H SIDDAPPA Vs. ASST COMMR SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents, is disposed of by the following order after hearing the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing S. No. 69 of Mangote village. The extent of the land owned by him is 29 acres. He has alleged that out of this 29 acres of land, 10 acres are lying fallow. He has also sta,ted that the entire land is not irrigated by any water stored in irrigation work constructed and maintained by the State. Earlier, betterment levy was levied on the petitioner in terms of S. 3 of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957. When the betterment levy was demanded, the petitioner challenged the same in W.P. No. 569 of 1970. While that petition was pending, he filed another W. P. No. 1520 of 1974 challenging the demand made again. In the latter petition, Venkataramiah, J., (ay he then was) quashed the impugned demand therein with certain directions to the respondents. It is useful to extract para 3 of that order made in WP No. 1520 of 1974 on 7-8-75.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay any water rate as he has not been supplied any water from the Government reservoir or any other water which belongs to the Government. It is his case that he is cultivating part of his land from water which flows out as waste from the neighbouring land owners. In para- 5 of the petition, he has, however, stated that the Tahsildar demanded Rs. 29,525-07 by way of betterment tax. There is no such betterment tax under the Act. There is only betterment levy under S. 3 as already mentioned and the Tahsildar can recover water rate levied under S. 10 of the Act. However, in his prayer in the petition he has prayed for quashing of the order and the demand notice et Annexures B and C respectively on the ground that the order of respondent-1 is not in conformity with the rules of natural justice and the directions issued by this court in the earlier writ petition and that the order has been passed behind his back and without hearing him.