HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise questions, some common and some Individual, but all, concerned with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Wet Assessment) Act, 1975 and the demands made for additional land revenue assessment under those provisions. The Act replaced the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Wet Assessment) Ordinance, /974 and by Section l(3)of the Act It was deemed to have come into force on 1-7-1974, Both the Act and the Ordinance which It replaced provide for the levy of additional land revenue assessment on wet lands in the State of Andhra Pradesh which are served by a Government sourse of Irrigation. Section 3 of the Act which Is on the same fines as Section 3 of the Ordinance, prescribes that there shall be levied and collected by the Government for every fasll year commencing on 1-7-1974 and for each subsequent fasll year, an additional land revenue assessment at the rate of one hundred percent of the land revenue payable for that fasll year on every wet land in the State served by a Government source of irrigation. Section 4 of the Act which again Is on the same lines as Section 4 of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure for the determination of additional land revenue assessment. First the Tahslldar Is required to cause a list to be prepared containing the names of the pattadars in evey village within his jurisdiction specifying the extent cf the wet lands held by pattadars the land revenue payable thereon and the additional land revenue assessment payable under the Act. After the publication of the list provision is made for objections to be filed before the Tahslldar by the ryots and for the consideration of the objections. After consideration of objections, the Tahslldar Is required to pass orders and serve the same on the person concerned. The person filing objections Is given the right to prefer an appeal under section 6 of the Act, and a right of revision under section 7 of the Act. Section 2(c) of the Act which again is in part materia with section 2(c) of the Ordinance defines 'Government source of irrigation as meaning 'any source of irrigation which is owned or controlled by the Government or constructed or maintained by them but does not Include a rain-fed tank which ordinarily supplies wa-er for a period of les than eight months In a fasti year'. There Is an explanation which states that the expression 'rain fed tank' means a tank which derives supply of water from a source other than a river. Section 9 of the Act (as also the Ordinance) requires the Board of Revenue to specify the Government sources of Irrigation by notification to be published In the State and District Gazettes. An appeal Is provided to the Government at the Instance of any perron aggreived by such a notification.

(2.) On of the principal attacks of the petitioners was directed against the definition of "Government source of irrigation" which the petitioners claimed, made an irrational classification between rain fed tanks and other sources of Irrigation and axaln between rain fed tanks supplying water for a period of more than eight months in a fasli year and those supplying water for a period of less than eight months In a fasll year. It v as further said that the explanation which defined a rain fed tank as meaning a tank which derived supply of water from a source other than a river was also Irrational and artificial.

(3.) In Nalla Raja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (I) 1967 I Andhra Weekly Reporter, 399, Jaganmohan Reddy. J. (as he then was) described In great detail the system of land revenue assessment prevailing in the Andhra and the Telen- gana areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh. He observed that the two basic principles of assessment of land revenue were that land revenue should depend on (I) the nature and quality of the land, which have a direct bearing upon the productivity, known as 'taram' principle In the Andhra area and 'bhaganna' or 'anawsri' principle in the Telengana area, and (2) the source of water, whether perennial or precarious. The lerned Judge also observed that the Land Revenue Reforms committee had also accepted the position that these two principles were the basic principles for assessment of land revenue. In that case the question irost whether the iddltional assessment which was sought to be levied by the Andhra Pradesh Acts XXII and XXIII of 1962 on wet lands on the basis of the extent of ayacut of the source of Irrigation was not discriminatory as there was no rational relation between the ayacut and the nature of the irrigation sourcs. It was held that there was no rational basis for treating all 'tarams' alike and the provision for levy of additional assessment wai struck down. The decision of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Nalla Raja Reddy (2) A I.R. 1967 Supreme Court, 1458. Subba Rao, C.J., after referring to the relevant standing orders of the Board of Revenue and other relevant material observed: