1966 (8) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the estate for the purpose of estate duty?" The question arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in E.D.As. Nos. 12 and 18 of 1962-63, dated the 28th July, 1964. The estates concerned are those of Smt. Jayalakshmi Devi and Shri Madhava Rajah of Kollengode. The former died on the 6th March, 1954, and the latter, on the 9th May, 1955. The statement of the case deals with the order of the Appellate Tribunal in so far as it relates to this reference as follows: "The Tribunal permitted the accountable person to raise the contention that the value of the forest lands has to be excluded as they were agricultural lands. So far as this contention was concerned, the following facts were not in dispute, viz., that the fore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....excluded from the value of the assessable estate of the deceased." The area with which we are concerned was part of the Madras State till the 1st November, 1956. It became part of the Kerala State on that date. The estate duty in respect of agricultural land forms Entry 48 in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Estate Duty Act, 1953, being a Central enactment, did not apply to the Madras State until the issue of S.R.O. No. 1227 dated the 6th June, 1956. The S.R.O. reads as follows: "Whereas in pursuance of the provisions contained in clause (1) of article 252 of the Constitution a resolution has been passed by the Legislature of the State of Madras on the 2nd April, 1955, adopting the Estate D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r whether for the purpose of the relevant entries in Lists 2 and 3, Constitution Act, it will not be right to take into account the general character of the land (as agricultural land) and not the use to which it may be put at a particular point of time. It is difficult to impute to Parliament the intention that a piece of land should, so long as it is used to produce certain things, be governed by and descend according to laws framed under List 2, but that when the same parcel of land is used to produce something else (as often happens in this country), it should be governed by and descend according to laws framed under List 3." In Sarojini Devi v. Sri Krishna A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 401, 402, Patanjali Sastri J. said: "...It seems to....