JUDGMENT N.U. Beg, J. - This is an appeal by one Nur Ilahi, who is a Zamindari Abolition Clerk, tehsil Ramsanehighat, in the district of Bara Banki. 2. The appellant moved a petition in this Court on the ground that he was a Government servant. The allegation of the petitioner was that he was assessed to tax by the District Board under Sec. 108 of the U.P. District Boards. Act, which empowers the District Board to levy tax on circumstances and property. Acting under this provision of law, it appears that the District Board levied tax on the salary received by the petitioner as a Government servant. The petitioner's case was that under Sec. 114 of the U.P. District Boards Act, the Government servants were altogether exempt from taxation by the District Board and the tax imposed upon him was, therefore, ultra vires as bad. 3. This petition was rejected by the learned Chief Justice. The ground of rejection was that the learned Counsel appearing in the case had conceded that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sheo Sahai Shukla v. District Board, Bara Banki, C.M.A. (O. J.) No. 19 of 1957 the petition in question had no force. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned single Judge, this appeal has been filed before a Bench. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied strongly on Sec. 114 of the U.P. District Boards Act. The relevant portion of Sec. 114 of the Act runs as follows:- "114. Imposition of tax on circumstances and property. - The power of a board to impose a tax on circumstances and property shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions, namely - (a) the tax may be imposed on any person residing or carrying on business in the rural area, provided that such person has so resided or carried on business for a total period of at least six months in the year under assessment. (The words "carrying on business" do not apply to service under the Government or a local body"). 5. (The words "carrying on business" do not apply to service under the Government or a local body"). 5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the last portion of Sec. 114, which states that "carrying on business" would not apply to service under the Government or a local body, would have the effect of excepting Government servants altogether from taxation in respect of the salary received by them as Government servants. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, we find it difficult to accept this interpretation on Sec. 114 of the U.P. District Boards Act. It appears to us to be obvious that under Sec. 114(a) in order to empower the District Board to levy a tax the assessee must either be residing in the rural area or carrying on business in the rural area. If one of the aforesaid conditions is fulfilled, the District Board's power to impose a tax on the assessee can be exercised. In the present case the petitioner was no doubt residing in the rural area. Under these circumstances, the District Board would have the power to levy tax on him, as he was a resident in the rural area. The effect of the amendment would be that he could not be taxed on the ground that he was carrying on business in the rural area, as he was a Government servant. If, for example, he was residing outside the rural area and has visited the rural area only in connection with his service as Government servant or as a servant of the local body, it could be argued that the effect of the amendment was that he could not be taxed on that ground. In the present case it is obvious that he was not taxed on the ground that he was carrying on business or that he was a Government servant or servant of any local body. He was taxed on the ground that he was a resident within the rural area. As a resident he would naturally be enjoying all the amenities provided by the District Board. There appears therefore, to be no reason why he should be exempt from taxation. The interpretation placed by us on this provision of law appears to be reasonable also. He was taxed on the ground that he was a resident within the rural area. As a resident he would naturally be enjoying all the amenities provided by the District Board. There appears therefore, to be no reason why he should be exempt from taxation. The interpretation placed by us on this provision of law appears to be reasonable also. For the above reasons we are not prepared to differ from the view taken in the single Judge judgment given by this Court in the case of Sheo Sahai Shukla v. The District Board, Bara Banki, C.M.A. (O. J.) No. 19 of 1957. 6. We are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. We accordingly dismiss it summarily.