KAMARAJU R Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, eight in number, are the agriculturists of A. Mallavaram village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari district. The petitioners own lands in Mallavaram and Ramanakkapet and other villages. According to the petitioners, the lands owned by them are rainfed lands and they are not irrigated by the public irrigation sources. Nevertheless, the petitioners complain that without issuing any Notification, as contemplated under Sec.4 of the A.P. Water Tax Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), which is a condition precedent to fix liability of tax on the agriculturists, coercive steps have been taken forcefully to recover the tax. So alleging, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

(2.) In opposition, the respondents have filed counter affidavit opposing the writ prayer. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the land owned by the petitioners is being irrigated by yeleru river water through R.R.B. Tank. The petitioners have also lands under the said tank. Contesting the allegation of the petitioners that there is no Notification under Sec.4 of the Act, it is submitted in Para-7 of the counter that the District Collector approved the Notification in Reference No.D5/8537/90, dated 9-6-1990 and the same was published in the District gazette on 30-6-1990. It is further contended that in response to the Notification, the petitioners did not file any objection for the inclusion of their lands under the Government source of irrigation within 30 days of the publication of such Notification. It is further stated that in pursuance of the Notification issued by the District Collector in the District Gazette, the Mandal Revenue Officer, under Sec.5, prepared the list including the names of the petitioners herein and the same was published in the office of the Gram Panchayat.

(3.) In our considered opinion, this writ petition is not at all maintainable. We say this because the assessment done by the Mandal Revenue Officer under Sec.5 of the Act in pursuance of the Notification issued by the District Collector under Sec.4 of the Act still stands. The petitioners without assailing the validity of the assessment cannot be permitted to question the validity of the consequential proceedings, namely, recovery proceedings. If tne respondent authorities are under an obligation to recover the public dues, due to the State, by virtue of a statutory order, no writ of mandamus will go to such authority, not to recover the outstanding dues. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that before the enactment of the present Act in 1988, some of the Ayakatdars (not the petitioners) had instituted a suit in O.S.No.80 of 1976 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for declaration that their lands are rainfed lands and therefore no tax could be levied under the repealed Act. It is also stated that the civil Court had decreed the said suit. We are at a loss to understand how that decree passed in a suit filed by others is helpful to the petitioners in the present case. The question 'whether a particular land is rainfed land or not?' is purely a question of fact and there is no element of law. Even assuming that the lands of some others were held to be rainfed lands, from that finding it cannot be concluded that the petitioners' lands are also rainfed lands.