ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of three assessment orders passed by the Assessment authorities in respect of three years, 1365, 1366 and 1367F under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act. 2. M/s. Ramgarh Farms and Industries Limited, Calcutta the Petitioner held a total area of 8874 Bighas in 11 villages of Pargana Burhapur, district Bijnor. This area had been granted to them through a registered lease executed by Raja of Kashipur on 25th January, 1951. The land in village Burhapur is the subject matter of dispute. The Petitioner was assessed to tax for the aforesaid mentioned years by the Assessing Officer Nagina by its order dated 15th February 1960. The above order was appealed against but the appeals were dismissed. 3. There were three revisions before the Board of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner which also failed. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed challenging the orders of the Assessing authorities in respect of the three assessment years. An objection having been taken by the State that there could not be a single writ petition in respect of the three assessment years the Petitioner has deposited court fees in respect of two more writ petitions and in accordance with the precedent of this Court I have permitted the Petitioner to deposit the requisite court fees. Now in this way this petition is in order and has to be dealt with on merits. 4. The Petitioner who is a lessee by virtue of the lease dated 25th January 1951 was given a lease of 8374 Bighas. According to Clause 6 of the lease deed he was entitled to reclaim 100 acres of land every year. There is nothing on the record to show as to how much land had actually been reclaimed by the Petitioner during the years 1365, 1366 and 1367F in dispute. The Petitioner objected to the assessment of tax on the entire area on the ground that the land which was assessed by the Assessing authorities was not the land held by the Petitioner for under the terms of the lease deed he could not have brought the entire land under cultivation, he could only have cultivated 100 acres a year under the terms of the deed. The Petitioner's contention was that he could be assessed only in respect of the land actually cultivated. 5. The Petitioner's contention was that he could be assessed only in respect of the land actually cultivated. 5. The second objection of the Petitioner was that in pursuance of an agreement between the Petitioner and M/s. Escorts (Agriculture and Machines) Ltd. executed on 3rd July 1951 the new company was to be constituted which was to take over the management and the cultivation of this land as well as some other land which is not in dispute. It was said that in terms of that agreement a farm called M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. was formed oh 30th November 1951 and in pursuance of the above agreement a transfer deed was executed on 19th May 1959 by the Petitioner in favour of the new company and by virtue of that transfer deed the new company was considered to have acquired the right in the land in suit from November 30, 1951, as such the Petitioner was not liable to be assessed in any of the three years. 6. Both these contentions of the Petitioner were overruled by the three assessing authorities and the Petitioner was assessed for the three years. The Assessing Officer repelled the contention of the Petitioner about the transfer deed dated 19th May 1959 on the ground that no land could be transferred through a deed of release and that the transfer, if any, being in excess of 12 1/2 acres was ineffective in view of the provisions of the UPZA and LR Act. The Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division,, maintained the order of the Assessing authority in respect of 1367F on the ground that as a Taxing Authority he was not required to go into the question of title and right for in view of the decision of the Board of Revenue the person who was recorded as a land-holder was liable to pay the tax under the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act and the same view was taken by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also considered that the land being recorded in the name of the Applicant the Applicant alone was liable for the tax. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Assessing authority opposite party No. 3 has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in over-ruling the Petitioners contentions. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Assessing authority opposite party No. 3 has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in over-ruling the Petitioners contentions. It was submitted that the Petitioner could not be assessed in respect of the entire land leased when the Petitioner had no right to cultivate the entire land or use it for agricultural purposes and that in any case the assessment for the year 1367F could not be upheld in view of a recent decision of this Court--Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal v. Board of Revenue UP at Lucknow 1962 AWR 668. It was submitted that it was necessary for the Assessing authorities to have come to a definite conclusion as to whether the document dated 19th May 1959 was given effect to and possession transferred to M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd., New Delhi or not Merely because the revenue entries in pursuance of the above deed had not been changed could not entitle the Assessing authorities to assess tax against the Petitioner when actually M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. were in occupation of the leased land and not the Petitioner. 8. Having heard the Petitioner's counsel and the counsel for the State in support of their respective contentions I am of opinion that the assessment order for the years 1365 and 1366 cannot be challenged, whereas so far as the assessment order for 1367F is concerned no final assessment order could be passed unless there was a definite finding as to who was in actual occupation of the leased land in the year 1367F. The contention of the Petitioner that he could not be assessed to tax because he had not brought the entire land under cultivation is not correct. By virtue of Section 17 of the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act the holdings tax is chargeable on a land holding. u/s 3 of the Act the same shall be payable by the land-holder. It cannot be disputed that the Petitioner is a land-holder as defined in the Act. 'Land holding' has been defined in Section 4 as follows: Land Holding--(1) For the purposes of this Act, "Land holding" means the aggregate of all land held or occupied on the first day of. It cannot be disputed that the Petitioner is a land-holder as defined in the Act. 'Land holding' has been defined in Section 4 as follows: Land Holding--(1) For the purposes of this Act, "Land holding" means the aggregate of all land held or occupied on the first day of. July each year by a land holder, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his family and all such land shall be deemed to form part of the land holding of such land-holder. * * * * In view of this definition of the word 'land holding' it is not necessary that it should actually be cultivated. It is enough if the land is held by the land-holder. On the execution of the lease the Petitioner did become the tenant of the entire land leased. Therefore he becomes the land-holder of the entire leased land. 'Land' has been defined as follows: "Land" means land whether assessed to land revenue or not, which is held or occupied for a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture or poultry farming and includes uncultivated-land held by a land-holder as such; The definition of the word 'land' puts the matter beyond doubt that the land in suit was land of the Petitioner and he held it. Further one more section need be noticed in this respect which is Section 5 which shows as to how the annual value has to be ascertained: Annual value--(1) For the purposes of this Act annual value of land holding shall be deemed to be an amount equal to the rent payable for the land or lands included therein multiplied by such multiple not exceeding twelve and a half as may be prescribed and different multiples may be prescribed for different districts or portions of districts or for different classes of lands included in a land holding. (2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1) the rent payable shall be deemed to be an amount calculated at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the land or lands included in the land holding and where there are no sanctioned hereditary rates, on such principles as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Government may, where such rates were sanctioned prior to the first day of July, 1927 enhance the rates by such percentage not exceeding fifty as may be specified by notification in the official Gazette and different percentages may be specified for different classes of Lands and for different areas of Uttar Pradesh. 9. Section 5 of the UP Large Land Holdings Tax Act shows the method of calculating the tax. It is not the actual cultivation but it is the amount of rent which determines the amount of tax to be paid. In view of the above sections noted above I am clear in my mind that non-cultivation by the Petitioner a part of the leased land will not affect his liability to the assessment for the entire land which he held as the land-holder. In this view of the matter the contentioa of the Petitioner on the first point fails. 10. Now coming to the second contention there is a document dated 19th May 1959 on the record annexure G' which though termed as a release deed clearly shows that the rights, title and interest of a permanent lessee which M/s. Ramgarh Farms and Industries Limited acquired under the registered lease deed dated 25th January 1951 stood transferred to M/s. Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Limited and they were to enjoy all the rights of a permanent lessee conferred on the Petitioner by the permanent lease dated 25th January 1951. If this was an effective document and in pursuance of this document possession was transferred to M/s. Escort Farms (Ramgarh) Limited they will be persons who would be liable to be taxed in view of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal v. Board of Revenue UP at Luck now 1962 AWR 668 because they would be the occupiers of the land leased. It has been held in this authority that as between the person who held the land and the one who occupied it, it is the person who occupied the land will be liable to pay the tax. It has been held in this authority that as between the person who held the land and the one who occupied it, it is the person who occupied the land will be liable to pay the tax. It has further been held in this authority that mere absence of mutation will not be enough to charge tax from the transferor although as a matter of fact the land holding has gone to another. If the document dated 19th May 1959 is a genuine transfer deed and as a mater of fact possession has been transferred the right and title of the transferor will come to end. In this respect Sections 163 and 189 (aa) of the UPZA and LR Act are relevant. Sections 163 and 189 (aa) run as follows: 163. Where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of the provisions of Section 154, the transferee shall, notwithstanding anything in any law, be liable to ejectment from such holding or part on the suit of the Gaon Samaj which shall thereupon become vacant land, but nothing in this section will prejudice the right of the transferor to realize the whole or portion of the price remaining unpaid or the right of any other person than the transferee to proceed against such holding or land in enforcement of any claim thereto. * * * * 189. Extinction of the interest of a bhumidhar. The interest of a bhumidhar in his holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished. * * * * (aa) when the holding or part thereof has been transferred or let out in contravention of the provisions of this Act. * * * * 11. These two sections quoted above would show that if there is really a transfer and has been effected inspite of the fact that it was not in accordance with the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act nevertheless it extinguishes the right of the transferor and thereafter the transferor ceases to be the landholder. As soon as he ceases to be the land-holder and does not occupy the land he will not be deemed to have held the land and will not be liable to pay tax. As soon as he ceases to be the land-holder and does not occupy the land he will not be deemed to have held the land and will not be liable to pay tax. In my opinion it is very necessary to find out as to whether the document dated 19th May 1999 was an effective document really meant to be given effect to or not. If it was an effective document the Petitioner would not be liable to pay the tax for the year 1387F. But in case it is a sham transaction he would be so liable. The learned Counsel for the State tried to convince me that the document was purposive and ineffective document only executed to evade taxes. The Assessing authorities have not considered the matter in this light and this involves a question of fact on which there should be evidence. It will not be proper for me to express any opinion one way or the other at this stage. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have taken it as granted that it was not for the taxing authority to go into the question of title and right of the Petitioner wherein they have manifestly erred in view of Rai Bahadur Mohan Lal v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (supra) quoted above and their orders in respect of the year 1367F cannot be upheld. 12. Accordingly this petition fails so far as the assessment orders for the years 1365 and 1366F are concerned but the assessment orders of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 for the year 1367F are quashed. It will be open to the opposite party No. 3 to determine the effect of the document dated 19th May 1959 and do the needful in the light of the decision given above. In the circumstances of this case I make no order as to costs.