Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H. H. SHRI VISHWESHA THIRTHA SWAMIAR
Versus
State of Mysore
Decided on : August 12, 1971
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 – Hyderabad Land Revenue Act 1318– Mysore Land Revenue (surcharge) Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19, 31, 271 – Competence of Mysore Legislature – Seven writ petitions were filed in the Mysore High Court under art. 226 of Constitution challenging validity of Mysore Land Revenue (surcharge) Act, 1961 mysore Act XIII of 1961-as amended by Mysore Acts 1 and 31 of 1963, as being ultra vires the Constitution. – Some of the petitioners were from South Kanara District, and some from Bellary District, which were part of the Madras State prior to the re-organisation of States, Some petitioners were from the Karnatak area of the then Bombay State. – High Court held that the Acts were within the compatence of the Mysore Legislature and did not violate Arts. 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution – Held, Court have here a temporary measure imposing additional land revenue while resettlement and survey was being done in the entire State. – This process necessarily takes a long time. – It is stated in the judgment of the High Court that the settlement report was received by the Government only in 1963. – It cannot be said that the State acted arbitrarily in imposing a surcharge on land revenue which was being levied under the existing settlements and Acts. – Counsel contended before us that the State could have easily waited for a few years before levying the additional surcharge while the enquiries were pending. – This is a matter not for the Courts but for the State Legislature to determine. – If the State needs funds urgently it is for it to levy additional revenue provided it does not infringe article 14. – In view of the facts of this case, the temporary nature of the Acts, and the pendency of the re-settlement and survey proceeding court cannot say that the legislature has acted contrary to the provisions of art. 14. – Counsel challenged the validity of the Acts under art. 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it was common ground that there was inequality in taxation between the lands comprised in the South Kanara District and the areas in the erstwhile Mysore State. – High Court proceeded on the basis that the land revenue was highest in the Madras area of the State as it was represented to it that in the old Madras State half of the estimated net produce was taken as land revenue whereas in other areas only 1/16th of the gross produce was taken as land revenue. – These facts were not admitted by the State but the High Court assumed those facts for the purpose of the case to be correct. – Court will also proceed on those assumptions because even assuming these facts it cannot be said that there has been any breach of Art. 14 of Constitution. – Appeals Dismissed
Judgment
SIKRI
( 1 ) SEVEN writ petitions were filed in the Mysore High Court under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Mysore Land Revenue (surcharge) Act, 1961mysore Act XIII of 1961-as amended by Mysore Acts 1 and 31 of 1963, as being ultra vires the Constitution. Some of the petitioners were from South Kanara District, and some from Bellary District, which were part of the Madras State prior to the re-organisation of States, Some petitioners were from the Karnatak area of the then Bombay State. The High Court held that the Acts were within the compatence of the Mysore Legislature and did not violate Arts. 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THERE are six appeals before us but the learned counsel for the appellant gave us facts relating to writ petition arising from South Kanara district only. It is common ground that if the High Court judgment on the writ petition arising from South Kanara district is upheld, the other appeals must also fail.
( 3 ) IN writ petition No. 1137 of 1963, which is concerned with lands in South Kanara district, the facts in brief are these. The petitioner mutt, which is appellant before us, owned immovable properties in the district of South Kanara and was paying an assessment to the Government approximately of about Rs. 8,000. 00 per annum. In respect of these lands survey and settlement were introduced from 1902 to 1904 and classified into three major classes of lands, viz, dry, wet and garden. The settlement was for a period of 30 years and the wet lands were further classified into sub-classes.
( 4 ) UNDER the terms of the Ryotwari settlement governing the district the revenue assessment rates for the different classes of lands were fixed for a period of 30 years and they could not be varied during that period. In 1934, after the said period of 30 years, by notification dated 20/04/1934, the rates of assessment of garden and wet lands were revised and increased uniformly by 12 1/2 per cent on the existing rates. Under the settlement of 1934 it was an express term and condition that there was to be no increment of assessment during the period of 30 years of the settlement of any assessment.
( 5 ) THE Madras Legislature levied a surcharge on these lands in 1954, and again in 1955, but by the time anything could be done under the Madras Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1954 and the Madras Land Revenue (Additional Surcharge) Act, 1955, the district of South Kanara with the exception of Kasaragod Taluk became integrated with Mysore and other areas and formed the new State.
( 6 ) BY virtue of S. 119 of the States Reorganisation Act the lands continued to pay land revenue under the existing law, but the new State enacted Mysore Act No. XIII of 1961, called the Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1961, which came into force on 1/04/1961. Under this Act a surcharge on the land revenue at the rate of 15 np on every rupee of land revenue was levied and this was payable by every landholder liable to pay a sum exceeding Rs. 20 as land revenue. Section 3 (2) provided for an exemption to merged territories or merged areas within the Bombay Area, or within the Hyderabad area, if on such land the land revenue payable had not been fixed by a revenue survey and settlement made under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, or the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act 1318 Fasli, and the land revenue payable after remission, if any, was equal to or more than the land revenue and the surcharge under sub-s. (1) payable on similar lands in the nearest neighbouring village to which the revenue survey and settlement had been introduced.
( 7 ) ANOTHER Act, called the Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) (Amendment) Act, 1962 was enacted and it came into force from 1/04/1962. Under this Act the surcharge for the two years, viz. , 1962-63 and 1963-64 was raised to 100 per cent of the land revenue in the case of wet and garden lands and 75 per cent of the land revenue in respect of such dry lands. Section 5 of the Su
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
