Skip to content


King Emperor Vs. Alexander Allan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ393
AppellantKing Emperor
RespondentAlexander Allan
Cases ReferredMurugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - ' we believe that we cannot do better than follow these definitions in attempting to decide what for the purposes of sub-section 3 of section 63 of the municipalities act are or are not lands used solely for agricultural purposes. clearly drawn to this question when the case was before the magistrates and that if opportunity be given to his client he will be able to put 'forward fuller and clearer evidence as to how this waste land is really used. ) delivered the following 8. the further evidence shows clearly that the 44 acres odd regarding which we had some doubt are pasture lands, arid the learned public prosecutor does not dispute the fact......waste.' mr. barton on behalf of mr. allan has urged before us that these so-called waste lands are pasture lands and as such should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes. turning again to the definition of the word 'agricultural' which we have accepted, we find that agricultural lands include lands set apart as 'pasture ground only' and also lands used for 'rearing live stock.' if, therefore, it could be shown that these so-called waste lands were in reality pasture grounds or lands used for rearing lire stock, we should certainly decide that they were lands used solely for agricultural purposes. we cannot, however, hold on the evidence on the record that it has been shown that they are so used. all that we can find in the papers sent up bearing on the question as to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an appeal preferred on behalf of Government from a judgment of the Bench of Magistrates in Ootacamund acquitting the defendant Mr. Allan who had been prosecuted by the Municipality under Section 103 of the Madras Municipalities Act (IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of 1897).

2. The only question which has arisen for decision at the hearing of this appeal is as to whether all or any portion of the lands owned by Mr. Allan, the details as to which are given in Exhibit D, should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes and as such exempted from the enhanced rates of taxation that may be imposed in certain cases under Section 68, Sub-section 3 of the Madras Municipalities Act.

3. The expression 'agricultural' is not defined in the Act. The only decisions of this Court to which our attention has been drawn in which an attempt has been made to define the word 'agricultural,' are the case of Kunhayen Haji v. Mayan I.L.R. 17 M. 98 where it was held that a lease of a coffee garden or a lease of certain coffee plants in a garden, for as to this the judgment is not very clear, is not an agricultural lease within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the judgment in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan I.L.R. 24 M. 421 in which it has been decided that a lease of land for betel cultivation should be held to be an agricultural lease in so far as that section is concerned.

4. On referring to the Agricultural Rates Act (59 and 60 Vic. Ch. 16) passed in 1896 for the purpose of exempting the occupiers of agricultural lands in England from paying as high rates on. such lands as those levied on buildings and other hereditaments, we observe (Section 9) that 'agricultural land' is there denned as follows: - 'The expression 'agricultural land' means any ' land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage 'gardenis exceeding one quarter of an acre, market gardens, 'nursery grounds, orchards, or allotments, but does not include a 'land occupied together with a house as a park, gardens, other 'than as aforesaid, pleasure grounds, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation, or land used as a race-course.'

5. We also find that in the Oxford English Dictionary edited by Dr. J.A.H. Murray, which is admitted to be the standard authority in such matters, agriculture is defined as follows: - The science 'and art of cultivating that soil, including the allied pursuits of' gathering in the crops and rearing live stock; tillage, husbandry 'farming (in the widest sense).'

6. We also note that it is there pointed out that the restriction of the word 'agriculture' to tillage, as in the following quotation, is rare. 'The lands were not fields for agriculture but pasture for cattle.' We believe that we cannot do better than follow these definitions in attempting to decide what for the purposes of sub-Section 3 of Section 63 of the Municipalities Act are or are not lands used solely for agricultural purposes. Referring-, again to Exhibit D we have no hesitation in holding that lands on which potatoes, grain, vegetables, etc., are grown are lands used solely for agricultural purposes. We do not consider that any distinction can be drawn between large and small plots of lands on which roots or grain are cultivated. All such land must be held to be land used solely for agricultural purposes. We have next to consider the lands over 40 acres in extent entered in Exhibit D 'as waste.' Mr. Barton on behalf of Mr. Allan has urged before us that these so-called waste lands are pasture lands and as such should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes. Turning again to the definition of the word 'agricultural' which we have accepted, we find that agricultural lands include lands set apart as 'pasture ground only' and also lands used for 'rearing live stock.' If, therefore, it could be shown that these so-called waste lands were in reality pasture grounds or lands used for rearing lire stock, we should certainly decide that they were lands used solely for agricultural purposes. We cannot, however, hold on the evidence on the record that it has been shown that they are so used. All that we can find in the papers sent up bearing on the question as to how these lands are used is the following statement of the defendant Mr. Allan: - 'Nos. 117, 118, 119 and 120 are in the occupation of Mrs. Reynolds; defendant receives no rent. Mrs. Reynolds pays the Government quit-rent; he uses it for grazing.' If this is all the evidence that is forthcoming as to how the lands are used, we should most certainly hold that they are not 'pasture grounds' or 'lands used for rearing live stock,' It is however urged by Mr. Barton that attention was not; clearly drawn to this question when the case was before the Magistrates and that if opportunity be given to his client he will be able to put 'forward fuller and clearer evidence as to how this waste land is really used. As it is most inadvisable that we should decide this, question, which is one of some general importance, in a case in which all the evidence available as to the manner in which the lands are used is not on the record, we, under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, send back the case to the Bench of Magistrates and direct them to take such further evidence as may be put forward by the Municipality and Mr. Allan as to the purposes for which the land shown in Exhibit D as waste is used, the fullest details possible being given, and to submit the same for the consideration of this Court.

7. On further evidence being taken and sent up, their Lordships (Davies and Moore, JJ.) delivered the following

8. The further evidence shows clearly that the 44 acres odd regarding which we had some doubt are pasture lands, arid the learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact. That being so, it follows from the views we have already expressed that the land is land used solely for agricultural purposes and is therefore exempt from taxation.

9. This appeal is therefore dismissed. Ordered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //