JUDGMENT Walmsley, J. - This reference raises the question of the liability of mutation nazarana to income tax. 2.The referring Judges are unable to agree with the view taken in the case of Birendra Kishor Manikya v. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 67; 48 Cal. 766. In that case it was held chat the premium paid for the settlement of waste land or abandoned holdings is not liable, but that the premium paid for recognition of a transfer of a non-transferable occupancy holding from one tenant to another is liable. 3. I was one of the three Judges who delivered that decision and I find that I am in a minority on this Bench. In the absence of any fresh arguments it is enough for me to say that I adhere to the opinion expressed in that judgment for the reasons there given. Greaves J. 4. The question which arises for the decision of the Full Bench is, whether nazar or salami paid by a tenant to a landlord for the recognition of the transfer of a non-transferable holding is rent or revenue within the meaning of the expression as it occurs in section 2 (i) (a) of the Indian income tax Act, XI of 1922. This question arose for the decision of the Court in the case of Birevdra Kishor Manikya v. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 67; 48 Cal. 766 and it was there decided that such payments were assessable to income tax. Doubts having been raised as to the correctness of that decision the matter has been referred to the Full Bench. Agricultural income is not assessable to income tax under the income tax Act, in which Act such income is defined as rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and is either assessed to land revenue in British India or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of Government as such and the land in the present case in respect of which nazar was paid was a part of a permanently settled estate which is subject to road cess. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel who appeared for the Secretary of State that nazar is revenue, but he argues that although it is revenue it is not revenue derived from land but from the transaction, that is, from the recognition of the transfer and that it is an incident of the transfer and not of the tenancy and therefore does not flow from the land. 5. In the case of Birendra Kishor Manikya v. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 67; 48 Cal. 766, the learned Judge who delivered the judgment of the Court referred to the definition of revenue in the Oxford Dictionary as "the return, yield, or profit of any land, property or other important source of income; that which comes into one as a return from property or possessions, specially of an extensive kind; income from any source specially when large and not directly earned." 6. The conclusion seems to me irresistible that if it is admitted, as I think it is rightly admitted, that nazar is revenue, it is profit of the land and that it flows therefrom or from the ownership thereof but in Birendra Kishor Manikya v. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 67; 48 Cal. 766, it is said that this is not so and that it cannot be deemed the return, yield, or profit of any land, but that it is money paid by the transferee to the landlord to purchase peace, so that he may not contest the validity of the transfer. 7. This no doubt is true, but it seems to me to ignore another aspect altogether, namely, that it is money which comes to the landlord by virtue of the fact that he is the owner of the land. Viewed in this light it clearly is derived from the land and is agricultural income within the definition thereof contained in the income tax Act and as such exempt from assessment to income tax under that Act. 8. Viewed in this light it clearly is derived from the land and is agricultural income within the definition thereof contained in the income tax Act and as such exempt from assessment to income tax under that Act. 8. I would therefore answer the question referred to the Full Bench by saying that nazar or salami paid by a tenant to a landlord for the recognition of a non-transferable holding is rent or revenue within the meaning of the expression as it occurs in section 2 (i) (a) of the Indian income tax Act, XI of 1922 and that it is exempt from assessment to income tax by virtue of the provisions of section 4(3) (viii) of the same Act. 9. It follows that in my view the decision in Birendra Kiskor Manikya v. Secretary of State for India 1 ITC 67; 48 Cal. 766 in so far as, it holds to the contrary is not correct. 10. This judgment will be forwarded to the Commissioner of income tax. C.C. Ghose, J. 11. I agree with my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves, in the view which he has taken. B.B. Ghose, J. 12. I agree in the opinion expressed by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves. Mukerji, J. 13. I also agree in the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Mr. Justice Greaves.