B KNANJUNDESWARA KRISHNAYYA Vs. STATE OF COORG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the petitioner is that persons like him holding, land under what is -known as Sagu tenure in Coorg have to pay double the assessment than persons who own similar lands under Jama tenure have to pay for similar pieces of land; that moreover the latter could use a gun without a license, while the former is required to obtain a license for that purpose. As this is contended to be discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, this application has been filed for the issue of necessary directions or order to the State of Coorg by its Chief Secretary, the Respondent in the case, to reduce the assessment of the land of the petitioner to the level of the assessment of Jama lands and also to alloy; the petitioner to possess a gun without a license.

(2.) The respondent's affidavit discloses that it is true that the assessment payable on the lands held on Jama tenure and that payable on lands on Sagu tenure differ from each other, but that this does not constitute any denial of equality or discrimination such as is forbidden by Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It is contended that there are various tenures under which the land is held all over India and those tenures represent varying rights and any difference in the quantum of rights pertaining to land doss not constitute inequality before the law or discrimination. Further Jama tenure is associated with liability to perform certain duties enforceable by the state. It is because that persons holding land under Jama tenure are liable to perform military or policy duties when called upon, such persons are granted exemption from obtaining a license for possessing a gun. The land under Jama tenure cannot also be alienated except with the permission of the Assistant Commissioner in writing and cannot also be partitioned. It is contended that the classification is reasonable and does not affect Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) There is good deal of force in the contention raised by the respondent. This is one of the cases where what is meant by equality before lav; is misunderstood. After the Constitution it does not mean that all distinctions between one person and another or between one class of persons and another class of persons are wiped out. tO take an extreme case, it is absurd to argue that all men that work for the same length of time should get equal wages irrespective of the nature of the work and their qualification or that because a policeman can be in possession of a gun without a license all officers of other departments but of the same grade should be allowed to do so. The Constitution allows classification, but the classification must rest upon reasonable grounds of distinction. The classification should not be made arbitrarily and persons in the same classification must have equal rights.