http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. L. NAGADE AND GADAG & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1983

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR  762            1983 SCR  (3)  93  1983 SCC  (3) 253        1983 SCALE  (1)618

ACT:      Hyderabad Land  Revenue Rules subsequently repealed and re-enacted as  Andhra Pradesh  (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 framed under Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of 1317 F)-r.  71 as  amended on  July 4,  1958  -Diversion  of agricultural  land   to  non-agricultural  purposes-mode  of assessment of land revenue -Whether. rule valid.      Bombay Land  Revenue Rules  framed  under  Bombay  Land Revenue Act, 1879-r. 81 as amended on March 27, 1958-Whether rule valid.      Rule 71  of the  Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules, which is similar to  r. 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, provides for mode  of assessment  of land  revenue in  the  event  of diversion  of   agricultural   lands   to   non-agricultural purposes.

HEADNOTE:      The respondents in these appeals had filed certain writ petitions  challenging   the  levy   and  demand   of   non- agricultural assessment  made  by  the  appellants,  on  the ground,  among   others,  that  the  above  rules  conferred unguided and  uncontrolled power  and  there  was  excessive delegation of  legislative functions and therefore the rules were violative  of Art.  14 of  the Constitution.  The  High Court accepted  the contention  and quashed  the  demand  of assessment.      Allowing the appeals, ^      HELD: Delegation  of some  part  of  legislative  power becomes a compulsive necessity for viability and functioning of the various institutions created by the Constitution. The legislature can  delegate details  to be  worked out  by the delegate and the details may be numerous and significant yet they may  well be  made over  to the appropriate agency. The guideline need  not be  found in the impugned provision. The same  may  be  collected  from  the  setting  in  which  the provision is  placed, the  purpose  for  which  the  Act  is enacted and  even the  preamble of  the statute in which the provision is  incorporated. The object sought to be achieved by legislation or statute can furnish reliable guideline for the exercise of discretionary power. [104 B, F-G, 100 H, 101 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    Constitutional Law  by Prof.  Wills, p.  587; Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil  Nair v.  The State  of Kerala and Another, [1961] 3 SCR 67; New Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills. Co. Ltd.  and Ors.  v. Municipal  Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 679; State of Andhra Pradesh JUDGMENT: Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K. 94 Kutty Naha  & Ors. etc. [1969] 1 SCR 645; Rangildas Varajdas Khandwala v. Collector of Surat & Ors. [1961] 1 SCR 951; and Avinder Singh  etc. v.  State of Punjab & Anr. etc. [1979] 1 SCR 845, referred to.      The basic  purpose for  which a  Land  Revenue  Act  is enacted is for empowering the State and its agencies and its officials to  assess and levy land revenue. The land revenue is a  tax and  the validity  of a  taxing statute  has to be determined keeping  in view  the fact  that in the matter of taxation the  Court allows wide area of picking and choosing and the slab system. [105 A, G-H]      In the  instant case  r. 71  is made in exercise of the rule making  power conferred by s. 172 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act.  This rule  making power is to be exercised for the purpose  of carrying  out the  provisions  of  the  Act. Whenever land  is diverted  to use  other than agricultural, power is  conferred to  levy non-agricultural  assessment or special assessment  but this  assessment is to be determined under the  amended r. 71, keeping in view the purpose of the Act, namely,  levying and  collection of revenue, the use to which the land is put, the profit derived from such deviated use of  the and again correlated to population as set out in various sub-clauses  of amended  r. 71  and within floor and ceiling prescribed in the impugned rule. The High Court fell into an  error in holding that rule 71 allowed a wide margin to the  revenue officers  in the  matter of  determining the special assessment  to be  levied  on  land  used  for  non- agricultural purposes.  The High Court failed to notice that area within  which the discretion of the revenue officer can operate is circumscribed both by the floor and ceiling fixed and while determining the quantum of assessment, the revenue officer has  to bear in mind the use to which land is put as also the  profit derived  from the  use of  the of land. The order made  by the  revenue officer  is appealable.  When  a demand is  raised, it  can always  be controverted under the various provisions  of the  relevant rules and the concerned assessee will have full opportunity to vindicate his stand.                                        [104 H; 105 A-B; E-G]      There  is   no  excessive   delegation  of  legislative functions in  the Hyderabad  Land Revenue Act. Section 50 of the Act  clearly confers  power on  the State Legislature to levy assessment and when the land is diverted to a use other than agriculture, the legislature conferred to power to levy non-agricultural assessment.  Elaborate provision  has  been made for  levying assessment. Section 172 conferred power to enact rules  for giving  effect to  the provision of the Act and the  guideline was  provided as  herein above indicated. [106 B-C]      Bombay Land  Revenue Code  was enacted in the year 1879 to consolidate  and amend  law relating  to revenue officers and to the assessment and recovery of land revenue and other matters connected  with Land Revenue Administration. Section 48 confers  power to  levy and  assess the land revenue with reference to  the use of the land. Chapter XI makes detailed provision for  the procedure  to be  followed by the revenue officers while discharging their duties and carrying out the functions imposed  by the  Code. Chapter  XIII provides  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

appeals and  revisions against  the orders  of  the  revenue officers. [106 E-G] 95      Rule 81  of the  Bombay Land Revenue Rules framed under s. 214  of the  Act, as  amended on March 27, 1958, provides for ordinary rates of non-agricultural assessment. Floor and ceiling rates vary from area to area demarcated on the basis of population  and it is further provided that in fixing the rates within  the floor and the ceiling, due regard shall be had to  the general  level of  the value of the lands in the locality used for non-agricultural purposes. The Act and the Rules provide  for sufficient  guidelines, and  it cannot be said   that   the   Commissioner   enjoys   wide   arbitrary discretionary power.  The discretion  has to  operate within the floor and the ceiling; the yardstick is the value of the land used for non-agricultural purposes in the locality, the area has  to be  divided village-wise,  town-wise, city-wise and overall  what is  being assessed  is none-the-less  land revenue. The  High Court  was in  error in striking down the provision on  the ground  that the Commissioner enjoyed wide arbitrary discretion  uncontrolled by  any  guidelines.  The discretion is  not only  controlled but  there is sufficient guidelines in the Act and the Rules. [106 H, 107 A-G]      We would  expect revenue  authority ordinarily  to hear the person  affected by  the order  levying non-agricultural assessment or  at the time of its appeal or revision, but on this count  the demand  cannot be struck down because when a demand is  served it  can be objected to and the decision is appealable. It  cannot be said that the Rule would be bad as it does  not inhere  the principles of natural justice. [107 G-H, 108 A]

&      CIVIL APPELLATE.  JURISDICTION  :  Civil  Appeals  Nos. 1221-1222 & 1407-1413 of 1970      From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 30th September, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions No. 1934/64, 672  of   1963,  1165-1168,   1198-1199  &   2619  of   1963 respectively.      M. Veerappa  and Ashok  Kumar Sharma for the appellants in all appeals.      Naunit  Lal,  Kailash  Vasdev  and  Krishna  Kumar  for Respondents in CA. Nos. 1407-1412/73.      M.N. Phadke,  Vinod Bobde,  D.N. Misra  and  Mrs.  A.K. Verma with him for the Respondents in CA. 1222 & 1413/70.      S.S. Javali  and B.P.  Singh for  the Respondent in CA. 1221 of 1970.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  Civil Appeals Nos. 1221-1222/70 arise from a decision of  the Division  Bench of  the then  High Court of Mysore at 96 Bangalore in  Writ Petition  Nos. 672/63 and 193/64 by which the  High  Court  quashed  the  demand  of  Non-Agricultural assessment  (N.   A.  assessment  for  short)  made  by  the respondents on the ground that Rule 71 as amended on July 4, 1958 of  the Hyderabad  Land Revenue Rules which appeared to have been  repealed and  re-enacted as  the  Andhra  Pradesh (Telengana   Area)    Land   Revenue    Rules,   1951    was unconstitutional  being   violative  of   Art.  14   of  the Constitution and hence void.      Civil  Appeals  Nos.  1407  to  1413/70  arise  from  a decision of  the Division  Bench of the same High Court in a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

group of  writ petitions by which the High Court quashed the demand of  Non-Agricultural assessment  on the  ground  that Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules as amended on March 27, 1958 was unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 and hence void.      Appellants in  both the  groups are the State of Mysore and some  officers. Respondents are the original petitioners in both the groups.      Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules and Rule 81 of  the  Bombay  Land  Revenue  Rules  were  amended  in  an identical manner but on two different dates and the validity of each amended rule was questioned on identical grounds and more or  less the  High Court  for identical reasons quashed both the  Rules as amended and almost identical grounds were canvassed in  support of  rival contentions  before  us  and therefore, all  these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.      The boundaries  of old  Mysore State underwent a change consequent upon  the re-organisation of States in 1956. Some portion of  former Bombay  State as  well as some portion of the old Hyderabad State were allocated to Mysore State. This historical phenomenon  led to  different Land  Revenue  Code remaining in  operation in  different parts  of the State of Mysore. To  be precise  that area  of  former  Bombay  State forming part  of Mysore  State continued  to be  governed in respect of  land revenue  by the  Bombay Land  Revenue Code, 1879 and  the rules  made thereunder. Similarly that area of former Hyderabad  State which  was allocated to Mysore State continued to  be governed  by the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of 1317F). 97      In Re  C. A. Nos. 1221-1222/70 : Respondents questioned the validity  of the  amended Rule  71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules  which came  into force  from July 4, 1958. It reads as under :           "71 (1)  : Mode  of assessment  in  the  event  of      diversion of  agricultural  lands  to  non-agricultural      purposes, the  special assessment  shall be  levied  as      follows :-      (a)  in the  case of  land situated  in any village the           population of which does not exceed 5,000 the rate           of special  assessment leviable  shall be not less           than the  agricultural assessment leviable on such           land and note more Rs. 40 per acre.      (b)  in the  case of  land situated  in any  village or           town other  then a  town coming under Sub-Rule (c)           of this  Rule, the  population  of  which  exceeds           5,000 the  rate  of  special  assessment  leviable           shall be  not less  than Rs.  40 per  acre and not           more than Rs. 80 per acre.      (c)  in the  case  of  land  situated  within  an  area           comprising the  Municipality limits of the town of           Raichur, Gulbarga  and Bidar  the rate  of special           assessment leviable shall be not less than Rs. 150           per acre and not more than Rs. 250 per acre."      The validity  of the amended rule was challenged on the ground that  it provides  no guidelines for determining N.A. assessment for  various plots  and that  it suffers from the vice  of   excessive  delegation  of  essential  legislative functions and therefore any demand raised in exercise of the power conferred  by the  amended Rule  71 would be arbitrary and therefore violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.      In Re.  C.A. Nos, 1407 to 1413/70: Respondents who were petitioners in  the High  Court questioned  the validity  of Rule 81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules as amended on March

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

27, 1958. It reads as under:      "81 (1): Rate of Non-Agricultural assessment:           The rate  of Non-Agricultural  assessment leviable      shall be as follows:- 98      (a)  in the  case of  land situated  in any village the           population of which does not exceed 5,000 the rate           of Non-Agricultural  assessment leviable  shall be           not less than the agricultural assessment leviable           on such land and not more than Rs. 40 per acre.      (b)  in the  case of  land situated  in any  village or           town other  than a town coming under Clause (c) of           this rule,  the population  of which exceeds 5,000           the rate  of Non-Agricultural  assessment leviable           shall be  not less  than Rs.  40 per  acre and not           more than Rs. 80 per acre.      (c)  in the  case of  land situated in any City or Town           referred to  in the Table to Rule 100, the rate of           Non-Agricultural assessment  leviable shall be not           less than  Rs. 150  per acre and not more than Rs.           250 per acre.      (d)  Non-Agricultural  assessment  will  be  levied  at           uniform rates  for the entire extent converted for           non-agricultural  purposes,  irrespective  of  the           extent actually built upon." The same  contention which  was advanced in the former group of petitions was repeated in this group of petitions.      Validity of  both the  Rules was  questioned  on  other diverse grounds  but except  the one herein mentioned, other contentions did  not find  favour with  the High  Court  and therefore, they need not be recapitulated here.      The sole  contention which  found favour  with the High Court was that the Rule under challenge confers unguided and uncontrolled power  and there  is no guideline either in the Act or  the Rules  and  there  is  excessive  delegation  of legislative functions  and therefore, both the amended Rules are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.      Thus the  question which  falls  for  consideration  is whether the  amended Rule  71 of  the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules and  amended Rule  81 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules suffer from  the vice of excessive delegation of legislative functions  or   that  it   confers  canalised  and  unguided arbitrary power on the officers or there is 99 no guideline  to govern  the discretion  while enforcing and implementing the two Rules.      We would  first examine the validity of amended Rule 71 of the  Hyderabad Land  Revenue Rules.  The  Hyderabad  Land Revenue Act  (VIII  of  1317F)  was  enacted  to  amend  and consolidate the  orders and  regulations  relating  to  land revenue. It  is an exhaustive Code divided into 12 Chapters. Chapter II  deals with  appointment of  Revenue Officers and their respective  powers. Chapter  IV contains  provision in respect of  land and land revenue. Sec. 24 provides that all Unalienated lands  belong to  Government. Sec.  48  provides that all  land, whether applied to agricultural or any other purpose and  wherever situate  shall be liable to payment of land revenue to the Government in accordance with provisions of this Chapter and Chapters VII and IX except in case title to land  has been  transferred to  any municipality  or  the revenue thereof  has been  wholly remitted under any special contract with the Government or under any order or law. Sec. 50 which  is material  for the present purpose confers power for assessment and levy of land revenue. It reads as under :      "50. Land  revenue shall  be assessed  according to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

    various modes of use-      (a)  agricultural use.      (b)  In addition to agricultural use any other use from           which profit or advantage is derived.           When rate  is assessed  on any land for any one of      the aforesaid purposes and the land is appropriated for      any other purpose the rate thereof shall be altered and      fixed again, although the term of subsisting settlement      may not have expired. It becomes  clear that  the land  revenue was to be assessed according to the use to which the land is put and especially in  the  case  of  use  of  land  for  purposes  other  than agriculture, the  N.A. assessment  would be assessed keeping in view  the use  to which the land is put and the profit or advantage derived  from such  use of  the land.  Chapter VII contains provisions  for Survey and settlement of land which would include  assessment in  respect of  each survey, piece and parcel of land. Sec. 84 provides for announcement of the 100 assessment and  the manner  in which  it is  made,  and  the announcement should  include the assessment fixed in respect of each  plot of land called survey number. Chapter IX makes provision for  responsibility of  payment of revenue and the method of  its recovery  and  the  priority  of  payment  in respect of  land revenue. Chapter X deals with the procedure prescribed for  revenue officers in dealing with cases under the Land Revenue Act. Chapter XI provides for appeal, review and revision  of the  orders of  revenue officers.  Sec. 172 confers power on the Government to make rules by publication in the  Jarida (presumably official Gazette) consistent with the provisions  of the  Act to  carry out  the  purpose  and objects of  the Act  and for  the guidance of all persons in matters connected  with the  enforcement of  the Act  or  in matters not  expressly provided  for in the Act. In exercise of this  power,  Hyderabad  Land  Revenue  Rules  have  been enacted and promulgated subsequently repealed and re-enacted as the  Andhra Pradesh  (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Rules, 1951. Rule  71 as amended on July 4, 1958 has been extracted hereinbefore. It  provides for  mode of  assessment  in  the event of diversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes. Briefly,  N.A. assessment  also styled  as special assessment has  to be  levied within  the  minimum  and  the maximum as  provided in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 71 (1).  The amended  rule also  confers  power  for  upward revision of N.A. assessment at intervals.      Is this power uncanalised, unguided or arbitrary ? Rule 71 (1) as amended recites that in different areas correlated to population  between the  floor and  the  ceiling  therein prescribed, N.A. assessment has to be levied. Ordinarily the land is  put to agricultural use and the assessment is to be levied depending  upon the  use of the land for agricultural purposes. Where  there is  a diversion in the use of land, a special assessment called N.A. assessment can be levied. The right to  levy N.A.  assessment is  not in dispute. And N.A. assessment is none-the-less assessment of revenue to be paid for the  use of  the land.  What is  questioned is  that the power conferred  by the  rule gives  so much  wide arbitrary discretion to the officers that in the absence of guidelines the revenue  officers indifferent  areas may act arbitrarily and therefore,  in the  absence of  guidelines this  rule is violative of Art. 14.      The  question   therefore,  is  whether  there  is  any guideline for  the exercise  of this  power ?  It is  by now well-recognised that  guideline need  not be  found  in  the impugned provision. The same may be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

101 collected from the setting in which the provision is placed, the purpose  for which  the Act  is  enacted  and  even  the preamble  of   the  statute   in  which   the  provision  is incorporated. A legislation or statute is enacted to achieve some public  purpose and  the policy  of law  and the object sought to  be achieved  can furnish  reliable guidelines for the exercise  of discretionary  power. Prof.  Wills  in  his Constitutional Law, p. 587 observes as under:           "If a statute declares a definite policy, there is      a sufficiently  definite standard  for the rule against      the delegation  of  legislative  power,  and  also  for      equality if  the standard is reasonable. If no standard      is set  up, to  avoid the  violation of equality’ those      exercising the  power must  act  as  though  they  were      administering a valid standard."      In Kunnathat  Thathunni Moopil  Nair v.  The  State  of Kerala and  Another(1), a  Constitution Bench  of this Court struck down  the Travancore-Cochin  Land Tax  Act,  1955  as being violative  of Art. 14 on the ground that unequals were treated equally.  By the impugned Act all lands in the State of whatever  description and held under whatever tenure were to be  charged and levied a uniform rate of tax to be called the basic  tax. This  Court held  that the Act 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. Consequently, the Court held there was no attempt  at classification  in the  provisions of the Act and  it   was  one   of  those   cases  where  the  lack  of classification  created   inequality.   In   reaching   this conclusion, Sinha,  CJ speaking for the majority observed as under:           "The Act  thus proposes  to impose  a liability on      land holders  to pay a tax which is not to be levied on      a judicial  basis, because  (1)  the  procedure  to  be      adopted does  not require  a notice  to be given to the      proposed  assessee;  (2)  there  is  no  procedure  for      rectification of  mistakes committed  by the  Assessing      Authority; (3)  there is  no procedure  prescribed  for      obtaining the  opinion of  a superior  Civil  Court  on      questions of  law, as  is generally found in all taxing      statutes; and  (4) no  duty is  cast upon the Assessing      Authority to act judicially in the matter of 102      assessment proceedings.  Nor  is  there  any  right  of      appeal provided  to such assessee as may feel aggrieved      by the order of assessment."      This decision  is of  no assistance  because  Hyderabad Land Revenue  Act prescribed a detailed method of assessment and relevant provisions would be followed while levying N.A. Assessment. The  Rule circumscribes  the  operation  of  the discretion between  the floor  and the  ceiling. The various slabs are  correlated to population. Sec. 50 itself provides that the  N.A. assessment  will be  assessed keeping in view the use  of the  land and  the profit  derived from the use. Further the orders made by the Revenue Officers are not only appealable but even a review petition is contemplated at the instance of the person aggrieved by the order of assessment. Therefore, the  criteria which  appealed to the Constitution Bench in  striking down  the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955 are  not available  in this case. On the contrary where are  such   detailed  provisions   for  assessment  of  Non- Agricultural assessment  such as use of land, profit derived by the  use of  the land,  the maxima  and  minima  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

various rates correlated to population.      In New  Manek Chowk  Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd and Ors.  v. Municipal  Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors.(1),  a Constitution Bench of this Court struck down the assessment  of property tax by the Municipal Corporation inter alia  on the  ground that the method of levy of tax on the basis  of floor  area was  against the provisions of the Act and  the Rules  made thereunder. The Court held that the method of  taxation on  the basis  of floor area was sure to give  rise   to  inequalities   as   there   had   been   no classification of  factories on  any rational  basis and the Corporation failed  to observe  the  law  to  determine  the annual rental  value of  each building and land comprised in each of  the Textile  factories. We  fail to  see  how  this decision would  be of  any use because there is no flat rate levy here  and the  N.A. assessment  has  to  be  levied  in respect of  each plot  of land keeping in view its location, use and the profit derived by the use of the land.      Reference was  next made  to State  of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy & Ors.(2) Affirming the decision of the Andhra High 103 Court which declared Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act, 1962 as unconstitutional, the Court  held that the classification based on ayacuts has no reasonable relation to the duration of water supply or to the quality or the productivity of the soil and that Secs. 3 and 4  fixing the minimum flat rate for dry or waste land as the case  may be,  have ignored  the well established tarams principle and  therefore, the  classification  attempted  in either case has no reasonable relation to the objects sought to be  achieved, namely,  imposition of  fair assessment and rationalisation of  revenue assessment  structure. Again  we fail  to   see  how  the  decision  would  help  us  because geographical classification based on population criterion is a valid basis for classification.      The next  case to  which out  attention was  drawn  was State of Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K. Kutty Naha & Ors. etc,(1) in which  this Court  upheld the decision of the Kerala High Court declaring  Kerala Buildings  Tax Act, 1961 ultra vires the Constitution in that it infringed the equality clause of the Constitution.  The Court  following its  decision in New Manek Chowk  case held  that in  the absence of any rational classification which  was not even attempted, the tax levied on floor  area alone  ignoring the use to which the building is put,  the materials  used in putting up the structure had the pernicious  effect of  treating unequals  as equals  and therefore, violative  of Art.  14 of  the Constitution. This decision has hardly any relevance to the issue raised before us.      As against  the aforementioned  decisions, it  would be advantageous to  refer to  Rangildas Varajdas  Khandwala  v. Collector of  Surat and  Ors.(2)  The  power  to  levy  N.A. assessment was  questioned before  this Court  albeit  under different set  of circumstances.  The land  involved in  the dispute was  governed by the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, whose constitutional validity was challenged. The Court held the Act was protected by the umbrella of Art. 31A of the Constitution.      The next  contention raised  in that  case was that the Collector could  not have  levied N.A. assessment under Sec. 52  of   the  Bombay  Land  Revenue  Code.  Negativing  this contention, this Court held that when the land is being used for non-agricultural purpose, Sec. 104

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

48 makes  it obligatory  upon  the  assessing  officer  when assessing the land revenue to look to the use to which it is put at the time of the assessment and assess it according to such use.  Rule 71  provides for  three  safeguards  against arbitrary exercise  of power  viz. (i) use of the land, (ii) profit derived  from the use of the land and, (iii) location of the land.      In this  connection we may refer to the latest decision of this  Court in  Avinder Singh  etc. v.  State of Punjab & Anr. etc.(1)  After a  review of  large number  of decisions this Court  held that delegation of some part of legislative power becomes  a  compulsive  necessity  for  viability  and functioning of  the  various  institutions  created  by  the Constitution. Pertinent observation may be extracted:           "The Law-making is not a turnkey project readymade      in all  detail and  once this  situation is grasped the      dynamics of delegation easily follow. Thus we reach the      second  constitutional  rule  that  the  essentials  of      legislative functions  shall not  be delegated  but the      inessentials however  numerous and significant they be,      may well  be made  over  to  appropriate  agencies.  Of      course, every  delegate is subject to the authority and      control of  the principal  and  exercise  of  delegated      power can always be directed, corrected or cancelled by      the principal.  Therefore,  the  third  principle  that      emerges  is   that  even   if  there   be   delegation,      parliamentary control over delegated legislation should      be a  living continuity  as a constitutional necessity.      Within these triple principles, Operation Delegation is      at once  expedient, exigent  and even  essential if the      legislative process  is not  to get  stuck up or bogged      down or  come to a grinding halt with a few complicated      bills."      Thus it  is crystal  clear  that  the  legislature  can delegate details  to be  worked out  by the delegate and the details may be numerous and significant yet they may well be made over to the appropriate agency.      Applying this  yardstick, what  emerges in  this  case. Rule 71  is made  in  exercise  of  the  rule  making  power conferred by Sec. 172 of 105 the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. This rule making power is to be exercised  for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Act.  The basic purpose for which the Land Revenue Act is enacted is for empowering the State and its agencies and its official to  assess and  levy land revenue. Whenever land is diverted to  use other  than agriculture, power is conferred to levy  N.A. assessment  or  special  assessment  but  this assessment is  to be  determined under  the amended  Rule 71 keeping in  view the purpose of the Act, namely, levying and collection of revenue, the use to which the land is put, the profit derived  from such deviated use of the land and again correlated to  population as  set out in various sub-clauses of amended  Rule 71  and within floor and ceiling prescribed in  the  impugned  rule.  Further  the  order  made  by  the assessing authority  is made  appealable and  reviewable. In out opinion,  there is  sufficient guideline  in the Act and the Rules  following which  the assessing  authority has  to assess the  N.A. assessment.  In this connection, it will be advantageous to  refer to  the oft quoted passage from Wills which bears repetition. It reads as under:           "A State  does not have to tax everything in order      to tax  something. It  is allowed  to pick  and  choose      districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for      taxation, if it does so reasonably ..."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    The High  Court in  our opinion unfortunately fell into an error  in holding  that Rule  71 allowed a wide margin to the revenue  officers  in  the  matter  of  determining  the special assessment  to be  levied  on  land  used  for  non- agricultural purposes.  The High Court failed to notice that area within  which the discretion of the revenue officer can operate is circumscribed both by the floor and ceiling fixed and while determining the quantum of assessment, the revenue officer has  to bear in mind the use to which land is put as also the  profit derived from the use of the land. The order made by the revenue officer is appealable. Now when a demand is raised,  it can  always be controverted under the various provisions of  the relevant rules and the concerned assessee will have full opportunity to vindicate his stand. It should not be  over-looked that  the land  revenue is a tax and the validity of  the taxing statute has to be determined keeping in view  the fact  that in the matter of taxation, the Court allows wide  area of  picking  and  choosing  and  the  slab system. We  are therefore,  of the  opinion that  there  was sufficient guideline to govern the discretion of the revenue officer and the rule could not be struck down on the 106 ground  that   it  confers   wide   arbitrary,   uncanalised discretionary power uncontrolled by any guidelines.      A very  feeble attempt  was made to urge that there was excessive delegation  of essential  legislative functions to the executive giving it the power not only to enact the rule but to  amend it  so as to vary the N.A. assessment. Sec. 50 clearly confers  power on  the  State  Legislature  to  levy assessment and when the land is diverted to a use other than agriculture, the  legislature conferred  the power  to  levy N.A. assessment.  Elaborate  provision  has  been  made  for levying assessment.  Sec. 172 conferred power to enact rules for giving  effect to  the provision  of  the  Act  and  the guideline was provided as herein above indicated. Therefore, we are  not impressed by the submission that in the case the legislature  was   guilty  of   delegating   its   essential legislative functions in favour of the executive.      Re C.A. Nos. 1407 to 1413/70: In this group of appeals, vires of  amended rule  81 of  the Bombay Land Revenue Rules was  questioned  on  the  same  identical  grounds  and  the challenge must  fail for  the same  reasons. We may however, briefly point  out the  scheme of  the relevant  Act and the rules governing this case.      Bombay Land Revenue Act was enacted in the year 1879 to consolidate and  amend law  relating to revenue officers and to the  assessment and  recovery of  land revenue  and other matters connected with the Land Revenue Administration. Sec. 48 confers  power to  levy and  assess the land revenue with reference to  the use  of the  land -(a)  for the purpose of agriculture, (b)  for the purpose of building, and (c) for a purpose other  than agriculture  or building.  Chapter  VIII includes provision  for Surveys, Assessments and Settlements of Land Revenue. Chapter VIII-A makes further provisions for assessment and  settlement of  land revenue  on agricultural land. Chapter  XI makes detailed provision for the procedure to be  followed by  the revenue  officers while  discharging their duties  and carrying  out the functions imposed by the Code.  Chapter  XIII  provides  for  appeals  and  revisions against the orders of the revenue officers. Sec. 214 confers power on the State Government to make rules not inconsistent with the  provisions of the Act to carry out the purpose and object thereof  and for  the  guidance  of  all  persons  in matters connected  with the  enforcement of  the Act.  Armed with this  power, Land  Revenue Rules,  1951  were  enacted.

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

Chapter XIV headed ’imposition 107 and revision  of non-agricultural  assessment’ make detailed provisions for  assessment and levy of N.A. assessment. Rule 80 confers  power for  alteration of  assessment  when  land assessed or  held for  agricultural purpose if used for non- agricultural purpose. Rule 80A confers power for revision of N.A. assessment  on the  expiry  of  the  period  for  which assessment on  any land  was assessed  and levied.  Rule  81 provides for  ordinary rates  of  N.A.  assessment.  It  was amended and the validity of the amended rule is in question. Floor and ceiling rates vary from area to area demarcated on the basis  of population  and it is further provided that in fixing the  rates within  floor and  the ceiling, due regard shall be  had to the general level of the value of the lands in the  locality used for non-agricultural purposes. Rule 82 makes detailed  provision for  the rate  of non-agricultural assessment  to   be  determined   in  accordance  with  that provision where  special rate of non-agricultural assessment is in  force. Where N.A. assessment is levied at an ordinary rate, the  Commissioner before determining the rate at which N.A. assessment will be levied on any particular plot has by notification to  divide the  villages, towns  and cities  in each district in his division to which a standard rate under Rule 82  has not  been extended into two classes. Even while assessing N.A.  assessment, the  Commissioner has to keep in view the  level of  value of  land in  the locality used for non-agricultural purposes.  In our opinion, both the Act and Rules thus  provide for sufficient guidelines, and it cannot be  said   that  the   Commissioner  enjoys  wide  arbitrary discretionary power.  The discretion  has to  operate within the floor and the ceiling; the yardstick is the value of the land used for non-agricultural purposes in the locality, the area has  to be  divided village-wise,  town-wise, city-wise and overall  what is  being assessed is land revenue because N.A.  assessment  is  none-the-less  land  revenue.  In  our opinion, the  High Court  was in  error in striking down the provision on  the ground  that the Commissioner enjoyed wide arbitrary discretion  uncontrolled by  any  guidelines.  The discretion is  not only  controlled but  there is sufficient guidelines in  the Act and the Rules and therefore, the High Court was in error in striking down the demanded Rule 81.      It was  in passing urged that there is no provision for notice before  N.A assessment  is levied.  We  would  expect revenue authority  ordinarily to hear the person affected by the order  levying N.A.  assessment or  at the  time of  its appeal or  revision, but  on this count the demand cannot be struck down  because when  a demand  is served,  it  can  be objected to and the decision is appealable. It cannot 108 be said that the Rule would be bad as it does not inhere the principles of natural justice.      The decisions  of the  High Court were not sought to be supported on  any other  ground. Accordingly,  these appeals must succeed.      All the  appeals are  allowed and  the judgments of the High Court  in both the groups are quashed and set aside and the writ  petitions filed  by the  respondents are dismissed with costs throughout. H.S.K.                                      Appeals allowed. 109