AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 102 words
1.
We do not feel it necessary to interfere with the decision of the lower Court. The question whether land is or is not agricultural is largely a
question of fact and we consider that the term ''agricultural'' as used in proviso C to Section 3 of Act IV of 1938 must be read in the sense in
which it is used in the relevant section of the District Municipalities Act and not in any narrow sense which might be spelt out of the definition of
''agriculturist'' in Section 3(ii)(a) of Act IV of 1938.
2.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.