ARALIKOTRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are all agriculturists who make use of water, supplied by the tungabliadra Canal for which petitioners were to pay water-rates at the rate of rs. 150/- per acre in respect of sugarcane crop. This rate had been fixed as per rule 3 of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (referred to as 'rules' hereinafter) as amended from time to time and as per the said Rule in force with effect from 24-1 1-1987.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that while they were paying water rates as per this rate i. e. , Rs. 150/- per acre which is not in dispute and that they have been asked to pay water rates at Rs. 400/- per acre in respect of sugarcane as per the Government Order dated 13-7-2000, under which it is proposed to levy and collet water rate at Rs. 400/- per acre in respect of sugarcane.

(3.) THE submission of Sri Srikante Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the levy of water rate in respect of irrigation is as provided under Section 10-A of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957 ('act' for short ). Pursuant to the power conferred on the State Government under Section 11 of the Act to frame Rules, the Karnataka Government has framed Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 and that water rate can only be levied as per. the Rule 3 of these Rules and when once water rates have been fixed under rule 3, the Government can collect water rate only at this rate and assuming that there can be enhancement in the water rate, it should be done in accordance with statutory requirement and by making suitable amendments to Rule 3 of these Rules. The proposed levy and collection as per the impugned notification at Annexure-H, dated 13-7-2000 is one, without valid authority of law and it cannot be a substitute for levy of water rate as per Rule 3 of the Rules and the demand on the petitioners to pay water rates as envisaged in this notification is without authority of law and the same is liable to be quashed.