Agricultural land valuation remains tied to actual user; later higher sale price alone does not convert it into non-agricultural land.

The land retained its agricultural character for valuation purposes, and a higher later sale price did not by itself justify treating it as non-agricultural. The Court held that prospective or potential future use may increase market value, but it does not alter the basic nature of land that remains recorded and used as agricultural land unless there is an actual change of user. On that basis, the Tribunal's valuation approach was sustained and both issues were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the valuation of the lands for the relevant assessment years; (ii) Whether the subsequent sale of the land at a higher rate justified treating the land as non-agricultural or altering its valuation basis.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the valuation of the lands for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The land had already been treated as agricultural land, and the Court followed its earlier view that the potential future use of land may affect price but does not alter its essential character. On that footing, the Tribunal's acceptance of the valuation approach adopted by the revenue authorities was examined in the light of the nature of the land and the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent sale of the land at a higher rate justified treating the land as non-agricultural or altering its valuation basis.

Analysis: The Court held that escalation in price, including a later sale at Rs.175 per square yard, does not by itself change the basic character of land that remains recorded and used as agricultural land. A prospective or possible change of user may increase value, but it does not convert the land into non-agricultural land absent an actual change of use.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the land retained its agricultural character and the Tribunal's view was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The potential or prospective use of land may affect its market value, but it does not alter the land's basic agricultural character unless there is an actual change of user.

---