JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner, the Kesar Sugar Works Limited, Baheri, has challenged the imposition and assessment of water tax on its lands and buildings for the period 1-4-1964 to 31-3-1969 at the rate of Rs. 2,750/- per annum. 2. On September 20, 1966, a notice under Section 143 (1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act was sent to the petitioner company, proposing to fix the annual value of its lands and buildings at Rs. 75,000/- and assessing it to a water tax at the rate of Rs. 3,750/- per annum. On October 19, 1966, the petitioner filed objections to this notice. The `main objection, with which we are now concerned, was that those of the buildings, which were not within a radius of 200 yards from the nearest municipal standpipe, could not be assessed to water tax and that those buildings, which were within the prescribed radius of 200 yards were of a rental value of only Rs. 205/- per annum and the water tax could be imposed and assessed on this amount. It was alleged in the objection that there were separate and distinct compounds, i.e., the factory compound and two separate residential compounds in the factory area, that each building or set of buildings in the said compounds was separately and distinctly enclosed by fencing or compound wall and that there were only two blocks of five quarters each and a motor garage which were within 200 yards of the municipal stand-pipe and which alone could be assessed to water tax. By this order dated June 4, 1968, the Assessing Officer of the Municipal Board rejected these objections, holding that the factory building was one unit having several buildings in one compound. He further held that all the buildings were part and parcel of the factory which included the factory and the residential accommodation for its employees. On these findings, he came to the conclusion that, since a part of the building was within the prescribed radius, the entire buildings were liable to be assessed. He assessed the annual land and buildings value at Rs. 55,000/- and the water tax at Rs. 2,750 per annum. Against this order, the petitioner company preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. He assessed the annual land and buildings value at Rs. 55,000/- and the water tax at Rs. 2,750 per annum. Against this order, the petitioner company preferred an appeal under Section 160 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The main grounds raised in the appeal were that the factory with its plant and machinery has got a separate, distinct and independent existence, being surrounded by a pukhta boundary wall and, since no portion of its compound fell within 200 yards from the municipal water stand-pipe, no tax could be imposed on this compound and that the entire factory area could not be treated as one unit. The Collector, Bareilly, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same on June 23, 1969. Before him it was admitted that the entire property was situated within the municipality and belonged to the petitioner. After considering the matter before him, he held that the property consisted of a number of buildings and formed one compound and that the portions were not separate from one another by land of any other person. He accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the assessing authority. The orders of these two authorities and other similar orders passed in respect of the other assessment years are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 3. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that those of the buildings, which were beyond a radius of 200 yards from the municipal stand-pipe, could not be assessed to water tax and that it was not permissible to treat the entire factory area as one unit for purposes of water tax. In order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Sec. 128 (1) (x) empowers a municipal board to impose water tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both." This section permits a municipal board to impose water tax on all lands and buildings within the municipality. Sec. 129 of the Act places certain restrictions on the imposition of water tax. Since the decision of the case turns on the interpretation of this section, it is necessary to set it out in full : "The imposition of a tax under clause (x) of sub-sec. Sec. 129 of the Act places certain restrictions on the imposition of water tax. Since the decision of the case turns on the interpretation of this section, it is necessary to set it out in full : "The imposition of a tax under clause (x) of sub-sec. (I) of Section 128 shall be subject to the restriction that the tax shall not be imposed on land exclusively used for agricultural purposes unless water is supplied by the board for such purposes, or, where the unit of assessment is a plot of land or a building as hereinafter defined on any such plot or building of which no part is within a radius, to he fixed by rule, in this behalf for each municipality, from the nearest stand-pipe or other water works whereas water is made available to the public by the board. Explanation-In this section- (a) "building" shall include the compound, if any, thereof, and where there are several buildings in a common compound, all such buildings and the common compound; (b) "a plot of land" means any piece of land held by a single occupier, or held in common by several Co-occupiers whereof no one portion is entirely separated from any other portion by the land of another occupier or of other Co-occupiers or by public property." The radius has been fixed by the rules as 200 yards. Sec. 129, thus makes the following two exemptions from the imposition of water tax :- (i) Land exclusively used for agricultural purposes where water is not supplied by the municipal board for such purposes; and (ii) land or building (as defined in the explanation to Sec. 129) no part of which is within the radius fixed by the rules from the nearest municipal stand-pipe. In the present case, we are not concerned with the first exemption. The only question for determination is whether the case falls within the second exemption. If the properties of the petitioner company fall within the definition of `building' as defined in the explanation to Section 129 and if any part of this building is within a radius of 200 yards from the nearest municipal stand-pipe, then it will be liable to imposition and assessment of water tax and the exemption will not apply. The explanation to Section 129 defines 'building' in clause (a) and 'a plot of land' in clause (b) . The explanation to Section 129 defines 'building' in clause (a) and 'a plot of land' in clause (b) . We are not concerned with clause (b) in the present case. The contention of Sri S.C. Khare learned counsel for the Municipal Board, is that the several buildings belonging to the petitioner company are all in a "common compound" and, therefore, the entire property is a `building' as defined in clause (a) of the explanation. Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner company, contends that, in clause (a) of the explanation, the word `building' should be read as defined in Section 2 (2) and the word `compound' should be read as defined in section 2 (5) of the Act. The word `building' is defined in section 2 (2) thus :- " `Building' means a house, out-house stable, shed, hut or other enclosure or structure whether of masonry bricks, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever, whether used as a human dwelling or otherwise, and includes any verandah, platform, plinth, staircase, door-step, will including compound wall other than a boundary wall of a garden or agricultural land not appurtenant to a house but does not include a tent or other such portable temporary shelter." The word `compound' is defined in section 2 (5) thus :- " `Compound' means land, whether enclosed or not, which is the appurtenance of a building or the common appurtenance of several buildings." In my opinion, when a special definition of the word `building' has been given in clause (a) of the explanation for the purposes of section 129, then it is not permissible to refer to .the definition of `building' given in Section 2 (2) . It has then to be seen whether the definition of the word `compound' given in section 2 (5) should be used in interpreting the expression "common compound" used in clause (a) of the explanation to section 129. If `compound' in the expression `common compound' is taken to have the meaning given to it in section 2(5), then `common compound' would mean common land appurtenant in several building. In that event, 'building' in clause (a) of the explanation would include `several buildings' standing in the common land appurtenant to such buildings. It is difficult to see how a building can stand in land appurtenant to it. In that event, 'building' in clause (a) of the explanation would include `several buildings' standing in the common land appurtenant to such buildings. It is difficult to see how a building can stand in land appurtenant to it. It has to be noticed that clause (a) of the explanation speaks of several buildings in a common compound. Therefore, the expression `common compound' has been used in the sense of some land in which several buildings stand. The context, in which the word `compound' in `common compound' has been used in explanation (a) , indicates that the meaning given to it in Section 2 (5) is not to be imported in to clause (a) . "Common compound" here does not mean a compound common or appurtenant to all the buildings. But it means one piece or continuous land in which all the buildings stand". What, therefore, has to be seen in the present case is whether all the buildings in the petitioner's factory area stand in a common piece of land. For his purpose, we have to look at the findings of fact arrived at by the assessing authority and by the appellate authority. The finding of the assessing authority is in these words :- "As regards the second objection that the building is composed of different compounds, I find that the factory building is one unit having several buildings in one compound. All the buildings are part and parcel of the factory which includes the factory and the residential accommodation of the employees." This finding clearly brings the property of the petitioner company within the definition of `building' in clause (a) of the explanation to section 129. The further finding of the assessing authority is that parts of this building admittedly fall within a radius of 200 yards from the nearest municipal standpipe. The finding, in appeal, of the Collector is in these words :- "It is a fact agreed by both the parties that the entire property is situated within the municipal limits. It is also conceded that in the map presented before me the entire properties have been shown by green line belonging to the appellant. The finding, in appeal, of the Collector is in these words :- "It is a fact agreed by both the parties that the entire property is situated within the municipal limits. It is also conceded that in the map presented before me the entire properties have been shown by green line belonging to the appellant. The property containing number of buildings within the definition laid down under section 2 (2) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and should be construed as one compound within the prescription under section 129 (a) of the U.P. Municipalities Act and the portions, not being entirely separate from any other portion in terms of section 129 (b) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, should be construed to form one property." It is no doubt true that the finding is not expressed in a precise and happy language by the Collector but it is not difficult together his meaning. He has found that the property consists of a number of buildings situated in one compound, as contemplated by clause (a) of the explanation to section 129. He has further found that the land on which these building stand, all belongs to the petitioner and no portions of it are separated by land belonging to any other party. He has thus arrived at the same finding of fact at which the assessing authority arrived. It is thus clear that the entire land is one continuous piece of land belonging to the petitioner company and all the building stand in this land. All the buildings together with the land, in which they stand, constitute a `building' as defined in clause (a) of the explanation and form, one unit for purposes of imposition and assessment of water tax. Since, admittedly a part of this unit falls within 200 yards from the nearest municipal standpipe, the entire unit is liable to imposition and assessment of water tax. The Orders of the assessing authority and of the appellate authority, levying water tax on all the buildings and land in the factory area of the petitioner company, have, therefore, been properly passed. 4. I may here refer to two decisions which were cited before me. The first cited by Sri Gupta is a decision of Lokur, J. in the Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company Limited v. The Municipal Board, Saharanpur, Civil Misce. Writ Petition No. 3508 of 1965 decided on February 27, 1970. 4. I may here refer to two decisions which were cited before me. The first cited by Sri Gupta is a decision of Lokur, J. in the Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company Limited v. The Municipal Board, Saharanpur, Civil Misce. Writ Petition No. 3508 of 1965 decided on February 27, 1970. In this case, the entire railway area falling within the Municipality of Saharanpur was assessed to water tax and that assessment was challenged in the writ petition. Lokur, J. held that the entire railway area could not be treated as one unit and only such of the buildings or land as sell within 600 feet of the nearest municipal standpipe could be assessed. The second case has been cited by Sri S. C. Khare. This is a decision of Broome, J. in the Municipal Board, Saharanpur v. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur, Civil Misce. Writ Petition No. 1684 of 1960 decided on September 15, 1965. In this case, the Municipal Board had imposed water tax on the Imperial Tobacoo Company of India Limited, treating its entire factory area including ancillary buildings and residential houses as one unit. In appeal, the District Magistrate refused to recognise the whole plot containing the factory building and residential houses as one unit for purposes of water tax and held that only those particular houses, which lay within 600 feet of the nearest municipal standpipe, could be properly assessed. Broome, J. allowed the writ petition and held that even if the factory were to be treated as one unit and residential houses as another, both these units include areas lying within the radius of 600 feet from the stand-pipe and both were liable to assessment. These two decisions turn on the peculiar facts of those cases. In the case before me, in view of the findings arrived at by the assessing authority and by the appellate authority, it is clear that the petitioner company is not right in its assertion that it fell within the exemption of section 129. 5. The only other point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the water tax is not really a tax but a fee and, since the Municipal Board has not been able to supply any water to it account of the railway line intervening between the nearest municipal standpipe and the factory area, the tax could not be assessed against it. The matter is concluded against the petitioner by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur, A.I.R. 1962 Allahabad, 83, where it has been held that the water tax imposed under section 128 (1) (x) of the U.P. Municipalities Act is a tax and not a fee. 6. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs.