C V RAJAGOPALACHARIAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to the orders of the District Collector of Tanjore in R. C. No. 26411/56-M1. and R. C. No. 37193/56-M.4 and the quash orders passed thereon 17-5-1956 and 26-9-1956 respectively.

(2.) The petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar owning about 250 acres of land in Edayur and Keepalarumazhi villages in Thiruthuraipoondi taluk, Tanjore District. He also owns lands in south Arcot and Chingleput Districts. The total land revenue assessed on his lands is Rs. 1691-9-6. This assessment was based on the ryotwari settlement effected in 1924. In 1954 the State Legislature passed the Madras Land Revenue Surcharge Act XIX of 1954 enabling the Government to levy a surcharge on a landholder who was liable to pay a sum exceeding Rs. 500 as land revenue per year. That Act was followed by another Act XXX of 1955 which provided for the levy of an additional surcharge. The result is that in addition to the ordinary assessment of land revenue payable by a landholder there was an additional tax levied in respect of lands held by a pattadar who paid more them Rs. 500 by way of land revenue. The petitioner filed a declaration of the extent of lands held by him in the state and the land revenue payable in respect thereof before the Tahsildar, Tiruthuraipoondi on 7-3-1955. Under S. 5 of Act XIX of 1954, he was provisionally assessed to surcharge at Rs. 502-1-0 on 27-4-1956 and notice of the provisional assessment was served upon him allowing time for filing objections thereto. No objection was, however, filed within the time allowed and the authorities thereupon proceeded to make a final assessment on 17-5-1956. A demand followed which required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 502-1-0 within 7 days from the date of service of the notice. That assessment was for Fasli 1364. In respect of the next fasli no declaration was filed by the petitioner and he was provisionally assessed by way of surcharge in a sum of Rs. 502-1-0 adopting the previous year's figures. In response to the notice of the provisional assessment the petitioner filed objections. That covered the objection to the assessment of the earlier fasli. In the objections the petitioner did not question the correctness of the levy but only challenged the validity of the Land Revenue Surcharge Acts. In the meanwhile the Collector proceeded to take steps for recovery of the land revenue surcharge due from the petitioner for Fasli 1364. Thereupon the petitioner filed the two petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to call for the records relating to the assessment of surcharge for the two Faslis 1364 and 1365 and for quashing the orders relating to the levy.

(3.) In support of the petition an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Therein he has referred to the fact of phenomenal ravages of nature like the cyclone, drought, pest and unprecedented rains affected the Tanjore District in the years 1952 to 1956 and that his lands yielded very little income during those years. The petitioner had applied to the Government for remission of kists in accordance with the provisions of Board's Standing Orders Nos. 13 and 14 while remission was granted for several persons, it is the complaint of the petitioner that none was granted to him. That was by reason of G. O. No. 580, Revenue, dated 26-2-1953 which directed that the benefit of the remission of land revenue should not be given to pattadars in a taluk paying in all an annual assessment of more than Rs.100 and to persons who were assessed to income- tax. The petitioner complains that this Government Order is discriminatory and unjust and that he would be entitled to a remission like other pattadars in respect of the years where there had been failure of crops due to natural causes. Under the explanation to S. 3 of the Madras Land Revenue Surcharge Act of 1954 the land revenue remitted is not deemed to be a land revenue payable for the purpose of the section. If therefore, the land revenue had been remitted as according to the petitioner it should have been, there would be no occasion for a levy of surcharge. But the petitioner not having been given remission by virtue of G. O. No. 580 of 1953, he would be liable to pay not merely the full land revenue but also a surcharge as well. In the petition, therefore, both the validity of the Government Order 580 of 1953 as well as the validity of the two enactments of 1954 and 1955 levying surcharge are attacked. There is also a further complaint in the petition in regard to the levy of a cess under S. 78 of the Local Boards Act.