http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

STATE OF MYSORE ETC.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M. L. NAGADE AND GADAG & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1983

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:

1983 AIR 762 1983 SCR (3) 93

1983 SCC (3) 253 1983 SCALE (1)618

ACT:

Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules subsequently repealed and

re-enacted as Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue

Rules, 1951 framed under Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of

1317 F)-r. 71 as amended on July 4, 1958 -Diversion of

agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes-mode of

assessment of land revenue -Whether. rule valid.

Bombay Land Revenue Rules framed under Bombay Land

Revenue Act, 1879-r. 81 as amended on March 27, 1958-Whether

rule valid.

Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules, which is

similar to r. 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, provides

for mode of assessment of land revenue in the event of

diversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural

purposes.

HEADNOTE:

The respondents in these appeals had filed certain writ

petitions challenging the levy and demand of non-

agricultural assessment made by the appellants, on the

ground, among others, that the above rules conferred

unguided and uncontrolled power and there was excessive

delegation of legislative functions and therefore the rules

were violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The High

Court accepted the contention and quashed the demand of

assessment.

Allowing the appeals,

^

HELD: Delegation of some part of legislative power

becomes a compulsive necessity for viability and functioning

of the various institutions created by the Constitution. The

legislature can delegate details to be worked out by the

delegate and the details may be numerous and significant yet

they may well be made over to the appropriate agency. The

guideline need not be found in the impugned provision. The

same may be collected from the setting in which the

provision is placed, the purpose for which the Act is

enacted and even the preamble of the statute in which the

provision is incorporated. The object sought to be achieved

by legislation or statute can furnish reliable guideline for

the exercise of discretionary power. [104 B, F-G, 100 H, 101

A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 11

Constitutional Law by Prof. Wills, p. 587; Kunnathat

Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala and Another,

[1961] 3 SCR 67; New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills.

Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of

Ahmedabad and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 679; State of Andhra Pradesh

JUDGMENT:

Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K.

94

Kutty Naha & Ors. etc. [1969] 1 SCR 645; Rangildas Varajdas

Khandwala v. Collector of Surat & Ors. [1961] 1 SCR 951; and

Avinder Singh etc. v. State of Punjab & Anr. etc. [1979] 1

SCR 845, referred to.

The basic purpose for which a Land Revenue Act is

enacted is for empowering the State and its agencies and its

officials to assess and levy land revenue. The land revenue

is a tax and the validity of a taxing statute has to be

determined keeping in view the fact that in the matter of

taxation the Court allows wide area of picking and choosing

and the slab system. [105 A, G-H]

In the instant case r. 71 is made in exercise of the

rule making power conferred by s. 172 of the Hyderabad Land

Revenue Act. This rule making power is to be exercised for

the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.

Whenever land is diverted to use other than agricultural,

power is conferred to levy non-agricultural assessment or

special assessment but this assessment is to be determined

under the amended r. 71, keeping in view the purpose of the

Act, namely, levying and collection of revenue, the use to

which the land is put, the