P L D 1959 W (PLP)
GHULAM FARID and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM FARID and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (GHULAM FARID and others‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act (XVI of 1951), S. 11 (2) Tenants under Government assessable as owners‑
Land revenue means land revenue assessed on similar land in same estate or assessment circle.
Judgment & Decree
S. 11 (2) Tenants under Government assessable as owners‑
Land revenue means land revenue assessed on similar land in same estate or assessment circle. Muhammad Akram for Petitioners. The Agricultural Income‑Tai levied on the petitioners is not in respect of their joint holding by the levy is individually made in respect of each individual holding. The demand has been created against the petitioners on account of the lands which they held as tenants under the Government. Tenants under the Government are assessable as owners under section 11 (2) of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1951. Such lands are not assessed to land revenue. It is, therefore, necessary that the land revenue in their case should mean the land revenue assessed on similar land in the same estate or assessment circle. It is not difficult to ascertain the amount of land revenue assessable on privately owned land in the locality, and I am sure the assessing authorities must have acted accordingly. The only other argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the land revenue cannot be described in such cases as payable in the previous year for purposes subsection (3) of section 2 of the same Act. The word used in the subsection are "payable with regard to the land of an owner". With reference to the definition of the word "owner" as extending to a tenant of Government Land, the words "payable with regard to the land" must be interpreted to mean an amount equal to an amount which would be payable for similar land. The Financial) Commissioners of the former Punjab Province decided in the case of an assigned land revenue of a particular village that they lands concerned were covered by the Act in spite of the fact that the land revenue was not actually paid nor was it actually demanded for purposes of payment. In the above circumstances, I hold that the assessment of Agricultural Income Tax on the petitioners is in accordance with the law. The petition for revision is consequently dismissed. K M A. Petition dismissed.