SRINIVASA IYENGAR, J. ( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions the parties are common. The petitioners have challenged the order of the agricultural Income Tax Officer, banguiore, made for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79. Though separate orders are made by the agricultural Income Tax Officer, the contents ot the same are identical. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the heirs of k. C. Ramiah who passed away on 26-6-1971. They are his wife and daughters. The said K. C. Ramaiah left behind him considerable property including agricultural lands. The petitioners have, been assessed to income tax and, wealth tax, on the basis of the statusi of individuals even though some of the properties have not been actually divided by metes and bounds. They have been treated as having specific shares in the properties. The petitioners had appointed one K. M. Muniswamappa, the son-in-law of the deceased k. C. Ramaiah, as the power of attorney holder to manage the properties and other affairs pertaining to the petitioners' family and the income derived by agricultural properties was divided among them equally. For the assessment years above mentioned, the agricultural Income Tax Officer proposed to assess them in what is stated as status of 'tenants-in-common; what he intended to do is clear from his order. He made the assessments on K. M. Muniswamappa the power of attorney holder of the petitioners and on the basis of the entire agricultural properties held by him in his capacity as the power of attorney holder and treating the entire income received as the income liable to tax. The petitioners responded to the notice and filed their objections contending that they had definite and specific shares in the properties and their assessment should be made only in the status of individuals on the basis of the shares held by them and on the income attributable to their share in the properties. They also filed an application under S. 67 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and further pleaded that, if correct computation is made, there would be no liability to pay any tax. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, the Agricultural Income tax Officer in his order stated that he was going to take the status of the petitioners as tenants-in-common. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, the Agricultural Income tax Officer in his order stated that he was going to take the status of the petitioners as tenants-in-common. But he took the entire area of land held by all the petitioners and worked, out the tax on composition in an amount of Rs. 6,505. 95 Ps. for each of the years. It is these orders that are challenged in these writ petitions. ( 4 ) THE contention on behalf of the petitioners is that they held definite shares in the properties and the income was received by the Manager on their behall and they were dividing the profits, from the land equally in accordance with their shares and the assessment made i. e. , the tax payable by way of composition being worked out on the basis that the entire income from the properly should be taken as one unit is erroneous. Mr. Mir Noor Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even on the basis that the petitioners were treated, as tenantsin-common, the proper provision that will be applicable is S. 10 (1) (a) of the act and the order of the Agricultural income Tax Officer is not warranted by law. He has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of R. T. N. Punja v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax, (1966) 2 Mys. L. J. 275 = 1966 ITR 443 and also the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of karnataka by the Commissioner of agricultural Income Tax v. C. P. Chandrasekhara, (1978 ). 2 Kar. L. J. 105 = ILR 1978 Kar. L. J. 1229. The petitioners succeeded to the estate of K. C. Ramaiah and they had definite shares in the properties. The averments in the writ' petitions that the profits from, the properties were being divided equally and for the purposes of convenience a manager had been appointed, has not been controverted. S. 3 of the Act is the charging section and Sub-sec. The petitioners succeeded to the estate of K. C. Ramaiah and they had definite shares in the properties. The averments in the writ' petitions that the profits from, the properties were being divided equally and for the purposes of convenience a manager had been appointed, has not been controverted. S. 3 of the Act is the charging section and Sub-sec. (3) thereof provides:"in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common,"section 10 (1) (a) provides:"in the case of agricultural income taxable under this Act, which the court of Wards, Administrator general or Official Trustee or any receiver, administrator, executor trustee, guardian or manager appointed by or under any law or by an order of Court or by written agreement, is entitled to receive on behalf of any person, the tax shall be levied upon and recoverable from the court of Wards, Administrator general, Official Trustee, or from such receiver, administrator, executor trustee, guardian or manager, as the case may be in the like manner and to the same amount as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person on whose behalf such agricultural income is receivable and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. "it may also be relevant to notice S. 10 (2) (a) which is as follows: -"save as provided in sub-section (1) if a person holds land from which agricultural income is derived partly for his own benefit and partly for the benefit of others or wholly for the benefit of others, agricultural income tax shall be assessed on the total agricultural income derived from such land at the rate which would be applicable if such person had the land exclusively for his own benefit. "it is seen from the provisions in S. 10 (1) (a) of the Act that in the case of properties in a case where the manager has been appointed by agreement of the parties, it is open to tne assessing authorities to make an assessment on such manager, but the assessment would have to be made in like manner and for the same amount as it would be leviable upon and recoverable tram the person on whose behalf such agricultural income is receivable and all the provisions of the Act would apply accordingly,. In effect, the income of each individual would be brought to tax in the hands of the manager but only to the extent to which the owner of the property would have been liable. Even on the basis that the petitioners were tenants-in-common, the provisions of S. 3 (3) of the Act would be attracted and the tax would be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. Therefore, in a case of tenants-in-common where a manager is appointed, the tax would have to be assessed on a, combined reading of Section 3 (3) and section 10 (1) (a) of the Act. The agricultural Income Tax Officer referred to Punja's case as reported in 1963 I. T. R. P- 443 only for the purposes of reaching a conclusion that the petitioners were to be treated as tenants- in-common but ignored the other conclusions reached in that particular case. This court pointed out that the assessment would have to be made under S. S (3) of the Act and the same would be the result by applying S. 30 (1) (a) of the Act. In ignoring the latter conclusion, the agricultural income Tax Officer was clearly wrong. ( 5 ) SOME, doubts had been entertained by a Bench of this Court in regard to the decision in Punja's case and the n tatter had been referred to a Full bench. The decision of the full Bench is The doubt that had been entertained was that the decision may be inconsistent with the decision of the supreme Court reported in the case of k. K. Handique v. Member, Board of agricultural Income Tax, (1966) 60 ITR 217. This court held that there was no such inconsistency and held that Section 10 (2) (a) would be attracted if a case did not fall under S. 10 (1) (a) of the Act. In Punja's case a manager had been appointed to manage the estate under a will in which the shares of the legatees had been specified. In those circumstances, this Court held that S. 10 (1) (a) of the Act was also attracted. It was observed therein that"if that manager managed the property which produced agricultural income, the clear meaning of section 10 (1) (a) is that the income of each one of the persons on whose behalf there was such management is what could be assessed. It was observed therein that"if that manager managed the property which produced agricultural income, the clear meaning of section 10 (1) (a) is that the income of each one of the persons on whose behalf there was such management is what could be assessed. " ( 6 ) IN the light of the aforesaid decisions of this. Court, it is clear that what the agricultural Income tax officer has done in this case namely, to proceed on the basis that the; entire, income from all the lands managed by the power of attorney holder should be the basis for the purposes of assessment and or composition, is erroneous. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY the orders made by the, Agricultural Income Tax Officer are quashed. He shall be at liberty to consider the application for composition filed by the petitioners on the basis that what would be assessable is the individual share of each of the' petitioners, and in the light of the observations made above. ( 8 ) SRI Rajendra Babu, learned High court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in Writ Petition No. 12180 of 1978 within 4 weeks from today. --- *** --- .