1971 Supreme(SC) 676

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA, H.R. KHANNA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Danthuluri Ramaraju and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 223 of 1970 and Writ Petn. No. 251 of 1971, D/- 16-12-1971.
Civil Appeal No. 223 of 1970.
Writ Petn. No. 251 of 1971.
Advocates appeared
A.V. Bhaskara Rao and others, Petitioners v. The State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
In C.A. No. 223 of 1970, Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Krovidi Narasimhan, S. K. Dhingra and A. Subba Rao, Advocates, with him) for Appellants; In W. P. No. 251 of 1971. M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, Advocates, for Petitioners; Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. P. Parameshwara Rao, Advocate, with him) for Respondents (In both the matters).

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh (Krishna and Godavari Delta Area) Drainage Cess Act, 1968 - Sections 2,4,5,7,3(1),3,12,13,14,15,16 - Krishna and Godavari Delta Drainage Board Cess Fund Rules - Rule 21 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14,32,226 - Challenge - Respondents in appeal are State of Andhra Pradesh and Collector of West Godavari District while those in writ petition are State of Andhra Pradesh and Collector of Krishna District - Appellants in civil appeal belong to different Taluks of West Godavari District and own extensive areas of land in that district - As such they are liable to pay land revenue - Petitioners in writ petition are residents of Tenneru within area of Vijayawada - They own about acres of land in and around that village - Rest of petitioners are residents of different villages in Krishna district and own an area of about acres in that - Respondents were consequently permitted to file an affidavit in this Court - Affidavit of Assistant Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh was thereafter filed on behalf of respondents - A more detailed supplementary affidavit of has also been filed on behalf of respondents and same officer has filed his affidavit in opposition to petition under Article 32 of Constitution -Whether by flow or lift under net work of canals taking off from barrage near Vijayawada on Krishna river and anicut near on Godavari river - Whether natural or artificial for discharge of waste or surplus water and escape channels from an irrigation work together with dams, embankments weirs sluices grovnes pumping sets and other works connected with or auxiliary to all such channels - Whether there has been an infringement of Article 14 of Constitution - Whether it yielded or was capable of yielding any income - Whether a railway property in an area is subject to assessment to help cost of constructing a local improvement in nature of a country highway - Held, Section 3 of Act deals with levy and collection of drainage cess - According to sub-sec (1) of section there shall be levied and collected by Government for a period of six years from date of commencement of Act as a drainage cess on every land in delta area comprised within a division specified in Column of Schedule for purpose of this Act in that division a tax at such rate per acre per annum not exceeding rate specified in corresponding entry in column thereof as Government may by notification specify in respect of that division - Court find that in present case contains sufficient guidelines for fixation of rate of cess and there is also enough material on record to justify a uniform rate of cess for each acre of land in a division of deltaic area - Imposition of tax on land for raising general revenue is substantially different from levy of cess for implementation of a drainage scheme for benefit of lands in an area and principles applicable in one case would not necessarily hold good in other - Obviously railroad companies have not been treated like individual owners and Court think discrimination so palpable and arbitrary as to amount to a denial of equal protection of law - Benefits from local improvements must be estimated upon contiguous property according to some standard which will probably produce approximately correct general results - To say that miles of railroad in a purely farming section treated as an aliquot part of whole system will receive benefits amounting to from construction of miles of gravel road seems wholly improbable if not impossible - Classification of course is permissible but Court can find no adequate reason for what has been attempted in present case - Court are not impressed by above contention - Floods have a vagary and caprice of their own and it is difficult to predicate about behaviour of flood waters - Problem which arises in one year cannot afford a proper guidance for following year because dimensions of problem in subsequent year may be hundredfold compared to those of previous year - This is evident from figures in table relied upon by - It would appear therefrom that in year only acres of land in Godavari western delta were damaged by floods while in year damage caused by floods in that area covered acres of land - Court find that it is open to legislature to prescribe maximum rate of cess - Authority mentioned in statute subject to other legal requirements can levy cess up to that limit - As things are State Government in present case has adhered to maximum prescribed by Act vide notification December - Appeal dismissed