The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax vs A.R. Balaji and Another

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—The first respondent is the owner of urban land owning inter alia T.S. 9/2 (BK.65 Wd 1) measuring 1 ground and

1253 sq.ft. which has been let out to a school. The school itself is not run by the owner. A notice in Form 7 was issued to the owner for

enhancement of the urban land tax.

In reply to the notice, the urban land owner contended that the land on which the building stands is used for school purposes called Palaniappa

School, which is a Government recognised school and no tuition fees are being levied and he was therefore entitled to exemption u/s 29(h) of the

Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act, and, therefore, the proposed levy of urban land tax may be proposed

levy of urban land tax may be dropped. The Assistant Commissioner, Urban land tax, Madurai South, took the view that the owner was getting

rent from the school and therefore the urban land tax was assessable. The market value was fixed at Rs. 10,000 per ground.

An appeal came to be filed against this order before the Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The learned Subordinate Judge took the view that both

the conditions contemplated by Section 29(h) were satisfied, as the land was being used as a school, which was an institution recognised by the

Government. Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the owner was entitled to the benefit of Section 29(h) of the Act.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land tax, in this revision petition, has contended

that the exemption contemplated by Clause (h) of Section 29 of the Act is available only if the land belongs to the educational institution and is used

by the said institution for schools, colleges or Universities or for purposes directly connected with the education. On the other hand the learned

Counsel for the first respondent argued that the two limbs of Clause (h) of Section 29 of the Act are independent and distinct and are not

connected with each other and ownership of land by the educational institution becomes relevant only so far as the latter part of Clause (h) of

Section 29 of the Act is concerned. Section 29(h) in so far as it is relevant reads as follows-

Nothing in this Act shall apply to-

(h) any urban land used by schools, colleges or universities for purposes directly connected with education but not including any urban land owned

by such educational institution and -

(i) which is vacant or

(ii) in which buildings from which income is derived have been constructed.

Explanation 1: For the purposes of this clause, schools or colleges shall mean only such schools or colleges which are educational institutions

recognised either by the government or by the University, as the case may be.

Explanation 2: For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the urban land on which schools, colleges or universities or staff quarters or hostels

or other buildings used for the welfare of the students have been constructed and or used as play grounds attached to such schools, colleges or

universities, shall be deemed to be urban land used for the purposes of directly connected with education.

We are really not concerned with the Explanations 1 and 2, in view of the finding that the building on the land in question is used as a school. The

question for consideration is whether the first part of Clause (h) of Section 29 does not contemplate that the urban land must be owned by the

educational institution itself, and whether even if the land and the building is let out by the owner to an educational institution and used by the

educational institution for the purposes directly connected with the education the owner will be entitled to ask for exemption.

It is necessary to refer to the fact that Clause (h) in its present form was substituted for the original Clause (h) by Section 12(c) of the Tamil

Nadu Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act 1975. Original Clause (h) in Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1966 read as follows:

Any urban land on which any building being used for the purposes of schools, colleges or universities has been constructed and any urban land

appurtenant to such building and any urban land used for public parks, public libraries and public museums....

There is a vast difference between Clause (h) as it originally was and Clause (h) as it is now. All that was relevant under the original clause was

that, if on any urban land any building which was used for the purposes of schools, colleges or universities had been constructed, then that urban

land is under exemption contemplated u/s 29 of the Act. Under the original Clause (h) the question as to whether the educational institution was run

by the owner of the land or not was not relevant. A marked change is now brought about by the present Clause (h). Clause (h) of Section 29 has

two parts. The first part refers to urban land used by schools, colleges or universities for the purpose directly connected with the education and

exemption is granted in respect of such land. The latter part, however excludes any urban land owned by the educational institution which is vacant

or in which building from which income is derived has been constructed. Now when the latter part of Clause (h) of Section 29 of the Act which is

intended to be a clause of exclusion uses the words ''but not included'' it is obvious that, if the latter clause was not enacted, lands belonging to the

educational institutions which are vacant or on which building were constructed and from which income was derived would also have earned

exemption. The purpose of the clause of exclusion is not to make exemption available to land which is owned by the educational institutions, which

remains vacant or from which income is earned by letting out by the building built on such land. Both the parts of Clause (h) of Section 29 of the

Act have to be read together, since the latter part seeks to exclude from the general clause of exemption certain class of lands. If both the parts are

read together, it is clear that the urban land which is contemplated to be used for colleges, universities, etc., must be the land which is owned by

this educational institution and used for educational purposes. It is true that if the two clauses are read independent of each other, the construction

canvassed on behalf of the first respondent and which is accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge, would be permissible. However, the two

parts of Clause (h) of Section 29 of the Act, cannot be disjunctively read as both of them relate to conditions on which either exemption can be

earned or can be forfeited. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention that if an owner of the urban land leased out property which is

used for running a school it will be exempted from urban land tax merely on the ground that it was used for running a school. The anomalous result

which will result from accepting the argument of the learned Counsel for the first respondent is that, if an educational institution, which owns land,

constructs building on it, let it out and earned rent it will not get exemption even though the land is used for educational purposes, while an

individual urban land owner will get the exemption in similar circumstances, merely on the ground that the land is being used for educational

purposes even though he gets rent for it. Such an anomalous result must be avoided.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge deserves to be set aside. It is

accordingly set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Madurai, is restored. However, there will be no order as to

costs.