STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. NALLA RAJA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following judgment of the court was delivered by:

(2.) THESE 44 appeals by certificate are preferred against the common judgment of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High court allowing the petitions filed by the respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution for directing the State of Andhra Pradesh and other appropriate authorities to forbear from collecting the assessment of land revenue under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962), hereinafter called the Principal Act, as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision (Amendment) Act, 1962 (Act 23 of 1962), hereinafter called the Amending Act. For convenience of reference the Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act will be called in the course of the judgment as 'the Act'. The appellants raised the question of the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Act.

(3.) WE will analyse the provisions of the said section at a later ,stage of the judgment. The High court in deciding against the constitutional validity of the said provisions gave in effect the following findings : (1) Under s. 3 of the Act there is no classification at all in the case of dry lands. (2) The ayacut basis adopted in the Table under S. 4 of the Act has no rational relation to the taram or quality of the land or the nature of the irrigation source. (3) The minimum fixed by the proviso in many cases is more than 100 per cent increase fixed by the section and thus, the proviso has exceeded the section. (4) The Act is silent as to the machinery for making the assessment, the criteria for fixation of the assessment, within the range of a fixed maximum and a minimum the rights and remedies of the assesses and the obligation of the government to survey the lands. In short, the High court struck down the said provisions on the ground that they offend Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution for three reasons, namely (i) in the,, case of dry lands there,. is no reasonable classification at all as the flat minimum rate of 50nP. per acre has no relation to the fertility of the land, (ii) in regard to wet land there is no reasonable relation between the quality of the land and the ayacut to which it belongs, and (iii) the procedure prescribed for the ascertainment of the rate is arbitrary and uncontrolled, The High court, though it elaborately considered the question whether the revenue assessment was by authority of law within the meaning of Art. 265 of the Constitution, did not express a final opinion thereon.