ORDER
Chandurkar, C.J.
1. In S.No. 328/2 in Velacherri village, the respondent has premises which is non-residential in character inasmuch as it is used for storing and packing of crackers. The total extent of 1.11 acres was assessed to Urban Land Tax. He filed an appeal against this order and the contention raised before the Tribunal was that S.No. 328/2 undoubtedly consisted of a building which was used for packing crackers but since the surrounding land which was required to be left vacant under the terms of the licence issued under the Explosives Act was not capable of being used for building purposes, the said area within a radius of 59 metres should have been excluded for the purpose of assessment. The Tribunal accepted this contention and held that 59 metres radius land has to be left without any building and, therefore, no building could be put up in the prohibited area and, therefore, that area has to be exempted for the purpose of Urban Land Tax. This order is now challenged by the Assistant Commissioner in this revision petition.
2. The contention of the Government Advocate is that though the definition of 'urban land' refers to land which is capable of being used as a building site, that part of the definition was not relevant for the purpose of determining the urban land in question. It is argued that since the land had to be compulsorily left open for the purpose of proper enjoyment of the premises which was used for storing and packing crackers, that land would fall within the latter part of the definition of 'urban land' as the open land must be treated as being appurtenant to the premises used for storing and packing crackers.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owner has contended that when in the inclusive definition of 'urban land', the word 'ground' is used, that word must be read in the context of the definition of 'ground' in Section 2(8-A) of the Urban Land Tax Act and that only 2,400 sq.ft of land could have been assessed to Urban Land Tax.
4. The definition of 'urban land' in Section 2(13) reads as follows:
'Urban land' means any land which is used or is capable of being used as a building site and includes garden or grounds, if any, appurtenant to a building but does not include any land which is registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet crops.
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, any site on which any building has been constructed shall be deemed to be urban land.
5. This definition, therefore clearly contemplates that 'urban land' includes any land which is appurtenant to a building though it also excludes any land which is registered as wet in the revenue accounts of the Government and used for the cultivation of wet crops. Now, when definition of 'urban land' refers to land which is capable of being used as a building site, that part of the definition cannot be torn from the context and the definition has to be read as a whole. The effect of reading the definition of 'urban land' as a whole will be that urban land will include garden or grounds, if any, appurtenant to a building.
6. The licence under Rule 6(3) of the Rule s under the Explosives Act has been produced before the Assistant Commissioner and it clearly contemplates that in or around the factory or the building in respect of which a licence has been issued, a distance of 59 metres has to be maintained all around. Therefore, this land which is of an extent 59 metres all around is clearly land which is necessary for the enjoyment of the benefit of the building. That is the area which has been statutorily fixed as necessary for using the building for the purpose of storing or packing of crackers. In that sense, it will become land which is appurtenant to the building as this appurtenance is required to be statutorily maintained. The definition of 'ground' does not have the effect of restricting the liability of appurtenant land referred to in Section 2(13) to tax only to the extent of one ground. Primarily that definition has relevance to the determination of the quantum of total urban land liable to tax and the rate of which tax is to levied as specified in the Schedule to the Act. The definition of 'ground' as meaning an area comprising of 223 square metres (2400 sq. ft) does not fit in the context in which the definition of 'urban land' is used in so far as the inclusive part of the definition is concerned. The use of 'garden or grounds' was made to indicate the nature of land which was intended to be included for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of urban land as contemplated by the Act.
7. It is clear that notwithstanding that the area in dispute to the extent of 59 meter radius cannot be used as a building site, though specifically falls under the first part of the definition, it will stand included in the inclusive part of the definition as grounds appurtenant to the main building. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in excluding that area for the purpose of levy of Urban Land Tax. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner is restored.
8. The revision petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above because so far as the market value is concerned, that was not the subject matter of the revision petition. No costs.