GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. Y SATYANAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition. The writpetiti on was filed by the respondents challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 908, dt. 5-8-1976, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Irrigation Cess Act, 1865. The notification imposes water cess at the prescribed rates upon certain dry lands, minor Inam lands, and other lands in certain villages receiving water from Vottigedda Reservoir Scheme in Parvathipuram Taluk, in Srikakulam District. The said Reservoir Scheme was sanctioned in G.O. Ms. No. 1699, P.W., dated 13-8-1963. It is said to have been completed in 1975, when water was let out. On account of the said scheme wet crops could be raised on several dry lands to which water was supplied. Water Cess was, accordingly, imposed by the said notification. The notification levies the water cess with effect from Fasli 1385, i.e., with effect from 1-7-1975. It further provides that there shall be no charge for the first two years of irrigation, and that only from the third yeaf of irrigation the levy shall be made at the rate of three-fifths of the prescribed rate; for the fourth year it is four-fifths of the rate, and for the fifth year onwards it is full rate. The petitioners are some of the owners of dry lands which became liable to water cess. They filed the present writ-petition in October 1977. Evidently, it was the third year of irrigation for them, which means that the water cess became payable for the first time in respect of their lands.

(2.) The notification was challenged on the following grounds: (i) that the Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, whereunder the impugned notification has been issued, stood repealed by necessary implication by the Andhra Irrigation Works (Levy of Compulsory Water Cess) Act, 1955, and hence the notification issued under such repealed statute is ineffective; and (ii) that , even if the 1865 Act has not stood repealed, even then the notification is invalid, inasmuch as it is not in accordance with the statute. The gradation prescribed in the impugned notification is contrary to the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that inasimuch as the Reservoir in question was completed after the 1955 Act, only the said Act applies, and since no notification was issued under the said act, there is no valid levy. The learned Judge further observed that only ere a levy was made under the old Act, prior to the enforcement of the 55 Act, can the levy be continued under the new Act. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this Writ Appeal.