Judgment :- MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader for tbe appellants. 2. The learned single Judge has found that the lands in question are being used for agricultural purposes as well as for the manufacture of bricks, and accordingly cannot be brought within the purview of the definition of “Urban Land” in S. 2(13) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. Learned Government Pleader has drawn our attention to the statement in paragraph 9 of the return filed on behalf of the appellants before the learned single Judge, in which it is stated that: “According to Revenue records except Survey No. 39/4 measuring about 1 acre 56 cents, all the other assessed lands are dry, manavari lands which were vacant and used for brick works.” He contended that exception may be made to Survey No. 39/4 measuring 1 acre 56 cents, as the records show that the land is being used for agricultural purposes, but the rest, which is described as manavari land and is vacant, even though used for brick works, may be subjected to tax. It is not possible, however, to accept this contention. The learned single Judge has referred to an earlier judgment of this court in Sakthvel Brick Works by Partner and others v. Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Poonamallee 1 ,. in which it has been held that the lands in which brick kilns are situated and if the clay therein is used for manufacture of bricks, cannot be brought within the purview of the definition of ‘Urban Land’ in S. 2(13) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966. In view of the above and the finding of fact recorded by the learned single Judge that the land is used for brick works as reflected in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of tbe appellants themselves, we find no error, of law committed by th e learned single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.