The levy made under the Act from 1-7-1965 holds the field from that date and not the earlier levies under the previous laws.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the appellant who was the petitioner and is directed against the order dt. 2-9-1974 of venkataramaiah, J. (as he then was) dis posing of his W. P. No. 793 of 1973 which is since reported as 1975 (1) karnataka Law Journal 208.

( 2 ) AMONG others, the appellant who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives was the owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 and 86 of K. Hunasavalli Village, Kerehalli hobli, Hosanagar Taluk, Shiinoga district classified as wet or garden as the case may ' be. On the said lands land revenue assessment was levied and collected under the Mysore Land revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of 1888) ('the Code') till that code was in force in the old Mysore area. Land revenue fixed for the lands under the code also included the water rate payable to Government for supply oi water from an irrigation work maintained by Government.

( 3 ) THE uniform Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1957 ('the Act') enacted by the new State to regulate the levy of betterment contribution and water rate in the State, came into force on 31-10-1957 replacing the corresponding provisions in the Code and other laws that were in force in the other integrating areas Of the State.

( 4 ) WE will notice only those provisions that relate to levy of water rate under the Act with which alone we are concerned in this case.

( 5 ) S. 2 (e) of the Act exhaustively defines the term 'irrigation work'. S. 10 of the Act authorises the levy of water rate for the supply of water from irrigation works in accordance with the rates to be fixed by Government in accordance with the Rules made thereto under the Act. For the said purpose, government framed the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) rules, 1965 ('the Rules') which came into force from 1-7. 1965. The Rules regulated the levy of water rates from irrigation works in the State, their determination and collection. Rule 3 of the Rules regulated the levy of water rate for different classes of lands in the State.

( 6 ) IN W. P. Nos. 2333 of 1970 and connected cases (Achutharao v. State of Karnataka and Ors.) the petitioner and several others, challenged the vires of S. 10 of the Act and the Rules under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On 9-2-1971 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and struck down II. 3 of the Rules as violative of Art 14 of the Constitution, which however did not prevent Government from framing a fresh Rule on the same topic. In that view. Government framed the Mysore Irrigation (Levy of water Rates) (Amendment) (Rules, 1971 ('new Rule') on 33-7-1971 expressly giving it retrospective effect from 1. 7-1965.

( 7 ) ON the basis of the new rule and the purported compliance of the rules, the Tahsildar, Hosanagar ('tahsildar') issued a demand notice to the petitioner on 9-10-1972 (Exhi- bit-B) calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,522-55 as arrears of water rate on the aforesaid lands for a period of 7 years from 1965-66 to 1971-72. In w. P. No. 793 of 1973 the petitioner again challenged the new Rule and the said demand notice issued by the Tahsildar. A few other lands owners of the District had also challenged the new Rule and similar demand notice received by them. On 2. 9-1974 Venkataramiah, j. (as he then was) disposed of all those writ petitions by a common order, in which His Lordship upheld the validity of R. 3 but reserved liberty to the petitioners to file appeals against the demand notices before the assistant Commissioner of the area ('ac') to be disposed of on merits. Without availing the liberty reserved to him, the appellant has filed this appeal reiterating the very contentions urged by him before the learned Judge.

( 8 ) SRI. T. S. Ramachandra, leaned counsel or the appellant contends that the reasoning and conclusion of tin. ' learned Judge ior upholding the new r. 3 of the Rules, was erro