Judgment :- MRS. T. MEENAKUMARI J. These writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in R.P. Nos. 79, 78, 81, 80, 77 and 76 of 1988 and quash the order dated August 5, 1989, confirming the order of the second respondent in G.I.R. Nos. 65-N/HUF/1987-88, 65-N/HUF of 1982-83 to 1986-87, 67-K/HUF of 1987-88, 67-K/HUF of 1982-83 to 1986-87, 62-S of 1987-88 and 62-S of 1982-83 to 1986-87, dated February 26, 1988, respectively, not granting the basic exemption of 20 standard acres in respect of the holdings of the petitioners as individuals. Since the points involved in the above writ petitions are one and the same, the following common order is passed. The case of the petitioners is that they are the members of a Hindu undivided family holding certain extent of agricultural lands belonging to the Hindu undivided family, and applied for composition as contemplated under section 65 of the Act to the second respondent. The second respondent has accepted the claim and raised a demand for respective years. The karta also owned an extent of 11.51 standard acres of agricultural lands in his individual capacity and as this extent was also below the limit for composition, filed separate applications for composition from the assessment year 1980-81 onwards. As the total extent of land held dry by the karta in his individual capacity was below the exemption limit of 20 standard acres, he was held not to be liable to pay any agricultural income-tax. There seems to be an order passed on April 7, 1982, to the above extent. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioners that the second respondent issued a notice to the respective petitioners stating that there were two assessments one as a Hindu undivided family and the other as an individual and in the composition orders, basic exemption of 20 standard acres was granted in respect of both the assessments but the benefit of basic exemption of 20 standard acres can be granted only in respect of one assessment in the hands of a person even though they may be assessed in more than one capacity and accordingly requiring cause to be shown as to why the basic exemption of 20 standard acres granted in the assessment of the family should not be withdrawn. On February 20, 1988, the family filed its reply to the second respondent. On February 26, 1988, the second-respondent has confirmed the proposals and held that the petitioner family will be liable to pay tax on the entire standard acres without the benefit of the basic exemption of 20 standard acres and held that the tax was payable and after adjusting the tax already paid pursuant to his earlier assessments, determined the respective additional tax for each year. In respect of the respective assessment year two separate applications for composition were filed by the respective petitioners, one as the karta of the family and the other in respect of individual holdings. The second respondent accepted the composition application filed on behalf of the family but did not grant the basic exemption of 20 standard acres available under Part II of the Schedule to the Act for calculating the tax payable as had been done by him in the earlier years. Against these orders of the second respondent, the petitioner family filed two revision petitions before the first respondent and by his order dated August 5, 1989, he dismissed the revision petitions and confirmed the orders of the second respondent. The first respondent has held in the revisions that the provisions of the Act do not intend to shower the same grace twice over an individual what it otherwise agrees to concede once to the same individual. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents are wrong in their view that the benefit of the basic exemption of 20 standard acres available under Part II of the Schedule to the Act will be available only in the assessment of the individual and not in the hands of the family particularly in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal. It is also argued that the authorities are not correct in holding against the view of the Supreme Court that the individual and the Hindu undivided family are totally different units of assessment and are two different assessees and the liability to be taxed as an individual is different from the liability to be taxed on behalf of his Hindu undivided family. According to the petitioners, the respondents failed to notice that even the definition of "person" in section 2(n) of the Act includes a Hindu undivided family and it is a separate unit for charge and assessability to agricultural income-tax under the Act as an individual. It is also further argued that the officer has no jurisdiction to club the holdings of two persons who have a different status in the eye of law and who fell in different legal personalities. It is also argued that the liability to pay tax on the basis of the composition under section 65 of the Act is at the rate or rates specified in Part II of the Schedule to the Act and the second respondent has also ignored the first slab in the said Part of the Schedule and started to calculate from the second slab for determining the tax payable. Hence, it is contended that the working of the second respondent in omitting the first slab in respect of an assessment is unwarranted and not contemplated under the Act. It is also argued that the petitioners as karta are entitled to hold the lands in the capacity of karta of the Hindu undivided family and also as an individual and the lands held by the individual cannot be clubbed with the lands held by the Hindu undivided familyLearned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice the provisions of section 65 which reads as follows: "Composition of agricultural income-tax. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who holds land not exceeding fifty acres grown with plantation crop may apply to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lump sum, at the rate or rates specified in Part II of the Schedule to this Act." The Schedule under Part II indicates the extent and rate per standard acre Extent Rate per standard acre 1. On the first 20 standard acres Nil 2. On the next 5 standard acres 15 3. On the next 5 standard acres 20 4. On the next 5 standard acres 30 5. On the next 5 standard acres 40 6. On the next 10 standard acres 50 7. On the next 10 standard acres 60 8. On the next 10 standard acres 70 9. On the next 5 standard acres 15 3. On the next 5 standard acres 20 4. On the next 5 standard acres 30 5. On the next 5 standard acres 40 6. On the next 10 standard acres 50 7. On the next 10 standard acres 60 8. On the next 10 standard acres 70 9. On the next 10 standard acres 80 10. On the balance of standard acres 100. In this regard, it is to be noted that for the purpose of calculation of the tax, on the first 20 standard acres, the rate as per the standard acre will be nil and the calculation should be started on the next 5 standard acres after giving concession to the first 20 standard acres. A reading of the impugned order shows that the officer has omitted the first 20 standard acres and started calculating from the second slab and he has levied the tax as per the above calculation. The learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents has argued that the orders of the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent are valid as the same person holds the land in the capacity of karta as also an individual. Hence, the petitioners cannot seek severability of the lands from assessment as the karta and that of individuals. He also further argued that the calculation is valid as the petitioners herein are not right in seeking the severability of the person as a karta and also an individual. With the above context, he tried to support the orders passed by the respondentsIn my view, the calculation of the officer in omitting the first slab is not in conformity with the provisions of section 65 of the Act. In this case, it could be seen that the petitioners hold the lands in question as the karta of the Hindu undivided family and also in other capacity as individuals as they would be fulfilling a double capacity and effectively they would be considered as indicating a dual personality in them. In a case where such a dual personality is projected, the officers enjoin the power to levy tax upon such an individual in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family. In a case where such a dual personality is projected, the officers enjoin the power to levy tax upon such an individual in his capacity as karta of the Hindu undivided family. If there is a dual personality in one individual or person and if such a person holds lands, then a severability is contemplated if such a person holding such a dual personality comes up with an application for composition. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this court in Mariam Aysha v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. wherein it has been held by this court that if there is a dual personality in one individual or person and if such person holds lands, then, a severability is contemplated under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, if such a person comes up with an application for composition. The lands held by him in his capacity as a normal person would be severed from the lands held by him in his other capacity and would be dealt with accordingly and the officer normally has no jurisdiction to club holdings of persons who have a different status in the eye of law and who fell in different legal personalities in any one individual. This court has further held that the clubbing by the authorities below which was accepted by the Commissioner is against law and not justified. Relying upon the said decision, it could be seen that in this case also, the second respondent has clubbed the lands held by the petitioners herein as karta of the Hindu undivided family and also that of an individual which view has been accepted by the first respondent. Hence, it could be said, that the clubbing by the second respondent which was accepted by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and against law and not justifiedIn view of the above, I hold that the respondents have no jurisdiction to club the holdings of persons who have different status in the eye of law and the action of the second respondent in clubbing the lands of the petitioners as karta and that of the individuals as confirmed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction. With the above observations, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petitions are allowed and if any payment was made by the petitioners herein in pursuance of the impugned orders, the respondents shall refund the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs.