Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition the Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode, questions the validity of an order assessing his estate to pay the surcharge on land revenue. Against the provisional orders assessing the estate to surcharge of Rs. 3,115 for fasli 1364, Rs. 2,990.94 for fasli 1365, dated 21st March 1958 & 11th April 1958 respectively, under the Madras Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act 19 of 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), a writ petition was filed in O. P. No. 426 of 1958 and this Court directed the Collector to settle the accounts for the two faslis and pass a final order after giving the petitioner "therein an opportunity to file his objection. Accordingly the predecessor of the petitioner filed an objection on 24th July 1961. One of the objections raised by him was that the surcharge imposed on the entire amount of the assessment on all the lands in his possession was illegal as some only of the lands were cherikal lands appertaining to the sthanom of the Zamorin Raja and the other lands were lands belonging to the religious institutions and charitable endowments of which he was the trustee. It was also stated in that objection that separate accounts were maintained for cherikal lands and for each of the endowments and that separate assessments should be made. After considering the objections, the Collector has now passed the order evidenced by Ext. P-1 confirming the provisional assessments except for a sum of As. 5 regarding fasli 1364. It is this order of the Collector that is impugned in this petition. 2. It is clear from, the Act that the person who is liable to pay the surcharge is the landholder. The Zamorin Raja who holds lands as trustee of several legal entities having no connection with one another, should be regarded as a separate landholder for each of these entities and should be assessed to surcharge only if each of the entities is assessable to land revenue of Rs. 500 or more. If each of the entities of which Zamorin Raja is the trustee pays only land revenue less than the minimum, the Raja holding lands as trustee for that entity need not pay any surcharge for the lands so held. The Collector has, it seems, taken illustration No. 3 to S.3 as sub-section (3) to that section, & has proceeded on the assumption that the illustration is exhaustive. The Collector has, it seems, taken illustration No. 3 to S.3 as sub-section (3) to that section, & has proceeded on the assumption that the illustration is exhaustive. This is what the Collector has stated in his order Ext. P-1. "As per sub-section (3) to S.3 of the M.L.R. (S) Act the lands owned by educational institutions and chatrams are exempted from M.L.R. surcharge". This is a mistake. There is no sub-section to S.3. The illustration is meant only to illustrate the meaning of the section. It has nothing to do with the question as to which among the charitable institutions are liable to surcharge. It appears to me to be clear from a reading of the relevant sections that the claim of the petitioner that he should be assessed separately in respect of the lands held by him in his several capacities is well-founded. Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon, on behalf of the petitioner, has also raised before me several other objections to the assessment. He has submitted that the persons liable to pay the surcharge in respect of the lands in the possession of customary verumpattomdars and kanamdars are the tenants holding under such tenures and therefore the petitioner should not have been assessed in respect of those lands. I do not pause to pass upon that question as it appears that the said objection was not raised in the objection petition filed by the petitioner's predecessor. Since I am setting aside Ext. P-1 and directing a fresh assessment it will be open to the Collector to consider the various objections of the petitioner as regards the assessment of the petitioner to surcharge. 3. I set aside Ex. P-1 order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order of assessment after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his objections and for substantiating them. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated. I make no order as to costs.