JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE 47 Writ Petitions challenge the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land revenue [additional Assessment and Cess Revision) Act (XXII of 1962) and the andhra Pradesh. Land Revenue (Additional Assessment and Cess Revision (Amendment)Act (XXIIIof 1962) (hereinafter called "the Act" and "the amending act" respectively), both of which came into force from 1-7 1962. The grounds upon which they are challenged by the several advocates appearing in the respective writ Petitions, inter alia, are as follows: mr. Chowdary contends that under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act, land revenue on lands served by sources of irrigation specified in the schedule has been increased by 100% subject to a minimum of Rs. 20/ and maximum of Rs. 26/ per acre for single wet crop lands while the increase in the double wet crop lands is also 100% from a minimum of Rs. 30/- to a maximum of Rs. 39/--: and under Section 4 (2) of the Act, land revenue on lands served by Government sources other than those specified in the schedule has been increased by 100% for single wet crop lands form a minimum rate of Rs. 9/- to a maximum of Rs. 15/- per acre and for double wet crop lands 100% increase from a minimum of Rs. 13. 50 P. to a maximum of rs. 22. 50p. Under Section 4 (3) of the Act, for lands served by other tanks notified by the Collector there is an increase of 50% from a minimum of Rs. 6/- to a maximum of Rs. 18/- per acre. These increases are, "based, on the assumption that there is a law validly imposing a land tax. It is the contention of Mr. Chowdary, which is supported by the other learned Advocates, that after the inauguration of the Constitution, any law which imposes a tax mast be a statute law under Article 265 of the Constitution, and there being no such statute, the land revenue imposed after the Constitution is without the authority of law: as such, any additional land revenue levied on the basis of an unenforceable tax is equally invalid. For this reason, Mr. Chowdary characterises the Act (Act XXII of 1962) as an Act without a bottom and has the same effect as multiplying a zero, and that it should be deemed to be non est. Further the Act is challenged on the ground that Section 8 empowers the Government to vary the schedule by an executive order; but if a schedule has to be added, it. Could only be effected by placing the addition on the table of the Assembly. This power makes the schedule a provisional one and bad for the following reasons, viz. , (A) An essentially legislative function of amending the schedule ought not to be abdicated in favour of the executive; (b) Even if the delegation is vaild, it confers a naked or arbitrary power: and © The limitation that it should be approved by the Legislative assembly does not make any difference, because this procedure is not a substitute for a law which could only be made by the conjoint approval of both Houses of the Legislature, namely the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council and with the assent of the Governor. If, as he contends, sections 4 and 8 are struck clown, then very little of the statute remains and the doctrine of severance will not apply to save the rest of it. The Act, it is further contended, offends Article 14 of the Constitution in that there is no rational classification and it discriminates persons and things similarly placed. Accordingly, he argues that this Act must be struck down as violating the fundamental principles embodied in Art. 14 and the amending Act must equally be held to be invalid.

( 2 ) THE amending Act itself offends Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution in the classification is irrational and discriminatory. Though there is an attempt made for classifying lands according to the tarams or bhagannas, its relationship with water sources as cnvisagd in the amending Act is irrational and must be struck down. It is also contended that both the Acts (22 and 23 of 1962) offend Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution, viz. , the right to h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document