JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, District Magistrate, Ballia dismissing the appeals of the petitioners by which he maintained the imposition of the circumstances and property tax on the petitioners levied by the Town Area Committee, Chit-bara Gaon, District Ballia. Since the question involved in these writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Brief facts are that the Town Area Committee, Chit-bara Gaon, imposed circumstances and property tax on the petitioners on the basis of Notification issued by the District Magistrate, Ballia under Section 13-A of the Town Area Act of 1914. The petitioner preferred appeal before the District Magistrate, Ballia who dismissed the appeal. Petitioner, being aggrieved against the said order has approached this court in these writ petitions. 3. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the time of hearing of the writ petitions contended that Rules 3 and 4 framed by the State Government under Section 39 are ultra vires and invalid, in view of Section 14 (1) (f) of the Town Areas Act. The said pleas was not raised in the writ petitions and as such since the very validity of the Rules was challenged the petitioners were allowed to amend the writ petitions and the petitions were accordingly amended. 4. I have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners Ltd. Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Town Area. 5. Before deciding the controversy, it is essential to refer to the provisions of the Town Areas Act. Under Section 14 of the Town Areas Act of 1914, the Committee has been empowered to impose various taxes which are not relevant to be referred. The only provision which is relevant in this case is Section 14 (I) (f). According to which tax is imposed on persons assessed according to their circumstances and property not exceeding Such rate and Subject to such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed. In exercise of power under Section 39, the Government framed Rules, and Rule 3 provides for imposition of tax on the circumstances of assessee residing or carrying on business within the limits of the own Area. In exercise of power under Section 39, the Government framed Rules, and Rule 3 provides for imposition of tax on the circumstances of assessee residing or carrying on business within the limits of the own Area. It further says that no tax shall be imposed on any person whoso total taxable income is less than Rs. 200/- per-annum. It further states that the rate of tax shall not exceed one anna in a rupee on total taxable income and also total amount of tax assessed on any person shall not in any year exceed a sum of Rs. 200/ - According to explanation added to this Rule, taxable income of a person means gross income accruing within the limits of the Town Area. 6. Rule 4 provides that the portion of the tax assessed on property may be imposed on the owner of any land, building or other immovable property situate within the limits of the Town Area who has owned no Such property for a total period of not less than six months in the year of assessment at such flat rate not exceeding 12 per cent, on the annual rental value of the property as may be decided by the committee and approved under section 15-B of the U.P. Town Area Act by the Prescribed Authority or by the District Magistrate. 7. The District Magistrate issued a notification dated March 3, 1951 in which it has been mentioned that the Town Area has decided to impose circumstances & property Tax within the limits of the Town Area of the district. For appreciating the controversy it is essential to refer to the relevant contents of the said notification which mentions Circumstances Tax under a different heading and Property Tax under a different heading. "1. Circumstances Tax. 1. Income below Rs. 200/ - exempted. 2. Income from Rs. 200/ - up to Rs. 500/ - @ 1% 3. Income above Rs. 500/' - up to Rs. 1000/ - @ 1 % 4. Income above Rs. 1000/ - up to Rs. 1500/ - @ 2% 5. Income above Rs. 1500/ - up to Rs. 2000/ - @.2% 6. Income above Rs. 2000/ - ... 3% 8. In case of salaried class the Town Area Committee Bansdih decided to levy tax on them @ which has been approved. 2. Property Tax. 9. Income above Rs. 1000/ - up to Rs. 1500/ - @ 2% 5. Income above Rs. 1500/ - up to Rs. 2000/ - @.2% 6. Income above Rs. 2000/ - ... 3% 8. In case of salaried class the Town Area Committee Bansdih decided to levy tax on them @ which has been approved. 2. Property Tax. 9. The property tax shall be imposed on the owner of any land, building or other immovable property situated within the limits of Town Area on rental value of the property." 10. As a result of the aforesaid Notification it appears that while determining the Circumstances and property tax the Circumstances tax shall be imposed on the income of a person and the property tax shall be imposed on the owner of the land, building or other immovable on the rental value of the property. 11. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi contended that by the impugned Rules two distinct taxes were sought to be levied, firstly, a tax based on income and Secondly, a tax based on property. This tax was a composite tax based on man's financial position his statues as a whole. Rule 3 was merely referable to income but the tax was to be charged at the rate of one anna per rupee on the person's income and Rule 4 levies a tax on property which is in the nature of tax on property as contemplated by Section 14 (1). The main arguments of Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi was that it was not permissible to split and levy tax separately on income and property and then add the same and name it as circumstances and property tax. in support of his contention he relied on a decision of this Court in the Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. v. The Town Area Committee Pipraich District Gorakhpur, 1982 UPLBEC 102. in which Mr Justice K.M. Dayal, as he then was, relying on the decision of M/s. R.R. Engineering Co. v. Zila Parishad, Bareilly reported in AIR 1980 SC 1088 held that Rules 3 and 4 framed by the State Government are ultra vires to Section 14 (1)(f). 12. I have carefully gone through the decision in the Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. (Supra) and am in full agreement with the view taken in that case. Mr. S.N. Singh has not been able to cite any authority to show that any contrary view has been taken. 12. I have carefully gone through the decision in the Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. (Supra) and am in full agreement with the view taken in that case. Mr. S.N. Singh has not been able to cite any authority to show that any contrary view has been taken. In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid fact, the levy of tax on the petitioners cannot be sustained and consequently the imposition of tax has to be quashed as the Rules framed are ultra vires and do not fall under the provisions of Clause (f) to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Town Areas Act. 13. In the result, the writ petition Succeed and are allowed and the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia dismissing the appeals of the petitioners are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.