http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NALLA RAJA REDDY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/1967

BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) SHAH, J.C. SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1458            1967 SCR  (3)  28  CITATOR INFO :  D          1970 SC1133  (12,31)  RF         1971 SC2377  (16,18)  RF         1972 SC 828  (23,25)  R          1972 SC 845  (14,25)  RF         1980 SC1789  (36)  R          1981 SC1829  (98)  D          1983 SC 762  (15)  RF         1985 SC1416  (91)  D          1988 SC 322  (1)  RF         1990 SC  85  (20)

ACT: The Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment)  and Cess  Revision Act 22 of 1962, ss. 3, 4, 6  and  8-Providing for  additional assessment to land revenue at  minimum  flat rate  without reference to productivity of land or  duration of water supply--Additional assessment to be levied as  land revenue-No  procedure  prescribed  in  the  Act-Whether  Act discriminatory and violative of Art. 14.

HEADNOTE: The Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment)  and Cess Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962) was passed with the object of bringing uniformity in assessment of land  revenue in  the  Telengana and Andhra areas of the State.   It  also provided  for additional levies on certain classes of  land. When  the  assessment  of  land revenue  was  sought  to  be collected from the respondents, they filed writ petitions in the  High Court challenging the constitutional  validity  of the Act and the petitions were allowed. In appeal by the State to this Court., HELD : The Act offended Art. 14 of the Constitution and  was there-fore void. Both in Andhra as well as Telengana area under the  Ryotwari system, the land revenue which was a share of the produce of the  land  commuted in money value varied according  to  the classification  of  soil based upon  its  productivity;  the soils  of  similar grain values were bracketed  together  in orders  called  ’tarams’  or ’Bhagana’ and  the  rates  were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

further adjusted in the dry land having regard to the  water supply.  But in both the cases, the quality and the grade of the  soil  divided in ’Tarams’ or ’Bhaganas’  was  the  main basis for assessment. [37 E-G] Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, in fixing the minimum flat rate for  dry or wet lands, ignored the well  -established  taram principle; and in the case of wet lands an attempt had  been made  to  classify  different systems on the  basis  of  the ayacuts; but this test was unreasonable and had no  relation to either the duration of water supply or to the quality  or the productivity of the soil.  The classification  attempted in  either case had no. reasonable relation to  the  objects sought   to   be  achieved,  namely,  imposition   of   fair assessments  and rationalisation of the  revenue  assessment structure.    An  arbitrary  method  has   been   introduced displacing one of the most equitable and reasonable  methods adopted for many years in the revenue administration of  the State. [44 C-E] Further,  the  imposition  of assessment  was  left  to  the arbitrary  discretion of the officers not named in  the  Act without  giving  any notice, opportunity or  remedy  to  the assessees  for  questioning the correctness of  any  of  the important stages in the matter of assessment such as  ayacut taram,  rate  or  classification or even in  regard  to  the calculation of the figures.  It is not possible to read into the section the entire series of the Standing Orders of  the Board of Revenue which deal with the mode of assessment: for if it was the intention of the Legislature that 29 the  Standing  Orders  of the Board  of  Revenue  should  be brought  into  the  Act  by  incorporation,  it  would  have certainly  used appropriates words to convey that idea.  [45 D-E; 48 E-F] Kunnathat  Thathunni  Moopil Nair v. The  State  of  Kerala, [1961]  3  S.C.R.  77, East India Tobacco Co.  v.  State  of Andhra  Pradesh, [1963] 1 S.C.R. 404 and Khandige Sham  Bhat v. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 809, applied. C.   V.  Rajagopalachariar v. State of Madras,  A.I.R.  1960 Mad. 543 and H. H. Vishwasha Thirtha Swamiar of Sri  Pejavar Mutt  v.  The  State of Mysore, [1966]  1  Mys.   L.J.  351, distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  40-46,48- 68, 70-74 and 76-86 of 1966. Appeals  from the judgment and order dated September  2,1955 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.  96, 281,  303, 836, 1029, 1130, 1219 and 1497 of 1963,  and  79, 94, 1 1 1, 112, 141, 142, 148, 149, 159, 167, 171, 172, 173, 183,256,267,286,443,491,497,549,571,591,611,616,680,695,700, 720,   725,   737,  760,  1148,  1464  and  1789   of   1964 respectively. S.   V.  Gupte, Solicitor-General and A. V. Rangam, for  the appellants in (C.A. No. 40 of 1966). P.Ram  Reddy,  A.  V.  V. Nair and A.  V.  Rangam,  for  the appellants (in C.A. Nos. 41-46, 48-68, 70-74 and 76 to 86). P.   A.  Choudhury, and R. Thiagarajan for K.  Jayaram,  for the respondents Nos. 1-12, 14-19, 21-40, 42-57, 59-113, 115, 116,  118 to 143, 145-156, 159-168, 170, 172-175, 177,  186, 188,  190-196, 197 to 219, 221, 223-233,  235-240,  242-259, 261-330,  332-381, 384-387, 389-391, 393-445, 447-453,  455- 472,  474476,  479-485, 494-514 and 556 (In C.A. No.  48  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

1966) and respondents Nos. 1, 4-21, 23-36, 38-43, 45-55, 57- 62,  64-76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87-92, 94,  96-99,  101-104, 106, 108, 109, 111157, 159-198, 200, 202-207, 209-212,  214, 219,  221 to 272, 274-277, 279-299 and 301-324 (In C.A.  No. 57 of 1966). K.B.   Krishnamurthy,  K.  Rajendra  Chaudhuri  and  K.   R. Chaudhuri,  for  respondent  No. (In C.A. No.  42  of  1966) respondents (in C.A. No. 45 of 1966) respondents Nos.  1-80, 82-96, 98-129, 132-150, 152-207, 209-210 (In C.A. No. 46  of 1966)  and respondents Nos. 1-29, 31-110 (In C.A. No. 68  of 1966). K.R.  Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri,  for  respondents Nos. 1-7 and 9 (in C.A. No. 53 of 1966), respondents Nos. 1- 3,  5-9,  11, 12, 14, 17-21, 23 and 24 (in C.A.  No.  54  of 1966)  and respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, 19-28,  30-33, 35-150,  152, 153, 155, 157, 197, 199-328, 330-357,  359-360 and 362-535 (In C.A. No. 44 of 1966). G.   S.  Rama  Rao, for the respondent (in C.A.  No.  66  of 1966). 30 B.   R. L. Iyengar, S. P. Nayyar, for R. H. Dhebar, for  the intervener. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba  Rao,  C.J.  These  44  appeals  by  certificate   are preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the petitions  filed by  the respondents under Art. 226 of the  Constitution  for directing the State of Andhra Pradesh and other  appropriate authorities  to  forbear from collecting the  assessment  of land revenue under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act,  1962 (Act  22 of 1962), hereinafter called the Principal Act,  as amended  by  the  Andhra Pradesh  Land  Revenue  (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision (Amendment) Act, 1962 (Act  23 of   1962),  hereinafter  called  the  Amending  Act.    For convenience of reference the Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act will be called in the course of the judgment as "the  Act".   The  appellants raised  the  question  of  the constitutional  validity of the relevant provisions  of  the Act. The  Principal Act was passed on September 27, 1962  and  it came  into force on July 1, 1962; and the Amending  Act  was passed on December 24, 1962, and it came into force on  July 1,  1962.  We are concerned in these appeals only  with  the Act, i.e. Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act. It is said that the main object in passing the Principal Act was to rationalize the land revenue assessment in the  State by  bringing uniformity between Telengana and  Andhra  areas and  to  raise the rate of revenue in view of  the  rise  in prices  and to make the ryots bear equitably their share  of the burden of the plans.  With that view, as the long  title of  the Principal Act indicates, the said Act was passed  to provide  for  the levy of additonal  assessment  on  certain classes  of land in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for  the revision  of  the assessments leviable in  respect  of  such lands   and  matters  connected  therewith.   The   relevant provisions of the Act, i.e., the Principal Act as amended by the Amending Act, read thus : lm15 Section  3. In case of dry land in the State, an  additional assessment  at  the  rate of seventy-five per  cent  of  the assessment  payable for a fasli year for that land shall  be levied  and  collected  by the Government  from  the  person liable to pay the assessment for each fasli year in  respect of that land :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

Provided  that the additional assessment together  with  the assessment  payable in respect of any such land shall in  no case be less than fifty naye paise per acre per fasli year. 31 Section  4.  In the case of wet land in the State  which  Is served  by  a Government source of irrigation  specified  in classes  1,  II, and III of the Table below,  an  additional assessment  at the rate of one hundred per cent and  in  the case  of  wet  land  in  the State  which  is  served  by  a Government  source  of  irrigation  specified  in  Class  IV thereof,  an additional assessment at the rate of fifty  per cent,  of the assessment payable for a fasli year  for  that land  shall be levied and collected by the  Government  from the person liable to pay the assessment for each fasli  year in respect of that land : Provided  that the additional assessment together  with  the assessment payable per acre per fasli year for any wet  land specified  in  column (1) of the Table below  shall,  in  no case,  be  less  than the minimum, or  exceed  the  maximum, specified in the corresponding entry against that land- (a)  in  column  (2) of the Table ill the case of  a  single crop wet land, and (b)  in column (3) of the Table in the case of a double-crop wet land.                          THE TABLE                   Rate of assessment      Rate of assessment Description       Payable for single      payable for double of wet land       crop wet land,per       crop wet land,per                   acre.                   acre.  (1)                  (2)                  (3) Class of, and   Number of  Settlement    Mini-Maxi-Mini-Maxi extent of    settlementmum classification ayacut under    taram         (or) Government                   Bhagana source of irrigation.    (a)     (b)     (c)     (a)     (b)     (a)       (b)                            Rs.nP.  Rs.nP.   Rs.nP.  Rs,nP. 1. 30,000 (a)1 to 5 16to12  20.00  24.00   30.00    36.00    acres  (b)6 to 8 111/2   15.00  18.00   22.50    27.00    and    (c)9 and to9 81/2 12.00  15.00   18.00    22.50    above     above below II. 5,000 (a) 1to 5 16 to 12 15.00 18.00   22.50    27.00    acres  (b) 6 and ll1/2    12.00 15.00   18.00    22.50    and above above  and    but below        below    30,000    acres. III.50 acres    All   All      9.00  14.00  3.50    21.00     and above tarams bhaganas     but below     5,000acres. IV. Below 50    All    All       6.00  12.00  9.00    18.00     acres.    tarams  bhaganas. 32               Explanation.-In this Table,-               (a)   The  expression  Government  source   of               irrigation’  does not include a  well,  spring               channel, parrekalava or cross-bunding;               (b)   taram  and bhagana classification  shall               be as registered in the revenue and settlement               records;               (c)   where   no   such   taram   or   bhagana               classification is recorded in the revenue  and               settlement  records, in respect of  any  land,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

             that land shall be deemed to bear the taram or               bhagana classification which a similar land in               the vicinity bears.               Section 8. (1) The District Collector,  shall,               from  time to time, by notification  published               in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District               Gazette,  specify  the Government  sources  of               irrigation falling under classes 1, 11 and  IV               of  the Table under section 4 and may in  like               manner,  include  in, or  exclude  from,  such               notification any such source.               (2)   Any  person aggrieved by a  notification               published  under  subsection (1)  may,  within               forty-five  days from the date of  publication               of  the  notification in  the  Andhra  Pradesh               Gazette  and the District Gazette,  prefer  an               appeal to the Board of Revenue whose  decision               thereon shall be final. We  will  analyse the provisions of the said  section  at  a later  ,stage of the judgment.  The High Court  in  deciding against  the constitutional validity of the said  provisions gave  in effect the following findings : (1) Under s.  3  of the Act there is no classification at all in the case of dry lands. (2) The ayacut basis adopted in the Table under S.  4 of the Act has no rational relation to the taram or  quality of the land or the nature of the irrigation source. (3)  The minimum fixed by the proviso in many cases is more than  100 per cent increase fixed by the section and thus, the proviso has  exceeded the section. (4) The Act is silent as  to  the machinery  for  making  the  assessment,  the  criteria  for fixation  of  the assessment, within the range  of  a  fixed maximum  and  a  minimum  the rights  and  remedies  of  the assesses and the obligation of the Government to survey  the lands.   In  short,  the High Court  struck  down  the  said provisions on the ground that they offend Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution for three reasons, namely (i) in the,, case of dry lands there,. is no reasonable classification at  all as  the flat minimum rate of 50nP. per acre has no  relation to  the  fertility of the land, (ii) in regard to  wet  land there  is no reasonable relation between the quality of  the land and the ayacut to 33 which it belongs, and (iii) the procedure prescribed for the ascertainment of the rate is arbitrary and uncontrolled, The High  Court, though it elaborately considered  the  question whether  the  revenue  assessment was by  authority  of  law within the meaning of Art. 265 of the Constitution, did  not express a final opinion thereon. Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned Solicitor General, who appeared  in one  of  the appeals filed by the State,  contended  broadly that  the High Court went wrong in coming to the  conclusion that  the  revenue  assessment made under  the  Act  had  no reasonable  relation to the quality of the soil and  pointed out  that  what the Legislature did was  nothing  more  than imposing a surcharge on previous rates fixed on the basis of tarams  in  the case of lands in Andhra and bhagana  in  the case of lands in Telengana. Mr. P. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the State in the other appeals,  while  adopting  the  arguments  of  the   learned Solicitor General, argued in greater detail contending  that though  the  classification  under  S. 4.  of  the  Act  was apparently  based  upon  ayacut,  there  was  a  correlation between  the extent of the ayacut and the duration of  water supply  and that on that basis the classification  could  be sustained  as  it  had a reasonable  relation  to  taram  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

bhagana,  as  the case may be, and also to the  duration  of water  supply.  He took us through various statistical  data to support the said connection between the extent of  ayacut and  the duration of water supply.  On the question  whether there  was any procedure for assessment, he strongly  relied upon S. 6 of the Act and contended that the said section, by reference,  incorporated  the  pro-existing  procedure   for assessment  in Andhra under the Board’s Standing Orders  and in Telengana tinder the relevant Acts. Mr.  P. A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for some of  the  res- pondents, argued that from time immemorial land  assessment, both in Andhra and in Telengana, was scientifically  settled on  the  basis  of taram or bhagana, as  the  case  may  be, depending upon the quality and the productivity of the  soil and  that  the Act in adopting the maximum and  the  minimum rates  in respect of both dry and wet lands had ignored  the said basis and instead adopted a thoroughly arbitrary method of  fixing  rates  on  the basis  of  ayacut  which  had  no relevance at all to the quality or productivity of the  land in  respect of which a particular assessment was  made.   He further contended that the Act omitted the entire  machinery for assessment which would be found in almost every taxation statuts and conferred an arbitrary and uncanalized power  on the   appropriate  authority  to  impose   assessments   and contended  that the want of reasonable relation between  the quality  and  fertility of the soil and the ayacut  and  the conferment of arbitrary power of assess- 34 ment  would infringe the doctrine of equality  enshrined  in Art.  14  of the Constitution, both in its  substantive  and procedural aspects. Mr.  Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for  the  res- pondents  in  some  of the appeals,  advanced  an  additonal argument  in respect of lands fed by Yeleru river,  that  in any  event the Act would not apply to the said land as  they did  not fall under any of the three categories  covered  by the Act, namely, dry land, single-crop wet land and  double- crop  wet land and that, therefore, no assessment under  the Act could be imposed in respect of the said lands. Before we consider the said arguments it would be  necessary to know briefly the nature and scope of the previous revenue settlements in Andhra and Telengana.  After some experiments in  the Madras State it was decided in 1865 that  a  general revision  of  assessment should be made  based  on  accurate survey  and  classification  of soils.   This  is  known  as Ryotwari Settlement.  The Ryotwari Settlement was  conducted in seven stages : (1) demarcation of boundaries, (2) survey, (3) inspection, (4) classification of soils, (5) assessment, (6)  matters  subsequent to assessment, and (7)  records  of settlement.   The  first two items were done by  the  Survey Department  and  the  items Nos. 3 to 7  by  the  Settlement Department.   It  will be enough for the purposes  of  those appeals  if we describe briefly how this  classification  of soils  was  done  and the assessment  made  on  that  basis. Before proceeding to the detailed classification of soils in each  village, there was a preliminary grouping of  villages so as to bring together those which were similarly  situated having  regard  to  proximity to market,  facility  of  com- munication and climate.  Thereafter the soil was  classified into  "series", such as (1) Alluvial islands in  rivers  and permanently  improved  soils; (2) Regar or regada,  the  so- called  ’black cotton soil,’ (3) Red ferruginous  soil;  (4) Calcareous-chalk or lime and; (5) Arenaceous.  Every soil of the said series was again divided into classes on the  basis of the variety and physical situation, such as pure clay  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

half  sand  or more than 2/3rd sand etc.  The  classes  were again divided into sorts such as good or bad or ordinary  or worst.  Briefly stated land was classified into series  into classes, and classes into sorts.  In the case of wet land in addition to the sorts, other distinctions were borne in mind in  grading the soil such as (1) whether the land was  close to  the  irrigation  main channel and  had  good  level  and drainage, (2) whether the land was less favourably  situated in  these  respects, (3) whether the  land  was  imperfectly supplied with water; or whether the level was  inconvenient, and  drainage bad, and (4) whether the land was so  situated that the water could not be let to flow on to it, but had to be  raised by baling it out.  After the said  classification the  next  stage was to ascertain the amount  of  crop  each different class and 35. sort  of  soil could produce.  After deducting the  cost  of cultivation the net produce was valued in money and the said amount  was  divided  into  proper  percentages,  one   such percentage  fixed  by  the Rules  would  be  the  Government revenue.   On  the basis of this classification a  table  of class and sort rates called Taram, which would apply equally to  several  soils  was  drawn up.   We  have  gathered  the necessary  particulars from "Land Systems of British  India" by Baden Powell, Vol. 3. The principles of settlement of ryotwari land and the manner the  Government  demand  was  arrived at  is  found  in  the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue Vol. 1, Paras 1  and 2. They are as follows :               (1)   The assessment shall be on the land, and               shall  not  depend  upon  the  description  of               produce, or upon the claims of certain classes               such  as Brahmans, Mahajanas,  Purakkudis  and               others to reduced rates.               (ii)The  classification of soils is to  be  as               simple  as  possible,  and  is  to  be   alike               everywhere instead of each village having  its               own;               (iii)The  assessment is to be fixed so as  not               to exceed half the net produce after deducting               the expenses of cultivation, etc.               (iv)No tax is to be imposed for a second  crop               on  dry  land,  but wet  lands  which  in  all               ordinary  seasons have an unfailing supply  of               water  for two crops are to be  registered  as               double  crop, the charge for the  second  crop               being   generally   half   the   first    crop               assessment.  Remissions may be given when  the               supply  of water fails.  In cases where  water               is  raised  by baling an abatement of  half  a               rupee per acre is allowed :               (v)   The  Tahsildar,  or in the course  of  a               resettlement,  the Special Settlement  Officer               or  Special Assistant Settlement  Officer  may               allow  the  charge  for  second  crop  to   be               compounded  in respect of all irrigated  lands               of which the supply of water is not ordinarily               unfailing.   The rates of composition will  be               as follows :               For  wet  land irrigated from  a  second-class               irrigation source               one   third :               For  wet  land irrigated  from  a  third-class               irrigation source,   one  fourth;               For   wet  land irrigated from a  fourth-class

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

             irrigation source,   one  fifth;               36               For  wet  land irrigated  from  a  fifth-class               irrigation source, one-sixth.               Where  the  irrigation is precarious  and  the               supply   is   supplemented   by   wells,   the               divisional officer, or in the course of a  re-               settlement, the Special Settlement Officer, or               Special  Assistant  Settlement  Officer,   may               allow  the  charge  for  second  crop  to   be               compounded  at one-half of the rates  referred               to  above,  except under  sources  grouped  in               Class  1 or 2 for settlement  purposes.   Com-               position  at  such  favourable  rates  may  be               allowed  to  lands for which  the  charge  for               second crop has already been compounded at the               ordinary  rates.   If the wells  however  fall               into disrepair, the land should be transferred               from  compounded  double crop to  single  crop               wet.   Ryots may be permitted to  compound  at               any  time  and to any .extent even  after  the               settlement.               (2)In   carrying  out  the   settlement   with               reference  to  the foregoing  principles,  the               Settlement  Department divides the soils  into               certain   classes  with  reference  to   their               mechanical composition, sub-divides them  into               sorts  or  grades  with  reference  to   their               chemical  and  physical properties  and  other               circumstances affecting their fertility,  ,and               attaches a separate grain value to each  grade               after  numerous  examinations  of  the  actual               outturn  of the staple products in each  class               and  sort  of soil.  The grain value  is  then               converted into money at the commutation price,               based  generally on the average of the  20-non               famine   years   immediately   preceding   the               settlement, for the whole district, with  some               abatement  for  trader’s profits and  for  the               distance  the grain has usually to be  carried               to  the  markets, and from the  value  of  the               gross  produce  thus determined, the  cost  of               cultivation   and  a  certian  percentage   on               account   of   vicissitudes  of   season   and               unprofitable  areas is deducted, and  one-half               of  the  remainder  is the  maximum  taken  as               assessment  or  the Government demand  on  the               land.   After  this, soils  of  similar  grain               values, irrespective of their  classification,               are   bracketed  together  in  orders   called               Tarams, each with its own rate of  assessment.               These   rates   are  further   adjusted   with               reference  to the position of the villages  in               which the lands are situated and the nature of               the  sources of irrigation.  For this  purpose               villages  are formed into groups, in the  case               of   dry  lands,  with  reference   to   their               proximity  to roads and markets, and,  in  the               case  of  wet  lands, with  reference  to  the               nature and quality of               37               the water supply.  This accounts for different               rates of assessment being imposed on lands  of               similar  soils,  but  situated  in   different               groups   or   under   different   classes   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

             irrigation." The  broad principles of Ryotwari system may be stated  thus (1)  Under  that  system the soil itself is  taxed  and  the assessment is fixed on the land; (2) Lands are classed  into two  general  heads, namely, wet and dry; (3) The  soils  of similar grain values are bracketed together in orders called "Tarams" each with its own rate of assessment; (4) The rates are  further  adjusted,  in  the case  of  dry  lands,  with reference  to the nature and quality of water supply.   This system  had been followed from time immemorial and  had  the general  approval of the public.  It has a scientific  basis and  throws  equitable burden on the  different  classes  of land. The  system followed in Telengana which formed part  of  the erstwhile  Hyderabad  State was as  follows.   The  relative scale of soils in respect of classification was in annas  or "annawari".  The existing or the former rates were taken  as the  basis  and  were  adjusted  having  regard  to  altered circumstances,  the  rise  or fall of  prices,  increase  in population,  means  of  support and  other  advantages.   No attempt was made to fix the assessment at a certain fraction of net assets for determining the money value of the produce of  the  field  crop.   But experiments  were  made  by  the Settlement  Officers and with the results  obtained  therein the  rates  fixed were checked in order  to  ascertain  what profit would be left to the cultivators. It  will  be seen that both in Andhra as well  as  Telengana area; under the Ryotwari system, the land revenue which  was a  share of the produce of the land commuted in money  value varied  according to the classification of soil  based  upon its productivity.  Both in Andhra and Telengana areas  under the  Ryotwari system the soils of similar grain values  were bracketed together in orders called ’Tarams’ or Bhagana  and the  rates  were  further adjusted in the  dry  land  having regard to the grouping and in wet lands having regard to the water  supply.  But in both the cases, the quality  and  the grade  of the soil divided in ’Tarams’ or ’Bhaganas’ as  the case may be, was the main basis for assessment. It  appears that the Ryotwari Settlements were abandoned  in the  year 1939.  In the Report of the Land  Revenue  Reforms Committee of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad  at page30 it is stated               "Re-settlement  operations were never  popular               with  the  ryots, as in all cases due  to  the               steady   increase  in  prices,   resettlements               always  led on to an increase in land  revenue               assessment.   They were finally ordered to  be               abandoned in 1939." 38 But  the  Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue  Assessment  (Standar- dization) Act, 1956 and the Hyderabad Land Revenue  (Special Assessment)  Act, 1952 were passed in order  to  standardize the rates on the basis of price level.  ’They increased  the rates by way of surcharge.  In the year 1958 the  Government of  Andhra Pradesh appointed Land Revenue Reforms  Committee to  examine  the existing system and rates of  land  revenue assessment  and irrigation charges obtaining in the  various regions  of the State and to make  suitable  recommendations for their rationalisation. The  relevant  recommendations of the Land  Revenue  Reforms Committee  of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in regard  to fixation  of rates are contained in Ch.  XV of Part 11  Vol. (iii) of its Report.  They are :               "No.  51.  Land Revenue should be fixed  as  a               percentage of the net produce.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

             No.  53.   As periodical  settlements  or  re-               settlements   are  not  recommended   and   as               revisions  in future will be based  on  prices               and   other  relevant  factors,  it   is   not               necessary  to  give  an  opinion  as  to  what               percentage  of the net produce, the  share  of               the Government should be.               No.   71.   In  future,  the   assessment   on               irrigated land should be fixed on the basis of               the  dry  land potential and  the  charge  for               irrigation should be on the basis of a charge,               for service, by the Government.               No.  72.  The productivity of the  soils,  the               capacity  of the source based on the  duration               of supply and the ability of the ryots to bear               the charge, are the chief factors which               should be considered in determining the  water               charges.               No.   73.   In  future,  the   assessment   on               irrigated   land   should   consist   of   dry               assessment  depending on the quality  of  soil               and  the charge for irrigation, based  on  the               quantum of service rendered by the Government.               Even though, the income from irrigated land is               several times that of dry land, still for  the               service  done, it is not suggested to  levy  a               uniform rate, but graduated rates, related  to               the  soil  value of the lands,  on  which  the               yields would depend." It  will  be  seen from the said  recommendations  that  the Committee  ,did  not  recommend  Ryotwari  settlements   but suggested  that assessments should be based on  the  quality and  productivity of soils, the duration of supply of  water and  the prices.  It may be noticed that the  Committee  did not make ayacut the basis of the assessment. 39 Let  us now analyse the provisions of the Act.  Under ss.  3 and 4 of the Act and the Table attached to S. 4, which  have been  extracted  earlier, a completely new scheme  has  been laid down.  Under S. 3, an additional assessment at the rate of  75  per cent of the earlier assessment  is  imposed  and under  the  proviso the total asessment should not  be  less than  50  np. per acre for a fasli year.  That  is  to  say, irrespective  of the quality and productivity of  the  soil, every  acre of dry land has to bear a minimum assessment  of 50  np.  per acre for a fasli year.  Coming  to  wet  lands, under  the Table appended to S. 4, they are divided  into  4 categories  depending  upon  the  extent  of  the   ayacuts. Ayacuts  of  30,000  acres and above fall  under  the  first class,  5,000 acres and above but below 30,000 acres,  under the  2nd  class, 50 acres and above but  below  5000  acres, under  the  3rd  class, and below 50 acres,  under  the  4th class.  A maximum and a minimum rate of assessment per  acre are  fixed  for lands under ayacuts under each of  the  said class  . Further, under class I the tarams and bhaganas  are divided into 3 groups and different maxima and minima  rates of  assessment  are fixed for each such group.  In  the  2nd class,  tarams  and  bhaganas are put into  two  groups  and different  maxima and minima rates are fixed in  respect  of the two groups; in classes 3 and 4 no distinction is made on the   basis   of   tarams.   Briefly   stated,   the   whole classification  is based on the extent of ayacut and in  the case  of  classes 1 and 2 groups of tarams are  relied  upon only for introducing differences in the maximum and  minimum rates.   But  the distinction between different  taranis  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

each of the groups is effaced without any appreciable reason for  such effacement.  The minimum flat rates fixed for  dry lands  as  well  as for wet lands are  not  based  upon  the quality and productivity of the soil and in the case of  wet lands  the minimum rate is mainly founded on the  extent  of ayacut. Prima  facie we do not see any reasonable  relation  between the  extent  of  the ayacut and the  assessment  payable  in respect of an acre of land forming part of that ayacut.  The system of periodical ryotwari settlement held by the British Government on a scientific basis of quality and productivity of  the  soil with marginal adjustments on the foot  of  the duration  of  water  supply in the case  of  wet  lands  and grouping of villages in the case of dry lands was given  up. The  scheme  of  surcharge on  pre-existing  rates,  earlier accepted,  was  not  adopted.   The  recommendation  of  the Committee  that the assessment should be based on the  dura- tion of water supply among others was not followed.  Instead the Act introduced in the case of both dry and wet lands  an unscientific  and arbitrary method of assessment imposing  a minimum  flat rate irrespective of the tarams.  In the  case of  wet lands an additional irrational factor is laid  down, viz., the rate is linked with the extent of the ayacut.   In the case of wet land, a minimum flat 40 rate with some variations within different groups in classes I and II and a minimum flat rate in respect of the groups in classes   III   and  IV  is  fixed  without   any   rational connection  between the two.  Mr. P. A. Choudhury  contended that  the scheme accepted by the Act was hit by Art.  14  of the  Constitution  inasmuch as it gave  up  practically  the principle  of tarams and bhaganas and accepted a  flat  rate irrespective  of  the quality and productivity of  the  land and,   therefore,   suffered   from   want   of   reasonable classification.   He  further  contended  that  the  alleged justification for the classification, namely, the extent  of the ayacut, had no reasonable relation to the objects sought to  be achieved by the Act, namely, rationalisation  of  the revenue assessments on land in the entire State. Mr.  P.  Ram  Reddy, on the other  hand,  made  a  strenuous attempt  to sustain ss. 3 and 4 of the Act on the  basis  of reasonable classification.  He said that in the case of  dry land  the minimum rate of 50 np. was so low that in most  of the  cases 75 per cent of the previous assessment  per  acre would not be more than 5 np., and. therefore, the mere  fact that in a few cases the 75 per cent of the assessment  would fall  on  the other side of the line could  not  affect  the validity  of the classification for it would almost  be  im- possible  in any scheme of classification to avoid  marginal cases.   So  too, in the case of wet lands,  he  argued,  in regard to classes I and II, the duration of supply of  water corresponded  to  the extent of the ayacut in  most  of  the cases  and, therefore, though the classification  was  based upon  the  extent of the ayacut, it was really made  on  the basis  of  the  duration of the water  supply.   As  regards different groupings of the tarams and bhaganas in the  first two  classes,  it  was contended that,  as  the  differences between  the tarams in each group were not appreciable  and, therefore,   if  the  rate  of  assessment  was   integrally connected  with the duration of the water supply,  the  said groupings of the tarams would not affect the  reasonableness of  classifications.  In the case of classes 11 and  IV,  he contended,  that in respect of lands falling under the  said two  classes  the  difference  in  the  rates  between   the different  tarams was not appreciable and,  therefore,  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

could be ignored.  In short he maintained that there was  an equation  between  the duration of supply of water  and  the extent of the ayacut and that the difference in the duration of  water  supply in the context of  assessment  of  various lands  has a reasonable relation to the aforesaid object  of the Act sought to be achieved. Now  let us test the contentions of Mr. Ram Reddy  with  the facts placed before us. Wet   Lands.some  tabular  statements  under  the   headings "average  test" and "majority test" have been placed  before us in 41 support  of the contention.  The following are  the  figures under the "Average test" :-                   "A" AVERAGE TEST                       Average  Average  AverageAverage Sl.  Name of Taluk    for less for bet-for bet-for more NO.                   than 3    ween 3   ween 5than 8                       months    and 5    and 8months                                 months   months 1.   Anantapur           26.4     50.5     120.8   ..... 2.   Dbarmavaram         13.7     49.0     120.1   ..... 3.   Tadipartri          16.4     62.0     126.0   ..... 4.   Gooty                9.5     48.3     152.8   ..... 5.   Kalyanadurga        10.2     52.9     152.5   ..... 6.   Rayadurg            22.0     59.7     162-0   ..... 7.   Mabakasira          15.2     55.4     143.2   ..... 8.   Penukonda           10.9     60.6     186.4   ..... 9.   Hindupur            15.1     58.3     108.7   ..... 10.  Kadiri               9.9     43.9     147.9   .....      Average of Taluks   14.954.1142-2                          AverageAverage                          for bet-for bet-                          ween 3    ween 5                          and 5     and 8                          months    months 1.   Ichapuram             8.3      69.6 2.   Pathapattanam        24.7      47.4 3.   Chipurapalli          2.5     139.3 4.   Srikakulam            6.4      84.9 5.   Sompeta.              6.6      80.8 6.   Salur                13.8      .... 7.   Babbili              19.5      .... 8.   Palkonda             ....      37:8 9.   Narasannapet         ....      35.5 10.  Parvathipuram        ....      84.2      Average of Taluks     8.2      57.9 Sl                      Average   Average  Average Average No   Name of Taluk      for less  for bet- for bet for more                         than 3    ween 3   ween 5  than 8                         months    and 5    and 8   months                         months     months 1.   Mahabooba          4.8        26.8     60.6    .... 2.   Mulug              25.1      171.6    370.86086.46 The  averages  mentioned  under different  columns  are  the average extent of the ayacuts in each taluk correlated  with particular  months of water supply.  If we take the  average for less than 3 months in respect of different taluks in the Rayalaseema  area, which is part of the Andhra, the  extents of the ayacuts vary from 9 acres to 26 acres.  In regard  to the  duration of water supply between 3 and 4  months,  they vary  from  43 to 62 acres.  In regard to  the  duration  of water supply between 5 and 8 months, they vary bet M4SupCI-67-4 42

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

ween 108 and 152 acres.  So too in some of the taluks of the Andhra   area  the  same  variations  are  found.   It   is, therefore,  not possible from the average test to hold  that particular  months  of supply corresponded  with  particular extent of the ayacut. The following tabular form represents the "Majority test"                        "B" MAJORITY TEST -----------------------------------------------------------              Between 5 months dura- Between 5 and 7 month.-;                               tion Sl. Name of Taluk ----------------------------------- No.            No irr-   Total No of  No of irr-     Total                gation  irrigation  gation           No of                                                 irrigation                sources  sourcessources     sources               below 50            between 50               acres ayacut        and 5000                                    acres ------------------------------------------------------------- 1.   Anantpur              15          30     19         19 2.   Dbaramavaram          23          32     14         14 3.   Tadapatri              7           9      1          1 4.   Gooty                 31          34      5          5 5.   Kalyandurg            38          51      14        14 6.   Kayadurg               5           9       2         2 7.   Madakasira            37          62       25       25 8.   Pandukonda            54          85       32       32 9.   Hindupur             113         155       30       30 10.  Kadiri               379         407       18       18 ------------------------------------------------------------                    Below 5 months duration    Between 5 & 8                                                    months                    ----------------------------------------- Sl  . Name of Taluk  NO. of    Total No   No of  Total No                  irrigation   of irri-  irrigat-  of irriga-                   sources    gation     tion      tion                              sources    sources    sources                   below 50             between 50                acres ayacut             and 5000                                          acres -----------------------------------------------------------             1. Ichapuram       165     166     35    79             2. Pathapatnam     927    1,054   147   570             3. Cheepurapalli  1,799   1,905    39    39             4. Srikakulam       465     470   127   129             5. Sompeta        1,082   1,099   125   131             6. Salur            594    614    ...   ...             7. Bobbili        1,629   1,771    ...  ...             8. Palkonda       .....   ....    178   290             9. Narasannapet   .....    ...    192  1.214           10.  Paravathipuram inclu-                ding Karupum Section.          135    152             1   Mahabooba Taluk 111     111     90     90               (P. 1456 to 1457 upto 10                acres)             2. Mulugu           179     231    12     12                Do                     No. of Irrigation Sources Between                     5000 & 3,000 acres                     for more than 8 months-2                       Total No. of Irrigation sources do-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- 43 By  majority test it is meant to convey that in  each  taluk the  majority  of the irrigation sources with  a  particular

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

duration  have  a proportionate relation  to  the  different extent  of  the  ayacut  mentioned  in  the  Act.   But  the aforesaid tabular form does not support that assertion.   In regard  to water sources of below 5 months duration with  an ayacut  of  below 50 acres, a comparison of  the  first  two columns  shows  that, except in a few cases, the  test  com- pletely  fails.   No doubt in regard to  irrigation  sources supplying  water  for between 5 and 8 months  of  ayacut  of 5,000  to  50,000 acres, the test appears to  be  satisfied. But  the table itself is confined only to  the,  Rayalaseema area  of the Andhra Part of the State and even in regard  to that area there is no unanimity, as the test fails in regard to  sources  within  5 months duration.   Similar  tests  in Srikakulam  district which is a part of the Andhra  area  of the  State,  shows  that in many  cases  the  majority  test thoroughly  breaks.  Nothing can, therefore, be  built  upon the  said tests.  Further, the statements filed in the  case showing  the area irrigated for different durations  clearly indicates  that in many cases the additional  assessment  is more  than 100 per cent or 50 per cent, as the case may  be, of the original assessment showing thereby that the increase is  on  the basis of the flat minimum rate and  not  on  the basis  of the duration of the irrigation  sources.   Further water sources which supply water for more than 5 months  but less  than 8 months and have registered ayacuts below  5,000 acres  fall under class IV.  Some of the tanks which  supply water  for more than 8 months fall under  different  classes having regard to the ayacut which they serve.  For instance, Kumbum  tank  has  a  registered  ayacut  of  10,000  acres, Bukkaepatnam tank has a registered ayacut of 184 acres;  and though  both supply water for 8 months or More,  the  former falls  under  class II and the latter under  class  111.   A cursory  glance  through  the  statistics  of  the   various districts tells the same tale.  In the Warrangal district of the  Telengana area. in Mahaboobad taluk none of  the  water sources  supplies water for more than 8 months and  none  of them  has  an ayacut of more than 175 acres;  they  are  all classified  under class III or class IV.  In Malug  taluk  3 tanks  supply  water for more than 8 months  and  they  have ayacuts  of 3,400 acres, 1,901 acres and 6,470 acres  re.-,- pectively.  The first two fall under class III and the  last under  class H. In Anantapur District, 14 out of 22  source% which  supply  water for between 3 and 5 months  are  placed under  class  111.  III Dharmavaram taluk, out of  22  water sources  of  similar  nature,  9  fall  in  class  III.   In Srikakulam  district some of the water sources which  supply water  for more than 8 months fall under class III,  because of their ayacut.  The record also discloses that Sitanagaram Anicut  system  has  a registered  ayacut  of  4,017  acres, Mahadevpuram  tank  system has only 1.500  acres.   Dondaped tank  system  has 1,504 acres,  Anamasamudram-Giraperu  tank system has 826 acres, Jangamamaheswarapuram tank system  has only 246 acres. 44 Yerur Tank system has 1,500 acres, and Ponnalur tank  system has  987  acres.  Under S. 4 all these  water  sources  fall under class III.  It is not necessary to multiply instances. The High Court has carefully considered this aspect.  Enough has been said to make the point that classification based on ayacut  has no reasonable relation to the duration of  water supply.   It  is, therefore, clear that the ayacuts  do  not correspond to the number of months of water supply;  indeed, many  tanks  which supply water for a longer  duration  have smaller ayacuts.  Tanks supplying water for equal  durations fail  under different classes.  In a large number  of  cases

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

the  minimum rate is more than 100 per cent of  the  earlier assessment  indicating thereby that the minimum rate has  no relation to the quality or the productivity of the soil.  In short, both ss. 3 and 4 in fixing the minimum flat rate  for dry or wet lands, as the case may be, have ignored the  well established taram principle; and in the case of wet lands an attempt  has been made to classify different systems on  the basis  of the ayacuts but the said test is unreasonable  and has no relation to either the duration of water supply or to the   quality  or  the  productivity  of  the   soil.    The classification  attempt  in either case  has  no  reasonable relation  to  the  objects sought to  be  achieved,  namely, imposition  of fair assessments and rationalisation  of  the revenue  assessment structure.  Indeed, an arbitrary  method has been introduced displacing one of the most equitable and reasonable  methods adopted all these years in  the  revenue administration of that State. The  same unreasonableness is writ large on  the  provisions prescribing  the  machinery for assessment.   The  machintry provisions read thus :               Section  6. The additional assessment  payable               under  this Act in respect of any land  shall,               for all purposes, be treated as land revenue.               Section  8. (1) The District Collector  shall,               from  time to time, by notification  published               in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District               Gazette,  specify  the Government  sources  of               irrigation falling under classes I, II and  IV               of  the Table under section 4 and may in  like               manner,  include  in, or  exclude  from,  such               notification any such source.               (2)   Any  person aggrieved by a  notification               published  under  subsection (1)  may,  within               forty-five  days from the date of  publication               of  the  notification in  the  Andhra  Pradesh               Gazette  and the District Gazette.  prefer  an               appeal to the Board of Revenue whose  decision               thereon shall be final. 45 Section  8 has nothing to do with the assessment.   It  only provides   for  specification  of  Government   sources   of irrigation falling under different classes.  Therefore,  the only provision which may be said to relate to procedure  for assessment  is  s.  6. Mr. Ram Reddy argued  that  S.  6  by reference   brought  into  the  Act  not  only  the   entire provisions  of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery  Act  but also  the elaborate procedure for assessment  prescribed  by the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue.  He added  that S.  6 incorporated by reference the Standing Orders  of  the Board of Revenue relating to procedure and thereby the  said Standing  Orders  were  made  part  of  the  statute.   This argument  has been pitched rather high and we do  not  think that  the  phraseology  of  the  section  permits  any  such interpretation.   Under  S.  6  the  additional   assessment payable under the Act shall be treated as land revenue.  E.x facie  this provision has nothing to do with  the  procedure for  assessment;  but the assessment payable is  treated  as land  revenue.  An assessment becomes payable only after  it is  assessed.  The section, therefore, does not deal with  a stage  prior  to  assessment.  The  amount  payable  towards assessment  may be recovered in the manner the land  revenue is recovered. For  the  same reason it is not possible to  read  into  the section the entire gamut of the Standing Orders of the Board of  Revenue which deal with the mode of assessment; for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

said  machinery  also  deals  with  a  stage  before  -  the assessment  becomes  due.  If it was the  intention  of  the Legislature that the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue should  be brought into the Act by incorporation,  it  would have  certainly used appropriate words to convev that  idea. It would not have left such an important provision so  vague and  particularly  when the Legislature may be  presumed  to know  that the question whether the Standing Orders are  law was seriously raised in many proceedings.  Therefore, if  S. 6 is put aside, there is absolutely no provision in the  Act prescribing  the mode of assessment.  Sections 3 and  4  are charging sections and they say in effect that a person  will have to pay an additional assessment per acre in respect  of both  dry  and  wet lands.  They do not  lay  down  how  the assessment should be levied.  No notice has been prescribed, no  opportunity  is  given to the  person  to  question  the assessment  on his land.  There is no procedure for  him  to agitate  the  correctness  of  the  classification  made  by placing  his  land in a particular class with  reference  to ayacut,  acreage  or  even taram.  The  Act  does  not  even nominate  the appropriate officer to make the assessment  to deal  with questions arising in respect of  assessments  and does not prescribe the procedure for assessment.  The  whole thing is left in a nebulous form.  Briefly stated, under the Act  there  is  no  procedure  for  assessment  and  however grievous the blunder made there is no way for the  aggrieved party  to get it corrected.  This is a typical case where  a taxing statute does not provide any machinery of assessment. 46 On the said facts the question is whether ss. 3 and 4 of the Act  offend Art. 14 of the Constitution.  The scope of  Art. 14 has been so well-settled that it does not require further elucidation.  While the article prohibits discrimination, it permits  classification.   A statute may  expressly  make  a discrimination between persons or things or may confer power on  an  authority  who  would be in a  position  to  do  so. Official arbitrariness is more subversive of the doctrine of equality  than  statutory discrimination.  In respect  of  a statutory discrimination one knows where he stands, but  the wand  of  official  arbitrarianess  can  be  waved  in   all directions  indiscriminately.   A  statutory  provision  may offend   Art.  14  of  the  Constitution  both  by   finding differences where there are none and by making no difference where  there is one.  Decided cases laid down two  tests  to ascertain  whether a classification is permissible  or  not, viz.,   (i)  the  classification  must  be  founded  on   an intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group;  and (ii) that the differential must have a  rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the  statute in question.  The said principles have been applied by  this Court to taxing statutes.  This Court in Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kerala(1) held that the  Travan- core-Cochin  Land  Tax Act, 1955, infringed Art. 14  of  the Constitution,  as it obliged every person who held  land  to pay  the tax at the flat rate prescribed, whether or not  he made  any income out of the property, or whether or not  the property was capable of yielding any income.  It was pointed out  that  that  was  one of the cases  where  the  lack  of classification created inequality. In East India Tobacco Co. v.  State of Andhra Pradesh(2) though this Court again  held that  taxation laws also should pass the test of Art. 14  of the  Constitution gave the caution that in deciding  whether such law was discriminatory or not it was necessary to  bear in  mind that the State had a wide discretion  in  selecting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

the  persons or things it would tax.  The  applicability  of Art. 14 to taxation statute again arose for consideration in Khandige Sham Bhat v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer(3) and  this Court affirmed the correctness of the decision  in K.  T. Moopil Nair’s case(1).  In the context of a  taxation law this Court held               "Though  a law ex-facie appears to  treat  all               that  fall within a class alike, if in  effect               it  operates unevenly on persons  or  property               similarly  situated, it may be said  that  the               law offends the equality clause.  It will then               be  the  duty of the court to  scrutinize  the               effect  of the law carefully to ascertain  its               real   impact  on  the  persons  or   property               similarly  situated.   Conversely, a  law  may               treat               (1) [1961] 3 S. C. R. 77.  (2) [1963] 1 S.  C.               R. 404.               (3)   [1963] 3 S. C. R. 899, 817.               persons  who appear to be  similarly  situated               differently; but on investigation they may  be               found not to be similarly situated.  To  state               it differently, it is not the phraseology of a               statute  that  governs the situation  but  the               effect of the law that is decisive.  If  there               is equality and uniformity within each  group,               the    law   will   not   be   condemned    as               discriminative, though due to some  fortuitous               circumstances   arising  out  of  a   peculiar               situation  some  included in a  class  get  an               advantage over others, so long as they are not               singled  out for special treatment.   Taxation               law is not an exception to this doctrine......               But in the application of the principles,  the               courts, in view of the inherent complexity  of               fiscal adjustment of diverse elements,  permit               a larger discretion to the Legislature in  the               matter  of classification, so long it  adheres               to  the fundamental principles underlying  the               said  doctrine.  The power of the  Legislature               to classify is of "wide range and flexibility"               so  that it can adjust its system of  taxation               in all proper and reasonable ways."               47               It  is,  therefore, manifest that  this  Court               while  conceding  a larger discretion  to  the               Legislature in the matter of fiscal adjustment               will  insist that a fiscal statute  just  like               any  other statute cannot infringe Art. 14  of               the  Constitution by introducing  unreasonable               discrimination  between  persons  or  property               either   by   classification   or   lack    of               classification.  Two decisions relied upon  by               the learned counsel for the appellant may  now               be  noticed.   In C. V.  Rajagopalachariar  v.               State of Madras(1) the facts were : two  Acts,               namely.  Madras Land Revenue Surcharge Act (19               of  1954) and Madras Land Revenue  (Additional               Surcharge)  Act (30 of 1955), were  passed  by               the  Madras  Legislature increasing  the  land               revenue payable by landlords to the extent  of               the  surcharge  levied.  Those two  Acts  were               questioned,  inter  alia, on the  ground  that               they offended Art. 14 of the Constitution; but               the ground of attack was that the Acts fixed a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

             slab system under which the rate of  surcharge               progressively increased from As. -/2/- to  As.               -/8/-  on each rupee of the land revenue  paid               and   that   the   relevant   provision    was               discriminatory   in   its   operation   as   a               distinction  had  been made between  rich  and               poor  people  and as the levy of the  tax  was               different  for  different classes  of  owners.               That   contention,  for  the   reasons   given               therein,  was negatived.  In the  said  Madras               Acts  a surcharge was imposed in  addition  to               the previous rates and the previous rates  had               been made on the basis of ryotwari settlements               which   did   not  offend  Art.  14   of   the               Constitution and, therefore, a small  addition               to the said rates could not likewise  infringe               the  said article.  The present  question  did               not arise in that case.  Nor has               (1)   A. I.R. 1960 Mad. 543.               48               the decision of the Mysore High Court in H. H.               Vishwasha Thirtha Swamiar or Sri Pejawar  Mutt               v.  The  State of Mysore(1) in regard  to  the               Mysore Land Revenue Surcharge Act (13 of 1961)               any  bearing on the present question.   There,               as  in the Madras Acts, the revenue  surcharge               levied  wag an additional imposition  of  land               tax and, therefore, the Mysore High Court held               that  it  did  not  offend  Art.  14  of   the               Constitution.  In holding that Art. 14 was not               infringed, the Court said:               "We have before us a temporary measure.   That               is  an extremely important circumstance.   The               State,  not  unreasonably,  proceeded  on  the               basis  that a temporary levy could be made  on               the basis of existing rates.  We can think  of               no  other reasonable basis on which  the  levy               could  have been made.  It may be that in  the               result some areas were taxed more than others.               But   yet   it  cannot  be   said   with   any               justification  that  there  was  any   hostile               discrimination between one area and another." It  will be seen that in that case on existing  rates  based upon scientific data a surcharge was imposed as a  temporary measure till a uniform land revenue law was enacted for  the whole  State.  That decision, therefore, does not touch  the present  case.  But in the instant case, as we have  pointed out  earlier,  the whole scheme of ryotwari  settlement  was given up so far as the minimum rate was concerned and a flat minimum rate was fixed in the case of dry lands without  any reference to the quality or fertility of the soil and in the case  of wet lands a minimum wet rate was fixed and  it  was sought  to  be justified by correlating it  to  the  ayacut. Further, the whole imposition of assessment was left to  the arbitrary  discretion of the officers not named in  the  Act without  giving any remedy to the assessees for  questioning the correctness of any of the important stages in the matter of assessment, such as ayacut, taram, rate or classification or  even in regard to the calculation of the  figures.   Not only  the  scheme of classification, as pointed  out  by  us earlier, has no reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved viz., fixation and rationalisation of rates  but the  arbitrary power of assessment conferred under  the  Act enables  the  appropriate  officers  to  make   unreasonable discrimination  between  different persons and  lands.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

Act, therefore, clearly offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. In  some of the appeals relating to Peddapuram  and  Kumara- puram  villages  another point was raised,  namely,  that  a special  rate bad been fixed which was neither for a  single crop nor for a double crop and that, therefore, they do  not come under any of (1)  [1966] 1 Mys. L.J. 351,359. 49 the provisions of the Act.  In the view we have expressed on the  other  questions  it is not necessary  to  notice  this argument. In  the  result the appeals are dismissed with  costs.   One hearing fee. R. K. P. S.                                          Appeals dismissed.