H SHAEANAPPA SWAMY GOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are holders of agricultural lands in the Dist of Shimoga. In these writ petitions, they have questioned the notices of demand served on them under the provisions of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), calling upon them to pay water rate as determined by the Tahsildar under Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The lands held by the petitioners are wet lands on which wet crops are, grown with the aid of water belonging to Govt. S.10 of the Act authorises the levy of water rate. It reads as follows :

(2.) Although in the earlier writ petitions disposed of by this Court, the petitioners therein had challenged S.10 of the. Act also in these, petitions, the challenge, is confined to Rules 3(1) & 4 of the Rules only. Rula 3 which has already been extracted above lays down the rate, at which water rate is leviable. Under Rule 3(1) the State Govt has classified the lands into five categories on the basis of the crops grown on them for purposes of levy of water rate,. An acre of land on which sugar cane crop to be harvested within a period of 12 months is grown, has to bear water rate of Rs 20. An acre of land on which sugar cane crop to be harvested after a period of 12 months but before a period of 18 months is grown, has to besr water rate, of Rs.30. An acre of land on which paddy crop is grown is liable to pay water rate of Rs.11 Lands falling under SI.NO. 3, 4 & 5 in the Table given in Rule 3 (1) have to bear water rates at the rate of Rs.5-50p, Rs.3 and Rs.12 respectively per acre.

(3.) The first contention urged by Sri T.S.Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, regarding the validity of Rule 3(1) is that the classification that has been made under Rule 3(1) is contrary to the directions contained in S.10 of the Act. It was contended by him that it was obligatory on the part of the State Govt to have classified the lands for purposes of levy of water rates on the basis of tha nature, and size of the irrigation works and the cost of construction and maintenance of the said irrigation works which constituted the source of supply of water to the lands in question. It was argued that in the absence of such classification, Art 14 of the Constn has been violated by the Rule making authority. S.10 of the Act provides that the Slate Govt may prescribe the, rates at which water rates shall be levied on the, basis of the purposes for which the water is used or on the basis of the irrigation work from which water is supplied or on the basis of the crops grown on the lands. In the instant case, the classification of lands had been made under Rule 3(1) as it stands today, on the basis of the, crops grown on them. The classification of lands made by Rule, 3(1) cannot, therefore be held as being inconsistent with S.10 of the Act. The contention that the, classification made under R.3(l) is contrary to Art:l4 of the Constn is also untenable. What has to be, seen is whether there exists an intelligible differentia between the lands belonging to one group and the lands belonging to another group and whether the classification bears reasonable relationship to the object in view. It is well known that the yield from a piece of land on which sugarcane is grown is much higher than the yield from a, land on which paddy is grown. Even in the case of lands on which sugarcane, is grown, the yield from a land on which sugarcane, is to be harvested within a period of 12 months is grown is less than the yield from the, land on which sugarcane to be harvestqd after a period of 12 months is grown A perusal of the Table given under Rule 3(1) shows that the water rate payable not merely bears a reasonable Relationship to the yield from the lands but also to the quantity of water that is consumed It is seen from the said Table that lands which require more water are made, liable to pay higher water rate than the lands which require lesser quantity of water. I do not therefore, consider that the, State Govt has violated Art. 14 of the Constn in classifying the lands on the basis of the, crops grown on them for purposes of levy of water; rate.