BASAVANAPPA SIDDAPPA WALIKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are owners of certain lands which are stated to be irrigated by water flowing from an irrigation work as defined in the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957. Under Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the Tahsildar made demands on the petitioners to pay water rate in respect of water which the the petitioners had, according to him, used for growing crops on their lands. Aggrieved by the said notices, of demand, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(2.) The principal contention urged by Mr.B.Veerabhadrappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the demands made by the Tahsildar were unenforceable on the ground that no enquiry had been held by the Tahsildar in accordance with the Rules and that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why the water rates should not be levied at the rates determined by the Tahsildar. Rule 4 of the Rules reads as follows : z

(3.) It was further argued by Sri Veerabhadrappa that under sub-rule(1) of Rule 4 it was the duty of the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry, as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules made thereunder in respect of the liability of each land-holder in the Taluk who has got to pav the water rate before issuing of notice of demand. It is difficult to accepl this submission of Mr.Veerabhadrappa. The rule does not expressly require the Tahsildar to is a notice to each land-holder who may be liable to pav the water rate. The question for consideration is whether the principle of audi alteram partem should, in the circumstances of this case, be read into sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and the Tahsildar should be called upon to hold an enquiry in the presence of each land-holder. The rule of audi alteram patem is not of universal application. The question whether such rule is applicable to a given case is governed by the surrounding circumstances of each case and the nature of law that is being interpreted bv the Court as observed by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR. 1970 SC. 150.