D. Palanichamy Pillai vs Agricultural Income Tax Officer and Another

Bakthavatsalam, J.—These writ petitions have been directed against the order dated June 12, 1981, passed by the second respondent

rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders of the first respondent for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, u/s 34 of the

Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955.

The petitioner himself has applied u/s 65(1) of the Act for compounding and on that basis assessments have been made. Against the orders of

assessment, the petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional authority has verified the records and found that the assessee did not apply for

reducing the holdings in Form No. VIII-B and that he agreed to be assessed along with the lands purchased by the wives. The Assessing Officer

has assessed the property of Smt. Velammal with that of the petitioner and his wife, Murugayammal, on the ground that both the ladies and the

petitioner are commonly enjoying the property and that the petitioner had already given his consent for inclusion of the lands in the names of the

two wives for purposes of assessment in his name.

It seems that pattas have been issued separately to Velammal and Murugayammal stating that they are the wives of the petitioner. Since the

petitioner himself has committed to the fact that the lands are all enjoyed under one roof, I do not see any error in the order impugned. The

question of splitting of the acreage based on the actual extent enjoyed by the individuals has to be considered by the authorities only if the petitioner

applies for the reduction of his holding. The other point raised by the petitioner is that Velammal is not his legally wedded wife. But, unfortunately,

the petitioner himself has given his option to include the entire lands for the assessment u/s 65 of the Act. When the petitioner himself has given his

consent for the inclusion of the entire extent of lands, as per the well-settled principles laid down by this court with regard to the scope of section

65 of the Act, the petitioner cannot now wriggle out from the stand taken by him. As such, I do not find any error apparent to be corrected by

issuing writs of certiorari as prayed for. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.