1974 Supreme(Kar) 202
Karnataka High Court
H.SHAEANAPPA SWAMY GOWDA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Decided On : 09-02-74
The court clarified the validity of the classification of lands for levy of water rates and the obligation of the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry into the amount payable by the petitioners for water rates.
Headnote:
Water Rate - Agricultural Lands - Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057 - S. 10, Rule 3 (1), Rule 4 (1) - The court discussed the provisions of S. 10, Rule 3 (1), and Rule 4 (1) of the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the classification of lands for levy of water rates based on the crops grown, and the authority of the Tahsildar to determine water rates payable by each landholder.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, holders of agricultural lands, challenged notices of demand served on them under the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057, calling for payment of water rates. The lands were wet lands with wet crops grown using government water. The petitioners contested the validity of the classification of lands for levy of water rates and the notices of demand issued by the Tahsildar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the classification of lands based on the crops grown for levy of water rates was consistent with S. 10 of the Act. The court also held that the notices of demand issued by the Tahsildar were valid, but directed the petitioners to prefer appeals before the Asst Commr and granted them an opportunity to show cause and adduce evidence.
Issues: Validity of classification of lands for levy of water rates, interpretation of the third proviso to S. 12 of the Act, and the obligation of the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry into the amount payable by the petitioners for water rates.
Ratio Decidendi: The classification of lands based on the crops grown for levy of water rates was consistent with the Act. The court also clarified the interpretation of the third proviso to S. 12 and the obligation of the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry into the amount payable by the petitioners for water rates.
Final Decision: The impugned notices of demand were not to be enforced against the petitioners until the expiry of 30 days, and if the petitioners preferred appeals before the Asst Commr, until the expiry of 15 days from the date of the appellate orders. The petitions were allowed to the limited extent only.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are holders of agricultural lands in the Dist of Shimoga. In these writ petitions, they have questioned the notices of demand served on them under the provisions of the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), calling upon them to pay water rate as determined by the Tahsildar under Rule 4 (1) of the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). The lands held by the petitioners are wet lands on which wet crops are, grown with the aid of water belonging to Govt. S. 10 of the act authorises the levy of water rate. It reads as follows :"10. Levy of water rate- (1) Whenever- (a) {b) water is supplied, made available or used for purpose of irrigation or any other purpose from any work belonging to, or constructed by, or or on behalf of the Government; and (c) water from any such work, by direct flow, percolation or by indirect flow, percolation, drainage from or, through adjoining land irrigates any land under cultivation or flows into a reservoir and thereafter by direct flow or porcolation or by indirect flow, percolation or drainage from or through adjoining land irrigates any land under cultivation and, in the opinion of the Deputy Commr such irrigation is beneficial to and sufficient for the requirements of crop on such land. (d) water supplied or made available to, the Govt by the, authority established under Sec. 67 of the Andhra State Act, 1953, is supplied, made available or used for purposes of irrigation or any other purpose;. the Govt shall be entitled to, levy a separate charge for such water hereinafter referred to as water rate and the Govt may prescribe the rates at which such water rates shall be levied, which may be,- (i) different in respect of water supplied, made available or used for different purposes; (ii) different in respect of water supplied, made available or used from different irrigation works, and when water is supplied, made available or used for irrigation of any land, with or without reference to the crop or crops grown or. which may be grown on such land; (iii) in lieu of water rate, if any, payable under any other law; and the manner in which and the authority by which the amount of water rate levied shall be determined, (2) * * * * (3) The, amount of water rate shall be recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue due on the land. "sec. 10 of the Act confers the power to prescribe the rates at which rates can be collected from the holders of lands, on the State Govt. In exercise of, the said power, the State Govt by a notification dt. 3-8-1967, amended rule 3 of the Rules classifying the lands in respect of which water was supplied or made available on the basis of the irrigation work from which water was being supplied for purposes of levying water ratp. The said Rule was questioned before this Court in Achuta Rao v. State of Mysore (1 ). In these petitions, Rule 3 as it stood then was struck down on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Thereafter, the State Govt amended Rule 3. It now reads as follows ; 3. Levy of water rates for the use of water from irrigation works:- (1) In respect of water supplied, made available or used from any irrigation work for growing the crops specified in column (2) of the Table below, water rate at the rate specified in the corrseponding entries in column (3) thereof shall, in respect, of each such crop grown. bo levied-
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH in the earlier writ petitions disposed of by this Court, the petitioners therein had challenged S. 10 of the. Act also in these, petitions, the challenge, is confined to Rules 3 (1) and 4 of the Rules only. Rula 3 which has already been extracted above lays down the rate, at which water rate is leviable. Under Rule 3 (1) the State Govt has classified the lands into five categories on the basis of the crops grown on them for purposes of levy o
Click Here to Read the rest of this document