M. I. VELU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner and cultivator of paddy land 3 acres in extent in Muppayikkadu Padasekharam. In this Padasekharam one crop alone used to be raised as the land used to be inundated by monsoon water. The 2nd respondent, Kerala Land Development Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation) came forward with a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited (Special Powers) Act, 1974 (Act 5 of 1974) (the Act), to which the owners of the land also agreed for putting up a bund to enable the raising of a second crop in that Padasekharam. Though the construction of the bund is stated to have been completed early in 1979, the second crop as envisaged could not be raised as the monsoon water flowed over the bund and there was also breach of the bund. The result was that the Kanni crop attempted to be raised was completely destroyed. The 5th respondent, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation, however, without taking these circumstances into account, demanded contribution from the cultivators. They submitted a representation, a copy of which is Ext. P-1, dtd. 10/2/1979. Though a further representation Ext. P-2 was submitted by the petitioner himself on 28/8/1979 highlighting the problems, it did not yield the desired result. On the other hand, the petitioner received a demand notice, a true copy of which is Ext. P3. In Ext. P3 it is seen stated that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1877.55 which comprises of the annual instalment of Rs.639.84 and the interest of Rs.1237.71. Aggrieved by Ext. P-3 demand notice the petitioner submitted an appeal to the 4th respondent, the District Collector of Kottayam, who made it over to the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who by virtue of the provisions contained in S.16 of the Act is competent to consider and dispose of the appeal. Ext. P4 is the copy of the order by which the 3rd respondent disposed of the appeal. The operative portion of Ext. P4 order, contained in the concluding paragraph reads as follows:-

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of Ext. P3 demand notice and for incidental reliefs. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner did not benefit from the bund erected, he would not be liable to pay the contribution towards the expenditure incurred in the execution of the work under the scheme, as his liability is restricted to cases where he has benefited from that work. According to him, as the crop raised early in 1979 was practically washed off, the avowed object of the bund did not materialise and, therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner had benefited from the erection of the bund. In support of his argument he relied on the expression "and has benefited his land" used in S.10(1) of the Act which reads as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner's grievance, however, that he has been called upon to pay the instalment of the cost without the bund being erected in accordance with the estimate and the specification requires consideration. Both in Exts. P-1 and P-2 this point is seen to have been highlighted. In Ext. P-4 order the 3rd respondent appellate authority, while giving expression to this feeling of the petitioner, has not categorically stated whether the petitioner was or was not liable to pay the amount mentioned in Ext. P-3 demand notice.