entire agricqJtural year from 1 July 1957
~
30 June 195&. The land whii:h had been lawfully sub·let by the
Olllrt of Ward, and the District Judge could not be in the pooseooi()ll of
the resPQDdent in the &WSlilllent year. Therefore, in assesain& the IJ.Dct
W hol~for the year 1365 Fasli, th: respondent wss entitled to claim "-'"
jt,
Rule 6-A in respect of land which had been legally sub-let. The
fact tb.ilt! he beaime a major from 4 March 1958 did not deprive hlm of'
the benefit. u 02 J>.FJ
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
(b) The Act came into force on 1 July 1957.
The assessmeat was
A
to be made for the year commencing 1 July 1957. Rules were made
under s. 29 of the Act.
Rules, obviously· came into existence subsequent
to the Act coming into force.
Rules
are procedural.
Rules relate to
assessments. The assessment is for the '1'ntire year. The assessment in
the particular instance was made after Rule 6-A came into force.
Tile
assessment was pursuant to notice which was delivered on 1 April 1958.
The assessment was for the whole year ending 30 June 1958. Therefore,
B
Rule 6-A would be applicable to the assessment which was not only pending but would be upto 30 June, 1958 within ·which period the rule became
effective for the assessment yea~. The contention that Rule 6-A was not
made retrospective and therefore did not apply for an assessment
for
Fasli 1365 was devoid of merit. r102 H-103 Cl
(ii) Jn the High Court, the State did not dispute the legality of subletting. It was, therefore, not open to the State to raise the contention c
that the land had not been legally sub-let. f103 D1
(iii) The respondent raised a contention as to the application of Rule
6-A. This is a question of construction of the statute and rules in
respect of assessment.
The High Court was
justified in
issuing u.e
writ. [103 El
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 238 of
D
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 9,
1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 310
of 1960.
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant.
J. P. Goyal and R. A. Gupta, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 9 February, 1965 of the High Court at Allahabad F
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 Holdlngs Rules,
G
1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) .
. The respondent ·Raja was prior to the abolition of 1.amindari
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 re5pondent was a minor
.till 3 March, 1958 and he attained majority on 4 March, 1958. H
The properties were under the management of the Court of Wards
from 1945 to 1953 and thereafter under the management of the
District Judge, Rae Bareli up to 4 March, 1958.
U.P. STATE V. JlTENDRA SINGH (Ray, ],)
l 01
A
O:n 1 April, 1958 the Tax Assessment Officer, Maharajganj
Sub-Division served a notice under section 7(2) of the 1957 Act
on the respondent for the assessment Fasli year 1365 oommencing on 1 July, 1957 and ending on 30 June, 1958. The respondent was required by thci said notice to file a return for the agricultural year of the land holding of the respondent. The responB dent filed a return and clainled 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 July, 1958 the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Maharajganj being the Assessing Officer dismissed
the
c respondent's claun 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 respo.ndent should
have been Rs .. 34,274-6-10 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
D September, 1958 the Commissioner held that rule 6-A was not
applicable to assessment of tax for the 1365 Fasli year.
E
F
The respondent thereafter on 29 September, 1958 filed a
writ yetition in the High Court at Allahabad challenging the
validity of the Act and for quashing the assessment orders.
The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 2c;
February,' 1960 held that the Act was valid and allowed the writ
petition in part by holding that the respondent was entiled to the
benefit of rule 6-A and therefpre qu~hed the assessment order.
The State filed an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appear
and upheld the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Counsel on behalf of the State raised three contentions. First,
it was said that tax was to be assessed on the annual value of
land holding as on 1 July, 1957 and inasmuch rule 6-A did not
come into existence on i July, 1957 the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the rule. Secondly, it was said that rule
6-A was not at all applicable because it was not proved that the
G land was lawfully sub-let. Thirdly, it was said that the Hig!J
Court was wrong in issuing the writ on the ground of mis-construction 0£ rule 6-A by the assessing authorities because it was
not a patent error.
The 1957 Act came into force on 1 July, 1957. Section 2'i
H
of the Act empowered the State Governnient to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rules were published
in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 23 November, 1957.
Rule 6-A was added to the Rules by an amendment on 23 April,
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
1958. The contention on behalf of the State was that because A
rule 6-A was not made retrospective with effect from 1 July 1957
.but that rule 6-A came into existence on 23 April 195S
the
.said ~e would not be applicable in respect of asse'ssmcnt' commencmg 1 July, 1957. This contention is unacceptable as it is
unsound.
Under section 3 of the Act holding tax at the rate&
specified in the Schedule of the Act is levied for the agricultural B
_year on the annual value of each land holding. Section 4 of the
Act defines 'land holding'. Section 5 of the Act deals with annual
value of the land. Rule 6-A states that where any land holding
has been legally sub-let by a disabled land-holder mentioned in
sub-section ( 1) of section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 19 50 the holding tax shall be remitted
to the extent of that chargeable on the land sublet if its annual C
value were arrived at by multiplying the rent payable by lOt.
The respondent was a disabled land-holder within the meaning of
section 157 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950. The land had been lawfully sub-let while the properties
were under the management of the Court of Wards and thereafter
the District Judge. The contention of the appellant that the resD
pondent became a major on 4 March', 1958 and therefore.he could
not get benefit of the rule is untenable.
Rul~ 6-A refers to land
which has beein legally sub-let. Therefore; the sub-letting must be
anterior to the making of the rule on. 23 April, 1958. The entire
fallacy of the appellant is that to make rule 6-A effective from
23 April, 1958 would be to rob rule 6-A of its extent and content
in respect of· assessment. Rule 6-A is to be read with sections 3, E
4 and 5 of the Act. The assessment was for the entire agricultural
year from 1 July, 1957 up to 30 June, 1958. Tiie land whii:h
had been lawfully sub-let could not be in the possession of the respondent in the assessment year. Therefore in assessing the land
holding for the year 1365 Fasli the respondent was entitled to
claim benefit under Rule 6-A in respect of land which had been p
1egally sub-let.
Rules are made for carrying out the purposes of the Act. One
of the purposes is to assess the land holding for the agricultural
year. Rules are in regard to filing of the return and manner and
mode of computation of annual value. Exemption under rule 6-A
is a benefit in relation to assessment by reason of the process ol G
computing the valuation of land holding.
The contention on behalf of the State that Rule 6-A was not
made retrospective and therefore it does not apply is devoid of
merit.
To accede to the contention of the State would mean that
the rules which came into existence on 23 November, 1957 W9lJ\d
not at all the applicable to the assessment which commenced on ff
1 July, 1957. That would be am absurd position. The Act came
into force on 1 July, 1957. The assessment was to be made for the
U.P. STATE v. JITENDRA SINGH (Ray, J.)
I 03
A year commencing 1 July, 1957. Rules were made under section
29 of the Act. Rules obviously came into existence subsequent
to the Act coming into force. Rules are procedural. Rules relate
to the assessments. The assessment is for the entire year. The
assessment in the particular instance was made after rule 6-A
came into effect. The assessment was pursuant to notice which
B was delivered on 1 April, 1958. The assessment was for the whole
year ending 30 June, 1958. Therefore, rule 6-A would be applicable to the assessment which was not only pending but would be
up to 30 June, 1958 within which period the rule became effective
for the assessment year. It is also important to notice that the
benefit under rule 6-A enures to the land holding which has been
C legally sub-let. The land holding fulfils that character during the
assessment year with the resulf that rule 6-A is attracted by the
quality of land for quantifying the assessment.
The second contention of the State that the land had not been
legally sub-let cannot be entertained. In the High Court the State
did noi dispute the lel!ality of sub-Jetting. It is, therefore, not
D open to the State to raise that contention. .
The third contention of the State that there is no patent error
and therefore the High Court was wrong in issuing a writ is un·
a~table. The respondent Raja raised a contention as to the
application of rule 6-A. This is a question of construction of the
-~
statute and rules in respect of assessment. · The High Court was
E justified in issuing the writ.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.