NATHUNI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 43 applications for the issue of writs under Article 223 of the Constitution, in the circumstances stated below. The applications have been heard together, and this judgment will govern them all.

(2.) The petitioners of the different applications are all holders of long term leases or permits, ranging from seven to twelve years, for the supply of water from the Son canals, the leases or permits having been granted to them on applications made under Section 74, Bengal Irrigation Act, 1876 (Bengal Act 3 of 1876), and granted in accordance with the rules known as the Son and Champaran Canals Irrigation Rules. The lands of the petitioners for which they hold permits for the spply of water lie in three districts, Patna, Shahabad and Gaya. Rule 36 of the Son and Champaran Canals Irrigation Rules, published under notification No. 3605-1, dated 13-11-1931, laid down certain rates which were payable for the supply of water for the purpose of flow irrigation. Though those rates were altered from time to time, the case of the petitioners was that at the time when the long term leases or permits were granted to them, the water rate payable for such leases or permits was Rs. 4-8-0 per acre and in one case, it was Rs. 4-2-0 per acre. In accordance with Rues 47, 48, etc. of the aforesaid Rules, demand statements (parches) and Khatianis were prepared and the petitioners continued to pay water rates at the rates shown in the demand statements . On 17-10-1952, the State Government of Bihar made a notification, which was published in an extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette on 23-10-1952, by which the water rate was doubled. The notification in question, which is an annexure to some of the petitions, is in the following terms. I am quoting the notification only so far as it is relevant for our purpose) : NOTIFICATION. (17th October, 1952.)

(3.) These applications have been contested on behalf of the State of Bihar. Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, who appeared on behalf of the State of Bihar, has contended that the notification, in question is valid in law and affects even long term leases or permits which were given before the date of the notification and were in force on that date. He has further contended that the notification is in conformity with the provisions of Section 99, Bengal Irrigation Act, 1876, and under Section 78 of the said Act it was for the State Government to determine the rates to be charged for canal water supplied for purposes of irrigation. The exercise of that power by" the State Government was an exercise of statutory power and was not a matter of contract between the parties. On behalf of the State Government it was denied that any forcible or repressive measures were taken, as was alleged by some of the petitioners, for the realisation of the enhanced water rate. It was alleged that the enhanced water-rate was legal and the petitioners are liable to pay it with effect from 26-10-1952. on which date the enhanced rate came into force.