JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner in the present case is a company which runs a tea-estate in Dehra Dun. It was assessed to tax under the U.P. Vrihat Jot Kar Adhiniyam, 1963 by the Prescribed Authority. Both the appeal and revision, filed by the petitioner failed. The main contention raised was that the area in which the tea-plants stood was a grove and as such one-fourth of the holding was exempt under Notification No. 1634 (iii)/1-C-18/C-63 dated June 15, 1963. 2. The same contention has been urged before us. 3. Section 3 of the Vrihat Jot Kar Adhiniyam, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) levies a holding tax on the annual value of a land holding. The word `land holding' has been defined in Section 4 of the Adhiniyam and means the aggregate of all land held by a land holder on the first day of any agricultural year'. It is not denied by the petitioner that the tea estate is a landholding. Thus, tax was leviable on the tea estate of the petitioner. The claim for reduction of the tax is based upon a notification issued under Section 3 (3) of the Adhiniyam. Under this provision the State Government is empowered in public interest to wholly or partially exempt from holding tax any class or classes of land. In exercise of the aforesaid power the State Government issued the notification referred to earlier. Clause (9) of this notification, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, may be extracted : "Any area of a land-holding which has been planted with groves of trees other than apple, mango, graft, lichi, lukat, jaek fruit, citrus, and guava before the first day of July 1957, subject to a maximum of one fourth of the total area of the land-holding of the land-holder." It is apparent that before remission of the tax to the extent of one-fourth can be claimed the area of land in respect to which the reduction is claimed must be one which has been planted with grove of trees other than the trees mentioned in the notification. In the present case counsel has contended that the entire area is planted with trees and in the alternative it is planted with trees of other varieties which are sufficient in number to constitute a grove. In the present case counsel has contended that the entire area is planted with trees and in the alternative it is planted with trees of other varieties which are sufficient in number to constitute a grove. At this stage it may be pointed out that the authorities below have recorded a finding that the assessee had planted 2500 tea bushes per acre and 100 trees per acre so as to provide shade to the tea bushes. 4. The word `grove' has not been defined in the notification. Section 2 (2) of the Adhiniyam permits one to look at the definition of the word `grove' as given in the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939. The notification does not expressly permit this, but as the notification has been issued under Section 3 (3) of the Adhiniyam, and as the Adhiniyam itself adopts the definition of the word `grove' as given in the U.P. Tenancy Act, it would be permissible to look at the definition of the word `grove' as given in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. 5. When one turns to the U.P. Tenancy Act one finds that the word `grove' has not been defined. However, Section 3 (6) defines the word `grove land' as under : "grove land" means any specified piece of land in a mahal or mahals having trees planted thereon in such numbers that they preclude or when full grown will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove " It will be seen that Section 3 (6) uses the word a `land in a mahal or mahals'. The word `land' has been defined in Section 3 (1) in the following terms : "land' means land which is let or held for growing of crops, or as grove land or for pasture it includes land covered by water used for the purpose of growing singhara or other produce, but does not include land for the time being occupied by buildings of appurtenant thereto other than buildings which are improvements." We are referring to the definition of the word `land' in Section I, Sub-section (10) for it would come in handy when we address ourselves to the proper interpretation to be put on the word `groveland' as defined in Section 3 (6). We may also extract the meaning of the word `crop' for that word has been used in Section 3 (10) while defining the word `land', and as the word `crops' has been defined in Section 3 (5), the meaning under Section 3 (5) to the word `crops' has to be given to that word when used in Section 3 (10), Section 3 (5) defines the word `crops' as under : "crops include shrubs, bushes, plants and climbers such as tea, bushes, roso bushes, betel plants, plaintains, and papitas." 6. Now turning to word `grove land' it is clear that a specific piece of land in order that it may qualify as groveland, must have trees planted on it in such a number that they preclude or when fully grown would preclude the land or a considerable portion thereof from being used for any other purpose. The other purpose for which the land cannot be used after plantation of trees has not been indicated in Section 3 (6) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. But when turns to the definition of the word `land' as given in Section 3 (10) It is easy to discover the `other purpose' referred to in Section 3 (6) of the Act. Section 3 (10) defines land' as meaning land which is let or held for pasture. Reference has also been made to land which is used for other purposes, but is not necessary to refer to the e other varieties of user as it is not relevant for the purposes of the present controversy. Keeping this definition of the land in mind and the fact that the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 applies to land which is let out for purposes mentioned in Section 3 (10) of the Act, it is obvious that in order that a land may qualify to be a groveland, the trees planted thereon must exclude the use of that land for growing crops or for pasturage, apart from the exclusion of the other uses referred to in Section 3 (10; of the Act. Now since the word `crops' has been defined in Section 3 of the Act, the crops which should be excluded from the possibility of cultivation under Section 3 (6) are crops which are defined in Section 3 (5) of the Act. Now since the word `crops' has been defined in Section 3 of the Act, the crops which should be excluded from the possibility of cultivation under Section 3 (6) are crops which are defined in Section 3 (5) of the Act. Section 3 (5) includes tea bushes in the present case inasmuch as the trees which have been planted for purposes of affording shade to the tea bushes, do not preclude the cultivation of tea which is a crop as defined in Section 3 (5) of the Act, the trees standing on holding will not convert the holding into a grove. We may now consider as to whether the existence of tea bushes would render the land a grove. 7. Coming now to the question as to whether the lea bushes on the landholding would constitute a grove. We have already adverted to the fact that the reduction in tax is being claimed on the basis of the notification issued under Section 3 (3) of the Adhiniyam, and in order to qualify for the reduction, the area must be one which has been planted with grove of trees. Thus we have to see as to whether tea bushes on the land-holding of the assessee are trees. Counsel for the petitioner has referred us a number of books for ascertaining the meaning of the word `tree' We may first refer to the dictionaries to which reference has been made. 8. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. II, Third Edition, page 2239, first column amongst the others, gives the following meanings to the word `tree' ; "1 A perennial plant having a self-supporting woody main stem or trunk (which usually develops woody branches, at some distance from the ground) and growing to a considerable height and size; 2. Extended to bushes or shrubs of erect growth and having a single stem; and even some perennial herbaceous plants which grow to a great height as the banana and plantain " Webster Third New International Dictionary gives the following meaning to the word `tree' : "1. A woody perennial plant having a single main stem that may be short but is usually considerably elongated has generally few or no branches on its lower part, and is crowned with a head of branches and foliage or (as in palms) of foliage only........ 2. A shrub or herb that grows naturally " In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. A woody perennial plant having a single main stem that may be short but is usually considerably elongated has generally few or no branches on its lower part, and is crowned with a head of branches and foliage or (as in palms) of foliage only........ 2. A shrub or herb that grows naturally " In Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 22 1973 Edition `tree' has been described as :- "A woody, perennial, usually seed bearing plant 20 ft. tall or grown at maturity.........in which the main stem dominates the lateral branches in growth.... The learned author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica also refers to the difficulty in defining a tree. He noted at page 204 of this volume, that the distinction between trees and shrubs is some time hard to determine because some species are large trees under normal conditions but merely shrubs at some places. After referring to these conceptions of the word `tree', counsel drew our attention to a back on Tea Estates `Johnson's Note Book for tea Planters', 4th Edition. On page 1 of the book the learned author while referring to the Indian variety of tea notes that if it is permitted to grow it develops-into a hard wooded loosely branched tree of over 30 ft. in height. Counsel, however, conceded that the tea shrubs on the land-holding are not allowed to grow to this height as they are constantly frauned so that there is an increase in the foliage right from the bottom of the shrubs and they rarely exceed 5' in height. 9. The question is as to whether the notification while referring to grove of trees had in mind the connotation of the word tree in its widest amplitude. We do not think that this was so. We have extracted the various meanings of the word tree. It will be noticed that one of the meanings of the word tree is a woody perennial plant which has long stem and has a few or no branches on its lower part and is crowned with a head of branches and foliage. We think it is this meaning that was in contemplation when the notification in question was issued. Past Legislative practise also pursuades us to take this view. We think it is this meaning that was in contemplation when the notification in question was issued. Past Legislative practise also pursuades us to take this view. We might begin with referring to Section 3 (15) of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 which defined grove-land, more or less in the same manner as defined in Section 3 (6) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Explanation I to this provision expressly stated that the word `trees' used in Section 3 (5) did not include tea-plants. In the U.P. Tenancy Act while defining the word `crops' in Section 3(5) tea bushes have been included, thus, indicating clearly that the Legislature treated tea bushes as crops. When this background is taken into consideration it is quite apparent that the word `trees' used in the notification meant trees as understood in common parlance, i.e., wood plants which have a long stem and a few or no branches on their lower part and are crowned with a head of branches and foliage. 10. Counsel contended that in case tea bushes are allowed to grow they would become trees. But reduction in the tax can only be granted when tea bushes acquire the status of trees and not till they a-e shrubs. The facts as prevailing on the dale when the reduction is claimed, are the only relevant facts for purposes of deciding as to whether a land holder is entitled to reduction in the tax. This being so the potentiality of the tea bushes cannot be taken into account. Further, inasmuch as it is not denied that tea plants covering land holding of the assessee are hardly 5' in height, and the stress is on increasing their foliage right from the bottom to the top, we are satisfied that these tea plants as they stood in the relevant assessment year were not trees. 11. In view of these conclusions the petition fails and is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. This order will also govern the decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 292 and 297 of 1976. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court is refused.