( 1 ) THESE are 6 revision petitions arising under the Karnataka Agricultural income-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act' and they relate to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. The assessee is Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, which is a society Registered under the ,co-operative Societies Act. The accounting years of the assessee relevant to the assessment years closed on 30th June. ( 2 ) THE assessee is a Co-operative Sugar Factory carrying on the business of manufacture of sugar for which purpose it purchases sugarcane from growers. The assessee acquired through the State Govt 147 acres 30 guntas of land in Sankeshwar in Belgaum Dist, pursuant to the Govt Notification dt. 25-5-1959. The land was acquired for the purpose of sites for Hiranya keshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane, Niyamit. The assessee obtained ah order from the Dy Commr allowing conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purposes. The relevant order of the Dy Commr, Belgaum is dt. 30-12-1961. The said order, inter alia, provided that the assessee shall pay normal non-agricultural assessment at Rs. 80 an acre per annum on the entire area of 147 acres 30 guntas for a period of 10 years from 1962-63 and thereafter at such rates as would be fixed by the Dy Commr under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the Rules made thereunder. ( 3 ) THE order was made under Ss 66 and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with Rule 87 (4) of the Rules which governed the Bombay area of the state. The rate of non-agricultural assessment fixed by the Dy Commr while allowing the conversion, was challenged by the assessee before this court in WP. 1521 of 1966, which was allowed by this Court holding that the rate of non-agricultural assessment fixed was not in accordance with the Rules. It was observed by this Court that the State Govt through its appropriate officers may determine the rate of non-agricultural assessment in arcordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 1521 of 1966, which was allowed by this Court holding that the rate of non-agricultural assessment fixed was not in accordance with the Rules. It was observed by this Court that the State Govt through its appropriate officers may determine the rate of non-agricultural assessment in arcordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was stated bv Sri Naravan, learned Govt Pleader, that the said order is under appeal before the Supreme Court and therefore, final order has not yet been passed the Bombay Land Revenue Code which was in force on the date on which termission for conversion of land was granted, has been repealed and replaced by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which came into force on 1-4-1964. The provisions of the Karnataka Act so far as they relate to conversion, are in pari materia with the provisions of the Bombay Code. The assessee. notwithstanding the fact that it obtained an order allowing conversion of its land, raised sugarcane crop during the accounting veara relevant to the 5 assessment vears. The Agricultural Income-Tax Officer levied tax. under the Act on the income of the assessee for the 5 assessment years. The said assessments were challenged on several grounds, inter alia that the land having been allowed to be convened for non-agricultural purposes, no tax could be levied under the Act. That contention was rejected by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes, viz, growing sugarcane, during the relevant accounting vears and further, that the land was not exempted. from land revenue. The Tribunal made a common order for all the assessment yearg. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee has preferred the above revision petitions. ( 4 ) IT is undisputed that during the relevant years the assessee raised sugarcane, which is an agricultural crop, and derived income therefrom. The only question is whether the income derived from the land converted for non-agricultural purposes but used for agricultural purposes is liable to be brought to tax under the Act. ( 5 ) SEC. 3 of the Act levies a charge on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person at the rate or rates specified in Part I of the schedule to the Act for each financial year commencing from 1st Apr, 1957. ( 5 ) SEC. 3 of the Act levies a charge on the total agricultural income of the previous year of every person at the rate or rates specified in Part I of the schedule to the Act for each financial year commencing from 1st Apr, 1957. The term "agricultural income" is defined in S. 2 (1) (a) and it means:" (1) any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for growing all or any of the commercial crops and is either assessed to land revenue in the Stale or subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the State Government as such; (2) and (3) (Omitted as not necessary)"under the distribution of powers made in the Constn of. India, the power to levy tax on agricultural income is of the exclusive competence of the state Legislature, Art. 366 (1) of the Constitution defines the term "agricultural income" to mean "agricultural income as. defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian Income-tax;" In the Income-tax Act, 1961, as also the 1922 Act, "agricultural Income" has been defined to meaa "any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agrciultural pur* poses and Is either assessed to land revenue in India or is subiect to focal rate assessed and collected by officers of the Govt as such;" By virtue of the definition of the term "agricultural income" incorporated in Art. 366 of the Constn, the definition of that term in the Indian Income-tax Act is deemed to be a part of the definition given in the Constitution and it is not open to the State Legislature to extend the meaning that is given to the term In the Indian Income-tax Act. In view of the definition of the term "agricultural income" as given in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, in order to come within the scope of the Act, the income must satisfy two conditions, viz, (1) it must be income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes: and (2) the land must be either assessed to land revenue in India or is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of tha govt as such. It is not sufficient if one of these conditions is satisfied. It is not sufficient if one of these conditions is satisfied. Both conditions have to be satisfied in order to exclude the income from the operation of the Indian Income-tax Act and to bring the income within the net of the State Act. ( 6 ) IT was rightly not disputed by Sri Sarangan, learned Counsel for the assessee, that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes The tribunal has held that no local rates were levied or collected. The Tribunal has also held that it was not exempted from land revenue though the actual rate had not been quantified. Since the order allowing conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes was made when the bombay Land Revenue Code was in force in the Bombay Area of the State, we have to look to the provisions of the said Code in order to determine whether the land, after conversion, was exempted from land revenue. Sec. 48 of the Bombay Land Reveuue Code provides : (1) The land revenue leviable on any land under the provisions of this Act shall be assessed, or shall be deemed to have been assessed as the case may be, with reference to the use of the land- (a) for the purpose of agriculture, (b) for the purpose of building, and (c) for a purpose other than agriculture or building. (2) (Not necessary) ( 7 ) IN the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, there is a provision in S. 95 (7) empowering the Dy Commr to levy a fine, popularly called as 'conversion fine' and if such fine is paid no assessment shall be levied on such land thereafter except under sub-sec (2) of S. 83. The assessee has not produced any order levying such fine which exonerates the land from any future jiability to pay assessment. In Srish Chandra Sen v. Commr of I. T. , 41 ITR. 340 (SC) it has been laid down that in order to free the land from liability to land revenue, it must be shown that the land was revenue free in fact and in. law. In Srish Chandra Sen v. Commr of I. T. , 41 ITR. 340 (SC) it has been laid down that in order to free the land from liability to land revenue, it must be shown that the land was revenue free in fact and in. law. If it is shown that the land was revenue free in fact and in law during the relevant accounting years, then one of the conditions of the definition of 'agricultural income' is not satisfied; any income derived by agricultural operation on land converted into non-agricultural purposes cannot bring iuch income within the net of the Agricultural Income-Tax Act. In the instant case, the assessee has not produced any material to show that the land was revenue free in fact and in law. That being the position, the in come, admittedly derived by employing the land for agricultural purposes, although the land is allowed to be converted into non-agricultural purpcs3s, is chargeable to tax under S. 3 of the Act and is not excluded from its operation. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the authorities below in levying the tax. Accordingly, these revision petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .