Judgment :- James, J. The petitioner in O.P.No. 3224 of 1996 is the appellant. She has sought for a declaration that sub clauses (i) and (ii) of sub section (9B) of Section 13 of the Kerala Agricultural Income tax Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act') inserted by the Kerala Finance Act, 1994 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. She has further sought to quash Ext.P4 proceedings of the first respondent and also for direction to the said respondent to consider the appellant's eligibility for compounding without reference to other co-tenants' eligibility or otherwise for payment of tax on compounded rate. 2. Mrs. Thara Peter. Mr. Dilip Oommen, and the appellant are jointly holding 51.25 hectares of agricultural land planted with rubber. All the three had obtained the said property under Ext.P1 transfer deed dated 1.3.1982. The appellant has got 30% of rights in the property. The income from the property has been assessed under the Agricultural income Tax Act, 1950, as tenants-in-common under the name and style 'Mrs. Thara Peter and others'. After the insertion of Sub-section (9B) by the Kerala Finance Act 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994 tenants-in-common are specifically given the right to opt compounding of agricultural income tax under section 13 (9B), provided, the landed property held by that person within the State of Kerala is not extending more than 20 hectares, as provided in Section 13(1) of the Act. The appellant made Ext.P2 application in Form No.1A as prescribed under the Act, seeking permission to remit the tax at the compounded rate. She also filed Ext.P3 return disclosing the tax payable before the first respondent. As per Ext.P4 proceedings dated 5.12.1995, the first respondent. As per Ext.P4 proceedings dated 5.12.1995, the first respondent dismissed Ext.P2 application for compounding of the tax on the ground that the co-tenants had not opted for compounding under Section 13 of the Act, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for compounding the tax under Section 13 (9B) of the Act the appellant therefore challenged the same before the learned single judge who dismissed the original petition, and hence this appeal. 3. Sri. 3. Sri. Antony Dominic learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no rationale in linking the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of compounding provided under Section 13 of the Act to the income of another person and that the conditions stipulated under sub section (9B) of section 13 will amount to compelling one to do an impossible or impracticable act which is beyond one's own power. The counsel also relied on the decision of this court in K.G.Keshava Bhat v. State of Kerala (1999) 7 KTR 128 (Ker.), S.Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman (AIR 1985 SC 582) and in AIR SC 2195. He further argued that the extent of the share of the property held by the appellant would come to only 13.35 acres. Which is within the eligible limit of compounding under Sec.13 (1) of the Act, and merely because the other tenants-in-common are having property in excess of the extent specified under Sec.13(1) of the Act, and are ineligible for getting the benefit of compounding, would not be a ground to deny the right of the appellant to pay the tax as per the principle of compounding conferred under Section 13(9B) of the Act. He also contended that the interpretation given under Ext.P4 by the first respondent is discriminatory and is vi0olative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The counsel also brought to out notice that Sec.13(9B) of the Act had been subsequently deleted under Act 23/1999. 4. Sri. Raju Joseph, the learned Spl. Government pleader for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the normal assessment of agricultural income is as provided under Sec.5 to 12 of the Act and that there is no compulsion to pay the tax at the compounded rate as provided under Sec.13 of the Act. He further submitted that if the tenants-in-common want the benefit of Section 13, they have to satisfy the conditions provided in sub section (9B) of the said section. The Government Pleader also submitted that but for the provisions of sub section (9B) of Section 13, the appellant would not have been entitled to apply for compounding. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. The Government Pleader also submitted that but for the provisions of sub section (9B) of Section 13, the appellant would not have been entitled to apply for compounding. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. Sec.3 is the charging section as per which tax at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act shall be charged for each assessment year in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act on the total agricultural income of the provisions year of every person Sub. Section (2) provides that subject to the provisions of this Act in the case of persons holding property as tenants-in-common and deriving agricultural income, the tax shall be assessed at the rate applicable to the agricultural income of each tenant-in-common. Section 4 deals with total agricultural income and sec.5 deals with computation of agricultural income. Sec.6 provides for non-deduction of certain amounts in the computation of total income. Sec.7 deals with depreciation and investment allowance. Sec.8 deals with income forming part of the total agricultural income, on which no tax is payable and Sec.9 deals with rebate and deduction allowable. Sec.12 deals with carrying forwarded of loss. 6. Section 13 provides for composition of agricultural income tax. Sub sec.(1) of Sec.13 reads thus: 13. Composition of Agricultural income Tax:- (1) Notwithstanding any thin contained in this Act, any person who holds landed property within the State extending to not more than twenty hectares and deriving agricultural income 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 lumpsum at the rates specified in the Table herein under on the planted area." The compounding rates are also provided in the table which is not relevant for the purpose of this case and hence not extracted. Sub Sec.(9) of Sec.13 states that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a member of any association of persons which was assessed in the previous year under the provisions of Section 3 or to any company or co-operative society. Sub section (9B) inserted by the Kerala Finance Act. 1993 with effect from 1.4.1993 provides for composition of tax by a firm. Sub section (9B) inserted by the Kerala Finance Act. 1993 with effect from 1.4.1993 provides for composition of tax by a firm. Sub Sec.(9B) inserted by sec.6 of the Kerala Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1.4.1994 reads as follows: "(9B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9), any person holding landed property as tenants-in-common may, opt to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this section if - (i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section, and (ii) The share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property does not exceed the limit specified under sub-section (1)". Sub section (10) provides that any person who is permitted to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of sec.13 shall be exempted from payment of plantation tax under the provisions of the said Act during the period of such permission. 7. As already noted, we are concerned with the validity of the provisions of sub section (9B) of section 13 inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1.4.1994. The question as to whether the tenants-in-common are entitled to the benefit of compounded payment of tax for the period prior to 1.4.1994 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in K.G.Keshava Bhat v. State of Kerala and others (1999) 7 KTR 128. The Division Bench observed that from the scheme of the Act the only inference that could be drawn is that sub section (9B) of Sec.13 is merely explanatory in nature and the argument that for the first time the benefit of compounding was conferred on tenants-in-common only by the insertion of sub sec. (9B) does not seem to be correct and that the scheme clearly indicates that tenants-in-common were entitled to the benefit of compounding even prior to the insertion of sub section (9B) which is merely clarificatory. The Division Bench also rejected the contention of the Government Pleader that but for sub sec.(9B) the benefit of compounding cannot be availed by tenants-in-common under sub sec.13 (1). The Division Bench also observed that the authorities harbored the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under sec.13 (1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common and that what was implicit earlier has been made explicit by sub-section (9B) and that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). The Division Bench also observed that the authorities harbored the belief bona fide but erroneously that benefit of compounding under sec.13 (1) cannot be availed of by tenants-in-common and that what was implicit earlier has been made explicit by sub-section (9B) and that the tenants-in-common will be entitled to the benefit of compounding under section 13(1). The Division Bench ultimately held that sub section (9B of Section 13 is merely explanatory and the tenants-in-common, who hold an extent of property not exceeding 20 hectares, are entitled to the benefit of compounding as persons under sec.13(1) of the Act. 8. This decision does not deal with the question that is raised in this appeal. It only says that sub section (9B) of section 13 is only clarificatory in nature and that even de hors the said sub section tenants-in-common are entitled to the benefit of compounding under Section 13 (1), Here, as we have already noted, the question is regarding the validity of sub section (9B) of section 13. Under sub section (9B) tenants-in-common are entitled to the benefit of compounding only if (i) all the other tenants opt to pay tax under this section and (ii) the share of each tenant in the common tenancy together with his individual property dos not exceed the limit specified under sub-section (1). The assessing authority has rejected the request of the appellant opting for payment of tax at the compounded rate on the ground that the other tenants-in-common did not opt to pay tax under this section. According to the appellant. Since other two tenants-in-common were not entitled to the benefit of compounding and since they did not satisfy the requirements of sub section (9B) (ii) they cannot opt for payment of tax at the compounded rate and therefore there is no question of the other tenants-in-common satisfying the requirements of sub-section (9B) (i) of section 13. The contention of the appellant is that the disability of the other tenants in opting for payment of the tax at the compounded rate cannot be a ground for disentitling the appellant from availing the benefit of compounding which according to her would amount to arbitrariness and discrimination. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant to challenge the provisions of sub section (9B) of section 13 if the Act. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant to challenge the provisions of sub section (9B) of section 13 if the Act. As already noted the charging provision is section 3 and sub section (2) of section 3 provides for the mode of assessment of tenants-in-common. The normal mode of assessment under the Act is provided in sections 5 to 12 if the Act. Section 13 is a special provision giving an option to the assesses therein to pay the tax at the compounded rate, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. By virtue of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Keshava Bhat's case the position is that even prior to the introduction of sub section (9B) with effect from 1.4.1994 tenants-in-common were entitled to opt for compounding under section 13(1). Even under section 13(1) compounding can be had only if each of the tenants-in-common who opt for compounding holds agricultural property having an extent 20 hectares and below. By the insertion of sub section (9B) in Section 13 the tenants in common are entitled to compounding under section 13(1) only if the twin conditions specified in sub section (9B) are satisfied. We find there is logic in prescribing the conditions that in orders to enable a member of the tenants-in-common to opt for compounding the other members of the tenants-in-common must also agree to be governed by section 13(1) and that each of the tenants-in-common shall not hold more than 20 hectares. The logic according to us, is this: The agricultural income from the same property which was assessed hitherto in accordance with the normal provisions regarding taxation of agricultural income tax must receive the same treatment even after opting for compounding. If compounding is allowed in the case of only one tenant-in-common and the same is not available to or availed by the other tenants-in-common either for the reason that they did not opt for compounding or for the reason that they held agricultural properties more than 20 hectares individually, there will be two types of assessments in respect of the agricultural income from the same agricultural holding i.e., the person who is granted the compounding facility need pay tax only on the basis of the extent held and the others on the basis of the yield from the property and the expenses incurred. It would appear that the legislative intention in imposing the two conditions is to avoid such a situation. In other words, the legislature intended to have the same treatment to all the members of the tenants-in-common in respect of the agricultural income derived from the agricultural holding of the tenants in common. We do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in imposing such a condition. The appellant has not challenged the legislative competence of the State to enact sub section (9B) in the manner the legislature has done. There is yet another reason to repel the challenge to the provisions of sub section (9B) of section 13. Sec 13 provides for option to compound the tax payable under the Act provided the assessee does not hold agricultural land more than 20 hectares. The normal provision for assessment, as already noted is provided under sections 5 to 12 of the Act. Section 13 only provides for an alternate method of taxation provided under the Act which is made optional to the assessee. Section 13 gives an option to the assessee who is liable to tax under the Act in respect of the agricultural income derived from the agricultural holding to pay tax by way of composition at the rate provided in the Schedule under Section 13(1). There is no compulsion on any assessee to opt for the method of taxation provided under Section 13(1) of the Act. It is entirely left to the choice and absolute discretion of the Assessee. If the assessee thinks that it is beneficial for him to so opt, he can opt for it; otherwise he will be governed by the normal method of taxation provided under sections 5 to 12 of the Act. It is entirely left to the choice and absolute discretion of the Assessee. If the assessee thinks that it is beneficial for him to so opt, he can opt for it; otherwise he will be governed by the normal method of taxation provided under sections 5 to 12 of the Act. The Supreme Court repelled a similar challenge in the context of the provisions of section 5(1) (iv), section 7(7) and sub section (7A) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rule 22A of the Rules made in State of Kerala v. Builders Association, (1997) 104 STC 134, contending that sub sections are beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature or violative of clause 29A of Article 366 of the constitution of Indian stating that sub sections (7) and (7A) of Section 7 of the said Act are only optional and that there is no compulsion on any contractor to opt for the method of taxation provided under the said sub sections. It is also observed that the legislature has evolved a convenient, hassle-free and simple method of assessment and that by opting to this alternate method, the contractor saves himself, the bother of book-keeping, assessment, appeals and all that it means. It is further observed that in such a case it is not necessary to enquire and determine the extent or the value of the goods which have been transferred in the course of execution of the works contract, the rate applicable to them and so on and that a rough and ready method evolved by sub-sections (7) and (7A) for ascertaining the tax payable under section 5(1)(iv) cannot be said to be beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature or violative of clause (29A) of Articles 366 of the Constitution of India. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision will equally apply to the present case. There is no compulsion on the part of the appellant to opt for the compounding facility provided under sub section (9B) of Section 13, if it is not beneficial to him. The learned single Judge has repelled the contention stating that the appellant has not made out any valid ground for challenging sub section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge. There is not merit in this appeal. The learned single Judge has repelled the contention stating that the appellant has not made out any valid ground for challenging sub section (9B) of Section 13 of the Act. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned single Judge. There is not merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.