SUBBA RAO, C.J. - (1.) THE following judgment of the court was delivered by:
(2.) 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 1/07/1962; and the Amending Act was passed on 24/12/1962, and it came into force on 1/07/1962. 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 : 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. Section 4. In the case of wet land in the State which Is served by a government source of irrigation specified in classes I, 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. 1460 THE TABLE JUDGEMENT_1458_AIR(SC)_1967Html1.htm 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, 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.
(3.) 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 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.;