Agricultural Land Exemption Burden: Forest land with natural growth is not exempt without proof of agricultural character.

Forest land covered with spontaneous natural growth is not "agricultural land" for estate duty purposes merely because it may later be capable of cultivation. The statutory expression must be read in context, and land remains non-agricultural unless there is evidence of clearing, preparation, setting apart, or actual agricultural use. A claim to exemption on the basis of agricultural land is an exemption claim, so the burden of proof lies on the accountable person. On the facts, the lands were used as forest land for timber and fuel wood, no agricultural character was shown, and inclusion in the assessable estate was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether forest lands covered with spontaneous and natural growth were "agricultural land" within the meaning of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and therefore outside the assessable estate. (ii) Whether the burden of proving that such lands were agricultural land lay on the accountable person or on the revenue.

Issue (i): Whether forest lands covered with spontaneous and natural growth were "agricultural land" within the meaning of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 and therefore outside the assessable estate.

Analysis: The expression "agricultural land" in a taxing statute must be construed in its statutory context and not in the widest possible sense. Land that is merely capable of future agricultural use is not enough. Forest land with natural growth is prima facie non-agricultural unless there is evidence that it has been cleared, prepared, set apart, or otherwise linked to agricultural use. On the record, no such evidence existed, and the land remained forest land exploited only for timber and fuel wood.

Conclusion: The lands were not agricultural land and were liable to be included in the assessable estate.

Issue (ii): Whether the burden of proving that such lands were agricultural land lay on the accountable person or on the revenue.

Analysis: A claim that property is exempt from estate duty on the footing that it is agricultural land is a claim to an exemption, and the burden to establish that exemption lies on the accountable person. The admission that the lands were forest lands covered with wild growth supplied evidence against agricultural character, and no evidence was adduced to show any change of character or preparation for agriculture.

Conclusion: The burden lay on the accountable person, and it was not discharged.

Final Conclusion: The inclusion of the forest lands in the estate for duty was upheld, the High Court's view was reversed, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In estate duty matters, forest land with natural growth is not agricultural land merely because it may be capable of future cultivation; exemption must be proved by the accountable person through evidence showing actual or intended agricultural use or preparation.

---