Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2994
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
The State of Tamil Nadu & Another
Versus
P. Jeyaraman @ P.J. Raman & Others
W.A. No. 2721 to 2723 of 2001 & W.A.M.P. No. 20625 to 20627 of 2001
Decided On : 23-07-2010
For the Appellants: M. Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader.
For the Respondents:Venkatachalapathy, Sr. Counsel for M/s. G.M. Mani Associates, Advocates.
The court emphasized the arbitrariness of fixing flat rates for land revenue and the subsequent government's power to relax land tax collection, rendering the relief sought in the appeals irrelevant.
Headnote:
Land Revenue - Aliyar River Water Dispute - G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 07.03.1970, G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 07.07.2009 - The court discussed the classification of lands, revised land revenue rates, and the impact of Aliyar dam construction on water supply to old ayacut lands. The court highlighted the arbitrariness of fixing flat rates, the government's power to fix land revenue, and the subsequent relaxation of land tax collection by the government.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the revised land classification and rates of land revenue for old ayacut lands affected by the construction of the Aliyar dam. The writ petitioners contended that the revised rates were discriminatory and illegal, affecting their fundamental rights due to reduced water supply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fixation of flat rates was arbitrary and quashed the relevant government orders. However, the subsequent relaxation of land tax collection by the government rendered the relief sought in the appeals irrelevant, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of revised land revenue rates, the impact of Aliyar dam construction on water supply, and the subsequent government orders relaxing land tax collection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the fixation of flat rates was arbitrary, but the subsequent government order nullifying the earlier orders rendered the relief sought in the appeals irrelevant.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the court observed that the relief sought in the appeals had become irrelevant in light of the subsequent government order relaxing land tax collection.
B. Rajendran, J.
1. All these three appeals arise out of the common order dated 12.09.1997 made in WP Nos. 4921, 5317 and 4922 of 1988 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.
2. W.A. No. 2721 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 4921 of 1988, which was filed by one Jayaraman @ P.J. Raman praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the appellants herein from enforcing against the writ petitioner/respondent the revised land classification and the rate of revenue and collecting it from the writ petitioner/respondent revised rate of land revenue and local and union surcharge.
3. W.A. No. 2722 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 5317 of 1988, which was filed by the association praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 07.03.1970 on the file of the first respondent and the order bearing No.90883/H2/82-26 Revenue dated 08.03.1987 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same.
4. W.A. No. 2723 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 4922 of 1988, which was filed by the Association praying for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from enforcing against the Old Ayacutdars belong to the petitioners association of Aliyar River in Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, the revised land classification and the rate of revenue and collecting from them revised rate of land revenue and local and union surcharge.
5. Before the learned single Judge, the writ petitioners/ respondents herein contended that they are agriculturists and are members of the Anaimalai Vattara Agriculturists Welfare Association having lands in the old ayacut of Pallivilangal, Ariyapuram, Karappatti, Periyanai and Vadakkalur canals. According to the writ petitioners/respondents, these five canals are distributories of the main river Aliyar and these five distributories feed the old ayacut consisting of about 6400 acres. There are five small old dams constructed about 300 years ago in the Aliyar river, which facilitates to regulate the flow of water in the said distributories. Many of the old ayacutdars have been raising double crop as well as single crop in a year and a third dry crop such as groundnut also raised with the Aliyar river water. It was further contended that during the second five year plan, the Government of India devised Parambikulam Aliyar Project for the purpose of power generation and agriculture. From Aliyar water water is fed into Aliyar river. Pursuant to this new project, new ayacuts to a larger extent of about 35000 acres were brought under dry irrigation. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu, as per the bilateral agreement with Karnataka and Kerala, agreed to supply electricity developed from the Aliyar project, but subsequent to the construction of dams, the farmers experienced difficulty as water has been diverted to Kerala and there was delay in the water supply to old ayacutars and they were not getting the good water facility as they were getting earlier. Therefore, the agriculturists were affected due to dearth of water. While so, the Government also collected betterment levy of Rs.100 per acre from the old Ayacutdars on the assumption that they were benefitted by the construction of the Aliyar dam. Further, the Government also increased the land rate steeply without any reason by levying a flat rate. Earlier, the lands were classified as Class I and Class II but now Class II lands are also classified as Class I lands without any reason. The old rate of land was fixed at Rs.3.50 to Rs.9.95 for a single crop land but presently it was enhanced to Rs.25 per acre, whereas for double crop, old rate ranging from Rs.4.69 to Rs.10.25 has been increased to Rs.37.50. This type of assessment without reason or without proper calculation is discriminatory, unreasonable, oppressive and illegal. The fixation of rate without considering the expenses incurred for the cultivation an
