Judgment :- Manoharan, J. Revision Petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of growing and selling rubber at its Malankara Rubber Estate at Thodupuzha. Petitioner is an assessee to agricultural income tax under the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 (for short 'the ait act). For the assessment year 1981-82 the petitioner was assessed under the ait Act by order dated 5-12-1983, copy of which is annexure- a? Petitioner states that the said assessment was accepted by the petitioner and that the petitioner had paid the full tax as per the said assessment. During the period 1974-75, corresponding to assessment year 1975-76, onwards portions of the petitioner's estate were being acquired for the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and the petitioner was being paid compensation for the same. A total of 361.256 Acres were acquired during the period 1974-75 to 1980-81. On 2-4-1991 the respondent issued a notice under S.34 of the ait Act, copy of which is Annexure B, proposing to cancel the petitioner's assessment for the year 1981-82 and to remit it back to the Assessment Officer on the ground that the compensation received by the petitioner for the acquisition of the said 361.256 acres has not been included in the assessment. In response to annexure- b notice the petitioner filed objection, copy of which is annexure- c. But the respondent by order dated 12-7-1991, copy of which is Annexure D remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal. The said order is challenged in this revision. 2. annexure- b states that as per the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal y. Aft India Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. (113 ITR 545) compensation paid for requisitioned land used for agricultural purpose is agricultural income. In the first paragraph in Annexure-D it is stated "....On further verification it is seen that an extent of 361.256 acres of agricultural land (rubber estate and coconut plantation) had been acquired by Government upto 31-3-1981 from the company for Malankara Dam", and that the amount of compensation received by the company is not seen adjusted in accounts. Thus the first paragraph of Annexure-D would admit that the receipt of amount was compensation amount of the acquisition of 361.256 acres of agricultural land. Thus the first paragraph of Annexure-D would admit that the receipt of amount was compensation amount of the acquisition of 361.256 acres of agricultural land. After stating so, the order proceeds to state that the compensation received for the 'acquisitioned' lands which were used for agricultural purposes by the assessee is agricultural income as held in the decision in All India Tea Trading Co. Ltd. 's case (113 ITR 545) and in the concluding paragraph after mentioning the objection of the assessee to the effect that the compensation received is capital in nature, it proceeds to state that the sale value of land though can be claimed as capital receipt, the value of crop cannot be so, that if the land was put to agricultural purpose after the acquisition the compensation represents use of agricultural land for agricultural purposes and hence agricultural income, and that this requires further probe to ascertain the true nature of transaction. We cannot but notice the inconsistency and ambiguity in Annexure. D. 3. The validity of the order is assailed contending that, as the amount is capital receipt and not revenue the same cannot be taxed under the ait Act. Petitioner maintained, that when the land is acquired, the trees thereon cannot be separately dealt with or their value treated as agricultural income. Then it was contended, the purported exercise of jurisdiction under S.34 of the ait Act, 1950 since it was not within a reasonable time the order was invalid and that since the order entrenches upon the power of the Assessing Authority was invalid on that ground also. 4. In the circumstance we may consider the first point raised to the effect that the amount is capital receipt. According to the petitioner the decision in All India Tea Trading Co. Ltd. 's case (113 ITR 545) referred to in the notice annexure- b for re-opening the assessment has no application as the amount received by it was compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of portions of Us estate and the same under law could only be capital receipts in the petitioner's hand. Consequently the same is not revenue for the purpose of being assessed to agricultural income tax. According to the petitioner since the very basis for the issue of annexure- b is vitiated, Annexure-D cannot be sustained. Consequently the same is not revenue for the purpose of being assessed to agricultural income tax. According to the petitioner since the very basis for the issue of annexure- b is vitiated, Annexure-D cannot be sustained. A reading of annexure- b and D would reveal that the amount in question was received by petitioner towards compensation for the land acquired by the State. Now annexure- a for the year 1981-82 is sought to be reopened on the ground that the amount, which was received as compensation for the acquired land, was not adjusted in the accounts. The case is that as per the decision in All India Tea'& Trading Co Ltd. 's case (113 ITR 545) such compensation received by the assessee is agricultural income in his hands. Annexure-D contains a further case that no evidence was tendered to show that no part of the compensation represents cost of agricultural produces or crops. Then it is stated: "So also if the land is put to agricultural purposes any more after the handing over the property even though the ultimate intention is for another purpose, any amount represents the use of land for agricultural purposes represents agricultural income." It purports to maintain that the land if used for agricultural purpose after it was handed over has relevance in considering the character and nature of the compensation. 5. The two important aspects which would call for adjudication with due regard to the nature of the contest are, the character of the income received on compulsory acquisition and the other, in the context of this case whether the trees in the acquired property could be treated separately so that the value of the same could be agricultural income. We have already pointed out that in Annexures A and D the character of the property acquired is admitted to be a rubber and coconut plantation. The revenue has no case that any other cultivation was raised in the property. 6. We may first take up the question whether the decision in All India Tea Trading Co. Ltd.'s case (113 ITR 545) supports the stand taken by the respondent. Properties belonging to the respondent therein were requisitioned under S.3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and acquisition) Act, 1948. 6. We may first take up the question whether the decision in All India Tea Trading Co. Ltd.'s case (113 ITR 545) supports the stand taken by the respondent. Properties belonging to the respondent therein were requisitioned under S.3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and acquisition) Act, 1948. Respondent received compensation under S.7 (3) of the said Act which enjoined that where any land is requisitioned under S3 every person interested in such land has to be paid such compensation as might be agreed upon in writing between that person and the Collector and any damage done during the period of requisition. The Income Tax Officer included the said amount under the Head 'Other Sources' rejecting the claim of the assessee that it was exempted from tax as it was agricultural income. A Bench of the Calcutta High Court on the reasoning that the requisitioned lands were used by the assessee for agricultural purposes in the accounting year and also in the earlier years, held the compensation paid for the requisitioned land is agricultural income and that the same is not assessable under the Income Tax Act. According to the respondent as per this decision once it is shown that' the land in question was agricultural land before acquisition and continued to be used for agricultural purpose though the ultimate object of acquisition was for constructing a dam, the compensation amount received would be impressed with the character of agricultural income and therefore the same is taxable under the ait Act. We note that the respondent over looked a fundamental distinction between the case in All India Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. (113 ITR 545) and the case in hand. Whereas in All India Tea & Trading Co. Ltd.'s case (113 ITR 545) the land was only requisitioned; in this case admittedly the land in question was acquired. Under law requisition and acquisition are different resulting in different consequences. 7. In the decision in Jiwani Kumar v. First Land Acquisition Sector Calcutta (AIR 1984 SC 1707) the distinction between requisition and acquisition was considered. The meaning of requisition mentioned in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary at page 2355 is referred to; the reads: "'Requisition' is not a term of art and has different meanings. 7. In the decision in Jiwani Kumar v. First Land Acquisition Sector Calcutta (AIR 1984 SC 1707) the distinction between requisition and acquisition was considered. The meaning of requisition mentioned in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary at page 2355 is referred to; the reads: "'Requisition' is not a term of art and has different meanings. Its usual meaning is nothing more than hiring without taking the property out of the owner although the owner has no alternative whether he will accept the proposition of hiring or not. It may, however, involve the taking over of the actual domination of a chattel (The Steaua Romana (1914) P.43)". It is further observed: "Thus normally the expression' requisition' is taking possession of the property for a limited period in contradistinction to 'acquisition'. This popular meaning has to be kept in mind in judging whether in a particular case, there has been in fact any abuse of the power" Then adverting to acquisition and requisition it is observed:" "The two concepts are different; in one title passes to the acquiring authority, in the other title remains with the owner, the possession goes to the requisitioning authority. One is the taking over the title and the other is the taking over the possession". 8. By requisition the title of the owner is never divested; whereas in the case of acquisition the title of the owner would be divested. During the period of requisition the owner of the land will not be entitled to exercise the right of ownership. Such exercise of the right of the ownership will stand suspended during the period of requisition. Thus a person who comes into possession on requisition can continue to be in possession only during the period of requisition. In such situation except that the possession is with the person who comes in to possession on requisition the proprietor of the land does not lose his proprietor title in the land. In such circumstance the compensation received by the proprietor of the land for such possession and enjoyment by the other could under law be damages for use and occupation of the land. That being so the character of the amount so received would depend upon the character of the land, which was so requisitioned. In such circumstance the compensation received by the proprietor of the land for such possession and enjoyment by the other could under law be damages for use and occupation of the land. That being so the character of the amount so received would depend upon the character of the land, which was so requisitioned. The amount paid to the proprietor of the land for such use since has nexus with the nature of user by the person in possession the said amount would be impressed with the character of the user. The effective source of receipt of the said income being the said user of the land for agricultural purpose that would be decisive as to the character of the said income. But that is not the position when the land is compulsorily acquired and compensation is received. Since the title of the proprietor of the land vests with the State on acquisition the subsequent nature of user of the land by the State cannot have relevance in deciding the character of the compensation awarded. The amount received on acquisition is the value of the property - consideration for the transfer of title to the property. The capital asset of the owner, namely, land gets substituted by money. 9. Now we may consider whether the value of the trees in the property acquired can be separately dealt with to ascertain the character of the compensation received on acquisition. Normally on acquisition the title of the property inclusive of whatever is attached to it would also pass to the State. In the context in ascertaining the nature of the compensation the land and the trees standing thereon should be dealt with as a composite unit. This court in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ananickal Co. Ltd. (158. ITR 630) held: "Standing timber is very much immovable property as the land itself. The trees, until they are cut and removed, from an integral part of such land. Trees being things attached to the earth, together with the earth to which they are attached constitute one asset, viz., the land. When the land with the standing trees is transferred, the sale is an integral one in respect of that asset only and it cannot involve a separate sale of the trees as a distinct asset. Trees being things attached to the earth, together with the earth to which they are attached constitute one asset, viz., the land. When the land with the standing trees is transferred, the sale is an integral one in respect of that asset only and it cannot involve a separate sale of the trees as a distinct asset. A bifurcation of the asset can happen only when the trees are sold separately for being cut and removed while the right over the soil is retained by the owner Where the land is agricultural land and it is sold along with the trees thereon, the sale is only in respect of agricultural land of which the trees form an integral part". 10. As regards the nature of the amount received on such sale this court in Commissioner of Income Taxv. T.K. Sarala Dew (1987 (1) KLT740 = (167) ITR 130) held: "When a capital asset is sold, what is realised is capital receipt and not revenue receipt. If profit or gain results from such a sale, it is chargeable, not because it is revenue, but because the statute specifically charges the resulting capital gain by including it as income". We have already pointed out that the land acquired was rubber and coconut plantation. In the light of the said decisions, we have no doubt in our mind, when land with trees is acquired the value of the trees cannot be separately dealt with. The whole title of the Proprietor vests with the State on acquisition. The compensation received would represent the value of land so acquired the same would only be capital receipt and will not be revenue receipt. Evidently therefore the said amount cannot be subjected to tax under the provisions of the ait Act. 11. As has already noted, the petitioner also assails Annexure U order on the ground that the said order is unreasonable and irrational as the same was rendered 9 years from the end of the assessment year in question and over 71/2 years after completion of the assessment. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Mis Nellimpathy Tea Co. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (1991 KLJ (Tax Cases 36) and M. Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (1992 KLJ (Tax Cases) 195). In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Mis Nellimpathy Tea Co. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (1991 KLJ (Tax Cases 36) and M. Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax (1992 KLJ (Tax Cases) 195). The former was a case where the order under S.34 of the ait Act passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax after a lapse of about 10 years was challenged on the ground the same is irrational and unreasonable. After holding that the reopening of the final assessment in exercise of the powers under S.34 of the Act would demand cogent and sufficient reasons and that the power can be exercised by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax only bona fide and within a reasonable period, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax for fresh consideration. In the latte case the question that arose for consideration was whether an order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Incometax after 13 years of the filing of the objection to the notice under S.34 of the ait Act could be sustained. It was held that, in the circumstance the exercise of the powers by the statutory authority is unreasonable and irrational. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional authority by passing the order Annexure D has entrenched upon the jurisdiction and power of the assessing authority and on that account also the order cannot be supported. We have already found that the compensation being capital receipt is not amenable for taxation under the ait Act. On that point itself the revision has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside. In that view it is not necessary to consider the two other points referred to earlier. In the result the Tax Revision Case is allowed and the order of the respondent' dated 12-7-1991 (Annexure 'D') is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.