JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The short question arising for determination in these writ applications is whether the Kerala Plantations (Additional Tax) Act, 17 of 1960, (hereinafter called the Act) can be applied to the lands over which, it is alleged, the petitioners have a leasehold right, they having taken the lands on lease from the Government, who admittedly owns these lands. The arguments advanced are two fold. Firstly, it is suggested that by virtue of the provisions in the Act itself, it is clear that there is no intention whatever to impose the tax on Government lands and the Act is therefore not applicable to such lands. Secondly, it is urged , that it is a well known principle that unless there be an express provision or such that by necessary implication indi­cates a clear intention to tax the State it should not be assumed that there was any such intent. 2. These arguments have to be examined. But before I do so, I may refer to the relevant Sections of the Act. The preamble says that the purpose is the levy of an additional tax on 'plantations' in the State of Kerala. 'Plantation' is defined as land used for growing one or more of the following:- (i) coconut trees; (ii) arecanut trees; (iii) rubber plants; (iv) coffee plants; (v) tea plants: (vi) cardamom plants; (vii) pepper vines and the charging Section reads thus: 3. (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act for every financial year com­mencing on and from the first day of April, 1960, there shall be charged in respect of the lands comprised in plantations held by a person on the corresponding valuation date an additional tax (hereafter referred to as 'plantation tax') at the rates specified in Schedule I; and the person holding such plantations shall be liable to pay the plantation tax. (2) The plantation tax assessed under this Act shall be payable by the assessee for every financial year until the extent of plantations held by him is revised and the plantation tax is assessed on the basis of the revised extent under sub-s.(3), and from the financial year immediately following the revision the plantation tax assessed on the basis of such revision shall be payable." I am leaving out sub-ss.(3) and (4) of S.3, as they are not material for the purpose of these cases. Then follows sub-s.(5) on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioners, reading as under: "(5) The tax charged under this section shall be in addition to the basic tax payable in respect of those lands under the Land Tax Act, 1955". 3. Tax has been made payable by an 'assessee' and an 'assessee' has been defined as 'a person by whom plantation tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act, and includes every person in respect of whom any proceeding under this Act has been taken for the assessment of plantation tax payable by him.' It has been made obligatory on every person by S.4 who on the first day of Sept­ember, 1960, holds five acres or more in extent of plantations in the aggregate to furnish to the assessing authority so as to reach him before the 31st day of December, 1960, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and con­taining such particulars as may be prescribed. 4. 'To hold' has also been defined by sub-s.(8) of S.2: " 'to hold' with reference to a plantation means to be in possession of the plantation as owner or as tenant or as mortgagee in possession:'' 5. It is clear from the above provisions that there has been an imposition of tax with respect to land which has been used as a plantation and the liability has been imposed on the person who held the land. He may hold the land as owner, mortgagee or tenant. Though this is the method adopted by the legislature, there can possibly be no doubt that this is a 'tax on land' coming within Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. In fact, it is not suggested that this legislation will fall under any other head. It is on that basis too, that learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that this statute should not affect even in an indirect way the land owned by the State. 6. Now, dealing with the first of the two arguments advanced, the matter has to be decided exclusively with reference to the provision in sub-s.(5) of S.3 for that was the only provision relied on by counsel for the petitioners in support of his first contention. 6. Now, dealing with the first of the two arguments advanced, the matter has to be decided exclusively with reference to the provision in sub-s.(5) of S.3 for that was the only provision relied on by counsel for the petitioners in support of his first contention. The contention is that the intent is to levy additional plantation tax only on such lands on which what is termed 'a basic tax' had been imposed by the Travancore - Cochin Land Tax Act, XV of 1955. S.7 of that Act, which I may read: "7. Act not to apply to certain classes of lands - this Act is not applicable to lands held or leased by the Government or any land or class of lands which the Government may by noti­fication in the Gazette, either wholly or partially exempt from the provisions of this Act." had made a special provision that the Act will not apply to lands held or leased by the Government. The above statute has been repealed by the Kerala Land Tax Act, 13 of 1961 and the relevant provision in that Act is contained in S.2 thereof, which deals with exemptions of such lands: "nothing in this Act shall apply to - (i) lands belonging to the Government". The provision in S.3(5) of the Act must now be read with reference to S.2(1) of Act 13 of 1961. So read, it is urged, that it is clear that Additional Plantation Tax cannot apply in relation to Government land. That the tax imposed ' by this Act has, relation to Government .land is not disputed and in fact it cannot be disputed. But the difficulty in accepting the arguments of counsel for the petitioners is that from the wording in S.3(5) it is not possible to infer that the Act has been made applicable only in respect of lands that would fall under Act 13 of 1961. If this contention is accepted, I will be introducing a provision which would in effect be a condition precedent to the applicability of the Act to certain types of land. From the wording of the statute the intent and purpose of it seems to me to indicate that this is not warranted. If this contention is accepted, I will be introducing a provision which would in effect be a condition precedent to the applicability of the Act to certain types of land. From the wording of the statute the intent and purpose of it seems to me to indicate that this is not warranted. S.1(2) specifically provides that the Act will apply to the whole of the State of Kerala and the other sections that I have read make it clear that the tax will apply to all lands, but of course, situate in the State which are comprised in plantations. I do not think that either the large import of these words or its full scope and extent can be limited by me by accepting the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. I therefore negative the first contention. 7. I may now pass on to the second contention. It was well settled in India before the passing of the Constitution that the principles of English Law, which may be taken to be authoritatively stated by Black stone in his commentaries Vol. I, 261 at 262, as under: "The king is not bound by any act of Parliament, unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised .....affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights or interests. For it would be of most mischievous consequence to the public, if the strength of the executive power were liable to be curtailed without its own express consent by constructions and implications of the subject. Yet, when an Act of Parliament is expressly made for the preservation of public rights and the suppression of public wrongs, and does not interfere with the established rights of the crown, it is said to be binding as well upon the king as upon the subject; and, likewise, the king may take the benefit of any particular act, though he be not specially named". will apply. 8. The above rule has been accepted by the Privy Council as applicable to India in the decision referred to by counsel in Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and another reported in AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 34. Such is the law even after the advent of the Constitution. will apply. 8. The above rule has been accepted by the Privy Council as applicable to India in the decision referred to by counsel in Province of Bombay v Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay and another reported in AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 34. Such is the law even after the advent of the Constitution. This is also clear from a number of decisions, of which I may refer to one in Director of Ration­ing and Distribution v The Corporation of Calcutta reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1355. The principle that has to be applied in determining therefore whether a statute can apply to the State has been laid down in a number of decisions years ago. 9. The learned Advocate General has suggested that it is not necessary to consider this question at all in this case, for, according to him, there is no direct tax on the State or on the State land and what has been done is to impose a tax in respect of land and if we go by the Division Bench ruling of this court, which considered the basis of the tax, in Essa Ismail Alias Babu v State of Kerala reported in 1965 KLT 944 , the tax under the Act is on the user of the land. Though this is correct, still the Statute must fall under and can be supported only by Entry 49 of List II to the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, 'tax on land.' So, the question whether the Statute has imposed a tax on Government land has to be considered and determined. 10. Tax on land can manifest itself in various ways, such as tax on Bridge (Morris) Leventhal and others v David Jones, Ltd. reported in AIR 1930 Privy Council 129 , water tax (Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v Municipal Rampur reported in AIR 1962 Allahabad 83, and tax on the annual value of the property (Ralla Ram v The Province of East Punjab reported in AIR (36) 1949 Federal Court 81). All the above taxes have been treated and understood as tax on land. The tax imposed by the Act is also tax on land. The question is whether the statute intends clearly to impose the tax even on land owned by the State Govern­ment. I see no reason to think it is not so intended. All the above taxes have been treated and understood as tax on land. The tax imposed by the Act is also tax on land. The question is whether the statute intends clearly to impose the tax even on land owned by the State Govern­ment. I see no reason to think it is not so intended. The statute had been made applicable to all the lands in the State which are comprised in plantations. Why such a decision was taken it is not for me to find out. But if I may venture an opinion, it appears to me the reason is that the tax is on the user of the land and it seems that no distinction has been made between Government land and other land as long as the common factor of the user of the land for plantation was there. Such a levy must permeate all land, including that owned by the State. Such an intention is clear. This is not a case in which it is possible to apply the general rule or to infer that because of that rule, which is stated in AIR (234) 1947 Privy Council 34 and AIR 1960 SC 1355 , that there was no intention to impose a levy that may affect State land. I therefore negative this contention also. 11. In the result, these writ applications are to be dismissed and I order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs in these writ applications.