SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(AP) 400

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.KRISHNA IYER
RADHIKARANI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Warangal Region, Government Of A.P., Warangal - Respondent
Decided On : 10-01-86

Royalty is not land revenue and therefore not liable to cess under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act (1 of 1956).

Headnote:

LAND REVENUE - CESS - LEVY - ROYALTY - NOT LAND REVENUE - NOT LEVIABLE - HYDERABAD DISTRICT BOARDS ACT (1 OF 1956), SEC. 135 (1).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted a lease for 20 years to extract Quartz from a piece of land. After the expiry of the lease, the petitioner was asked to pay cess on the royalty paid by him. The petitioner challenged the demand for cess, contending that royalty is not land revenue and therefore not liable to cess under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act (1 of 1956).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that royalty is not land revenue and therefore not liable to cess under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act (1 of 1956). The court observed that cess can only be levied on land revenue payable to the Government and that royalty is not land revenue.

Issues: Whether royalty is land revenue and therefore liable to cess under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act (1 of 1956).

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that royalty is not land revenue and therefore not liable to cess under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act (1 of 1956). The court observed that cess can only be levied on land revenue payable to the Government and that royalty is not land revenue.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the demand for cess on the royalty paid by the petitioner.

( 1 ) THE question at issue in this writ petition is whether royalty is land Revenue within the meaning of Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad district Boards Act (No. 1 of 1956) for the purpose of levy of cess.

( 2 ) AN extent of Acs. 25-20 guntas of land covered by S. No. 166 in the village of Bhorampet, Medchal Taluk, Hyderabad District was leased out to the petitioner herein for a period of 20 years on 12-8-1955 for the purpose of extracting Quartz. The lease expired on 17-7-1976. In accordance with the requirement of Rule 10 of the Mineral Concession Rules the petitioner, on expirty of the lease period, issued notice to the concerned authority. By an order dt. 14-8-1978 the petitioner was called upon by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad to pay [cess at the rate of 25% on the mineral Revenue (Royalty ). The petitioner submitted a reply on 24-8-1979 contending that payment of cess should not be linked with royalty. Rejecting that contention the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology issued proceedings in Letter No. 919/m/77, dt. 26-2-1980 calling upon the petitioner to remit rs. 8,665-86 ps. of which the amount relatable to payment of cess was apportioned at Rs. 8,445-64 ps. The Petitioner as seeking judicial review of the aforesaid order by asking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the same.

( 3 ) IT is the contention of Sri S. Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 135 of the Hyderabad District Boards Act, the respondent is not empowered to levy cess with reference to royalty. Countering this contention it is argued by Sri. N. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Government Pleader that cess is payable on revenue and whatever amount the holder of a land is liable to pay to the Government for the user of the land is land revenue and therefore the collection of cess with reference to royalty amount is not illegal. And that is the stand taken by the respondents in the counter. The 1st respondent is the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Government of India and the 2nd respondent is the collector, Rangareddy District.

( 4 ) IT is not in doubt that the cess in question was levied under Section 135 (1) of the Hyderabad District Boards Act. Section 135 occurs in chapter IX of the Act. The Section reads : "135 (1) : Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section (1) the Government shall, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, levy a cess of two annas on every rupee of land revenue payable to Government : provided that in Ijara villages, local cess shall be levied on the qaul amount during the period the Ijara and on the annual land revenue demand after the expiry of that period : provided further that on any Inam land the local cess shall be levied on the full land revenue assessment of such land. (2) Local Cess shall not be leviable on the following items of revenue : (a) fees for grazing ; (b) sale proceeds of usufruct of trees; (c) penalties, fines or any charge imposed under the Land Revenue act of 1317 of Fasli as penalty of interest in case of default : provided that in case of fines and penal assessment imposed for unauthorised cultivated, local cess shall be levied on the simple assessment. " from the specific language employed in sub-section (1), it is clear that the local cess is leviable at the rate of 2annas on every rupee of land revenue payable to Government. What is meant by land revenue? The expression land revenue is not defined in the Hyderabad District Boards Act The A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. is a comprehensive legislation concerning land revenue. The expression land revenue is not defined in the aforesaid Land Revenue Act, presumably for the reason that the Act comprehensively deals with all the facets of land revenue. By Section 2 (17) of the said Revenue Act the expression revenue is defined as the amount payable by the holder to the Government at fixed periods for use of or entry into the land . Chapter IV





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top