SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
State of Mysore etc, Appellants
Versus
M.S. Nagade and Gadag and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1221-1222 and 1407 - 1413 of 1970,
D/- 6-5-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. Veerappa and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocates, for Appellants in all appeals; M/s. Naunil Lal, Kailash Vasudev and Krishna Kumar, Advocates (in C. A. Nos. 1407-1412/70), Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate, M/s. Vinod Bobde, D. N. Misra and Mrs. A. K. Verma, Advocates (in C. A. Nos, 1222 and 1413/70) and Mr. S. S. Javali and Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocates (in C. A. No. 1221 of 1970). for, Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Hyderabad Land Revenue Act - Section 172 - Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 - Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955 - Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 - Bombay Land Revenue Rules - Rule 81 - Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules - Rule 71 - Land Revenue - Demand of Non-Agricultural assessment - Quashed - Boundaries of old Mysore State underwent a change consequent upon Reorganisation of States - Some portion of former Bombay State as well as some portion of old Hyderabad State were allocated to State - This historical phenomenon led to different land Revenue Codes remaining in operation in different parts of State of Mysore - To be precise that area of former Bombay State forming part of Mysore State continued to be governed in respect of land revenue by Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and rules made thereunder - Similarly that area of former Hyderabad State which was allocated to Mysore State continued to be governed by Hyderabad Land Revenue Act - validity of amended rule was challenged on ground that it provides no guidelines for determining Non-Agricultural assessment for various plots and that it suffers from vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions and therefore any demand raised in exercise of power conferred by amended Rule 71 would be arbitrary and therefore violative of Art. 14 of Constitution – Held, In Court opinion, both Act (Code ?) and Rules thus provide for sufficient guidelines and it cannot be said that Commissioner enjoys wide arbitrary discretionary power - Discretion has to operate within the floor and the ceiling; yardstick is value of the land used for non agricultural purposes in locality, area has to be divided village-wise, town-wise, city-wise and overall what is being assessed is land revenue because N. A. assessment is none less land revenue - In Court opinion, High Court was in error in striking does provision on ground that Commissioner enjoyed wide arbitrary discretion uncontrolled by any guidelines - Discretion is not only controlled but there is sufficient guidelines in Act and the Rules and therefore, High Court was in error in striking down amended Rule 81 - It was in passing urged that there is no provision for notice before N. A. assessment is levied - Court would expect revenue authority ordinarily to hear person affected by the order levying N. A. assessment or at time of its appeal or revision, but on this count demand cannot be struck down because when a demand is served, it can be objected to and decision, is appealable - It cannot be said that Rule would be had as it does not inhere principles of natural justice - All appeals are allowed and the judgments of High Court in both groups are quashed and set aside and writ petitions filed by respondents are dismissed with costs throughout - Appeals allowed.
Judgment
DESAI, J. :- Civil Appeals Nos. 1221-1222/ 7O arise from a decision of the Division Bench of the then High Court of Mysore at Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos. 672/63 and 193/64 (1934/64?) by which the High Court quashed the demand of Non-agricultural assessment (N. A. assessment for short) made by the respondents on the ground that Rule 71 as amended on July 4, 1958 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules which appeared to have been repealed and re-enacted as the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 was unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and hence void.
2. Civil Appeals Nos. 1407 to 1413/7O arise from a decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in a group of writ petitions by which the High Court quashed the demand of Non-Agricultural assessment on the ground that Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules as amended on March 27, 1958 was unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 and hence void.
3. Appellants in both the groups are the State of Mysore and some officers. Respondents are the original petitioners in both the groups.
4. Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules and Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules were amended in an identical manner but on two different dates and the validity of each amendment rule was questioned on identical grounds and more or less the High Court for identical reasons quashed both the Rules as amended and almost identical grounds were canvassed in support of rival contentions before us and therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The boundaries of old Mysore State underwent a change consequent upon the Reorganisation of States in 1956. Some portion of former Bombay State as well as some portion of the old Hyderabad State were allocated to Mysore State. This historical phenomenon led to different land Revenue Codes remaining in operation in different parts of the State of Mysore. To be precise that area of former Bombay State forming part of Mysore State continued to be governed in respect of land revenue by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the rules made thereunder. Similarly that area of former Hyderabad State which was allocated to Mysore State continued to be governed by the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of 1317F).
In Re C. A. Nos. 1221-1222/70: Respondents questioned the validity of the amended Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules which came into force from July 3, 1958. It reads as under :
"71. (1) Mode of assessment in the event of diversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes. The special assessment shall be levied as follows :-
(a) in the case of land situated in any village the population of which does not exceed 5,000 the rate of special assessment leviable on such land (sic) and not more than Rs. 40 per acre.
(b) in the case of land situated in any village or town other than a town coming under sub rule (c) of this Rule, the population of which exceeds 5,000 the rate of special assessment leviable shall he not less than Rs. 40 per acre and not more than Rs. 80per acre.
(c) in the case of land situated within an area comprising the Municipality limits of the town of Raichur, Gulbarga and Bidar the rate of special assessment leviable shall be not less than Rs. 150 per acre and not more than Rs. 250 per acre."
The validity of the amended rule was challenged on the ground that it provides no guidelines for determining Non-Agricultural assessment for various plots and that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of essential legislative functions and therefore any demand raised in exercise of the power conferred by the amended Rule 71 would be arbitrary and therefore violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
In Re C. A. Nos. 1407 to 1413/70 Respondents who were petitioners in the High Court questioned the validity of Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules as amended on March 27, 1958. It reads as under :
"81. (1) Rate of Non-Agricultural assessment.- The
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.