( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise same question of law and fact and are disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) IN these writ petitions Section 1 (2), section 2 (ii) (a) and Section 3 of the A. P. Water Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997 have been challenged as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the constitution of India. The petitioners are the agriculturists in different villages and the lands belonging to them are wet lands. The state of Andhra Pradesh passed an Act being A. P. Water Tax Act, 1988 to rationalise levy and collection of water taxes in the state. The said Act was passed to levy water tax in respect of the land receiving water for irrigation from Governmental sources of irrigation. The Act has come into force retrospectively from 1-7-1986. After the Act came into force, the lands were notified by a notification in different categories. This Act was amended by an Ordinance on 2-1-1997. This Ordinance was then replaced by the act of the State Legislature known as "a. P. Water Tax (Amendment) Act, 1997" and it was published in the Gazette on 15-4-1997. The amendments made by the Amending act, of which the petitioners are aggrieved, are sub-section (2) of Section 1 which lays down that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1st July 1996, and Section 2 (ii) (a) by which the words "not less than four months have been substituted for the words not less than five months" in item No. 1 of the explanation to section 3. They are also aggrieved of the amendment made in the schedule under section 3.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the Amendment Act is retrospective in nature and therefore it is unconstitutional. A similar controversy has been decided by the supreme Court in a Judgment reported in d. G. Gouse and Co. v. . State of Kerala. This was a case in which certain provisions of Kerala buildings Tax Act, 1975 were being tested. There was no tax before 1961 and the government wanted to impose tax on buildings and passed an Act known as "kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961". It was challenged in Kerala High Court and a learned single Judge held it to be invalid. A division Bench of Kerala High Court approved the view. The Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP. That judgment was reported as State of Kerala v. Haji K. Kutty naha (1969) 1 SCR 645. Thereafter a fresh tax Act was sought to be passed and a Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Kerala on July 5, 1973. After going through various stages and being considered by a Select Committee, the Bill could not be takea up in the Assembly and consequently Kerala Buildings Tax ordinance, 1974 was promulgated on July 27, 1974. This was followed by another ordinance on November 11,1974. The Bill was later on passed as an Act and the governor gave his assent to the Act on April 2,1975. Several writ petitions were filed against the Act and the High Court upheld the validity of the Act. Thereafter appeals came to be filed before the Supreme Court. Many questions were raised before the supreme Court, but we are concerned with only one question. This Act received the assent of the Governor on April 2, 1975. However the Act had been applied retrospectively from April 1,1973. So as a matter of fact, the Act was deemed to have come into operation almost two years before its real promulgation. It was contended before the Court that the Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court referred to Craies on Statute Law, Seventh edition, and quoted the following passage. "a statute is to be deemed to be retrospective, which takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past. But a statute is not properly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing. "

( 4 ) WHILE analysing the observ