Sirasanambeti Siddareddi and others vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Sambasiva Rao, J.—The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from levying or collecting any additional wet assessment at any time, and to direct the respondents to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners on 16-6-1975 and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit. It is immediately seen that the relief is couched in very wide and general terms. But the point that is actually argued before us is in a very narrow compass.

The petitioners are ryots of Sirasanambedu village in Sri Kalahasti Taluka, Chittoor District. They own and cultivate wet lands under Srirasanambedu tank. The petitioners say that it is a rain fed tank. Earlier it was included in the Swarnamukhi Project but subsequently it was deleted from that area. So the only source of irrigation is the rain fed Sirasanambedu tank. It does not supply water for more than two or three months in a year. Therefore, it is not a Government source of irrigation within the meaning of Section 2(c) so that additional land revenue could be imposed.

Another contention raised is that before levy of additional land revenue u/s 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Wet Assessment) Act, 1975 is made a notification u/s 9 not only in the State Gazette but also in the District Gazette is compulsory. For Fasli 1384, which commenced from 1st July, 1974 and ended with 30th June, 1975, the demand is made for additional land revenue also. But the notification u/s 9 was published in the State Gazette as late as on 6th August, 1975, and in the District Gazette on 18th February, 1976, i.e., long after the completion of Fasli 1384. Since publication u/s 9 is a condition precedent for imposing additional levy u/s 3, no additional land revenue can be levied and collected from the petitioners in respect of Fasli 1384.

The respondents in their counter-affidavit say that the classification of the tank as Class II has not been changed. The tank, though it has been deleted from the Swarnamukhi Project continued to be a rain fed tank supplying water for not less than eight months in a fasli year. There is no reply affidavit filed and so we see no reason to doubt this assertion made by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Consequently, we reject the first contention put forward by the petitioners. However, Sri N. Subba Reddy states that an appeal has been preferred to the Government after the notification u/s 9 was made. The Government will decide this matter on the basis of the material which shall be available with it. But in a writ petition we cannot go behind the assertion contained in the counter-affidavit.

In regard to the claim for additional land revenue for Fasli 1384 the facts are not in dispute. Notification u/s 9 was made on 6-8-1975 in the State Gazette and it was published in the District Gazette as late as on 18-2-1976. The demand for Fasli 1384 is challenged on this ground and we are satisfied that this criticism is valid. Section 3 is the charging section. It says that in respect of every wet land in the State held by a pattadar and served by a Government source of irrigation, there shall be levied and collected by the Government from the pattadar for every fasli year commencing on the first day of July, 1974, and for each subsequent fasli year, an additional land revenue assessment at the rate of one hundred per cent, of the land revenue payable thereon for that Fasli year. According to sub-section (2) this is in addition to the land revenue payable by a pattadar in respect of that land. Section 9, which provides for notification of Government source of irrigation, says:

(1) For the purpose of levying additional land revenue assessment u/s 3, the Board of Revenue shall, by notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and the District Gazette, specify the Government source of irrigation and may in like manner include in, or exclude from such notification any such source.

Sub-section (2) provides for preferring appeals to the Government against the notification of any particular source of irrigation as a Government source of irrigation. Now, Sri Subba Reddy argues that the Publication of the notification by Board of Revenue in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette as well as in the District Gazette is a condition precedent for levying additional land revenue u/s 3. When the notification is made after the completion of the fasli year, the Governmental authorities cannot impose additional land revenue. This argument, in our opinion, is well founded. The language of sub-section (1) of Section 9 itself makes the position clear. It starts with saying ''for the purpose of levying additional land revenue assessment u/s 3''. Therefore, the notification contemplated by sub-section (1) shall precede the levying of additional land revenue assessment u/s 3. It is also noteworthy that an appeal against the notification is provided for under sub-section (2). Such an appeal shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the publication. A valuable right is thus created in the persons affected or aggrieved to challenge the correctness of the notification. It is thus made possible for them to demonstrate to the Government that the notified source of irrigation is not a Government source of irrigation within the meaning of'' Section 2(c). If he succeeds, then the notification itself will be set aside and the concerned persons will not then be liable to pay any additional land revenue. That is why sub-section (1) of Section 9 says that for the purpose of levying such additional land revenue a notification shall be published in the two Gazettes. Undoubtedly publication in the two Gazettes is a condition precedent for levying additional land revenue u/s 3. Not that every year such a notification should be made. That yearly notification is not contemplated either by Section 9 or by any other provision. Once a notification is made it continues to be in effect until it is altered by the Board of Revenue as postulated by sub-section (1) itself. But the fact remains that without publishing the notification in the two Gazettes, additional land revenue u/s 3 cannot be levied and cannot, therefore, be collected. Since additional land revenue is sought to be levied and collected on the petitioners'' lands for Fasli 1384, though the notifications u/s 9 were published on 6-8-1975 and 18-2-1976 in the State Gazette and the District Gazette respectively, the levy for that Fasli cannot be upheld. It is contrary to the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Act.

Sri M. Rajalingam, the learned Government Pleader, however, contends that lists were prepared as required u/s 4 and were published as per the procedure by 17-4-1975, that is, before the expiry of Fasli 1384. Despite that publication, no appeal was preferred and so the petitioners are bound to pay the additional land revenue assessment even for Fasli 1384. We cannot accede to this argument. Section 9 is in positive terms and does not leave any scope for any ambiguity or doubt. A notification shall be published in the two Gazettes for the purpose of levying additional assessment u/s 3. Therefore, the simple publication of lists as required u/s 4 does not satisfy the requirement We, therefore, strike down the levy on the petitioners'' lands for Fasli 1384. In ether respects, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 75/-.