IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.07.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.A. No. 2721 to 2723 of 2001 and W.A.M.P. No. 20625 to 20627 of 2001 WA No. 2721 of 2001 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Collector (Revenue) Coimbatore .. Appellants Versus P. Jeyaraman @ P.J. Raman .. Respondent WA No. 2722 of 2001 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Collector (Revenue) Coimbatore 3. The Deputy Secretary (Revenue) Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 .. Appellants Versus Anaimalai Vattara Agriculturists Welfare Association by its Secretary A. Shanmugasundaram .. Respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WA No. 2723 of 2001 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The District Collector (Revenue) Coimbatore .. Appellants Versus Anaimalai Vattara Agriculturists Welfare Association by its Secretary A. Shanmugasundaram .. Respondent WA No. 2721 of 2001:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.1997 made in WP No. 4921 of 1988 on the file of this Court. WA No. 2722 of 2001:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.1997 made in WP No. 5317 of 1988 on the file of this Court. WA No. 2723 of 2001:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.09.1997 made in WP No. 4922 of 1988 on the file of this Court. These Writ Petitions presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein form enforcing against. 1.The Petitioner the revised(in W.P.No.4921/88) and (2) the old ayacutdars belonging to the petitioner's Association of Aliyar River in Pallachi Taluk, Coimbatore District(in W.P.No.4922/88) respectively the revised land classification and the rate of revenue and collecting from them revised rate of land revenue and local and union surcharge (3) Writ of Certiorari calling for the Records relating to G.O.Ms.No.2510(Revenue) dated 7.3.1970 on the file of the Ist Respondent and the bearing No.90883/H2/82-26 Revenue dated 8.3.87 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein and the quash the same(in W.P.No.5317/88) respectively. For Appellants : Mr. M. Dhandapani Special Government Pleader in all the appeals For Respondents : Mr. Venkatachalapathy, Sr. Counsel for M/s. G.M. Mani Associates in all the appeals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by B. Rajendran, J) All these three appeals arise out of the common order dated 12.09.1997 made in WP Nos. 4921, 5317 and 4922 of 1988 whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. 2. W.A. No. 2721 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 4921 of 1988, which was filed by one Jayaraman @ P.J. Raman praying for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the appellants herein from enforcing against the writ petitioner/respondent the revised land classification and the rate of revenue and collecting it from the writ petitioner/respondent revised rate of land revenue and local and union surcharge. 3. W.A. No. 2722 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 5317 of 1988, which was filed by the association praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 07.03.1970 on the file of the first respondent and the order bearing No.90883/H2/82-26 Revenue dated 08.03.1987 on the file of the third respondent herein and to quash the same. 4. W.A. No. 2723 of 2001 arise out of the order passed in WP No. 4922 of 1988, which was filed by the Association praying for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein from enforcing against the Old Ayacutdars belong to the petitioner's association of Aliyar River in Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, the revised land classification and the rate of revenue and collecting from them revised rate of land revenue and local and union surcharge. 5. Before the learned single Judge, the writ petitioners/ respondents herein contended that they are agriculturists and are members of the Anaimalai Vattara Agriculturists Welfare Association having lands in the old ayacut of Pallivilangal, Ariyapuram, Karappatti, Periyanai and Vadakkalur canals. According to the writ petitioners/respondents, these five canals are distributories of the main river Aliyar and these five distributories feed the old ayacut consisting of about 6400 acres. There are five small old dams constructed about 300 years ago in the Aliyar river, which facilitates to regulate the flow of water in the said distributories. Many of the old ayacutdars have been raising double crop as well as single crop in a year and a third dry crop such as groundnut also raised with the Aliyar river water. It was further contended that during the second five year plan, the Government of India devised Parambikulam Aliyar Project for the purpose of power generation and agriculture. From Aliyar water water is fed into Aliyar river. Pursuant to this new project, new ayacuts to a larger extent of about 35000 acres were brought under dry irrigation. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu, as per the bilateral agreement with Karnataka and Kerala, agreed to supply electricity developed from the Aliyar project, but subsequent to the construction of dams, the farmers experienced difficulty as water has been diverted to Kerala and there was delay in the water supply to old ayacutars and they were not getting the good water facility as they were getting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ earlier. Therefore, the agriculturists were affected due to dearth of water. While so, the Government also collected betterment levy of Rs.100 per acre from the old Ayacutdars on the assumption that they were benefitted by the construction of the Aliyar dam. Further, the Government also increased the land rate steeply without any reason by levying a flat rate. Earlier, the lands were classified as Class I and Class II but now Class II lands are also classified as Class I lands without any reason. The old rate of land was fixed at Rs.3.50 to Rs.9.95 for a single crop land but presently it was enhanced to Rs.25 per acre, whereas for double crop, old rate ranging from Rs.4.69 to Rs.10.25 has been increased to Rs.37.50. This type of assessment without reason or without proper calculation is discriminatory, unreasonable, oppressive and illegal. The fixation of rate without considering the expenses incurred for the cultivation and output is basically illegal. There is no reason at all given to fix the valuation at Rs.25 and Rs.37.50 per acre and there is no justification for the same. By fixing a flat rate, the Government are treating unequals as equals and hence, it is violative of Article 14 of The onstitution of India. Above all, before resorting to such an action, the Government has not done the mandatory exercise of re- classification or enquiring the affected parties namely the farmers. Also, the actual output and the water consumed by the parties is not taken into consideration. Since the fundamental right of the writ petitioners/respondents is affected, by reason of reduction in the supply of water, the writ petitioners /respondents herein challenged the revised rate. It was stated that the old ayacutdars, without prejudice to their rights, are allowed to pay at Rs.18 per acre irrespective of double crop or single crop for the present after the original Government Order was stayed or kept in abeyance on the representation made by the agricultural association and members, but subsequently, as per the present G.O. Ms. No. 1961 dated 10.09.1991, the Government has again resorted back to the original Government Order fixing the valuation at Rs.25/- and Rs.37.50/-, which is totally illegal. Under those circumstances, the writ petitioners/respondents have filed the respective writ petitions before the learned single. 6. The appellant resisted the claim of the writ petitioners/respondents on the ground that it is always open to the Government to fix the land revenue. Before the construction of Aliyar dam, the ayacut under Old Aliyar channels were irrigating the lands by seasonal rain water flow from the old catchment of Aliyar river. After the construction of the dam, the rain water is stored and supplied to the old ayacut lands systematically. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners/ respondents herein that they are not getting any benefits out of the construction of Aliyar dam is incorrect. After construction of Aliyar dam, the irrigation system has been regulated and all the lands are getting regular water flow, as such, the increase in the rates of assessment is correct. At the time of resettlement of lands during 1912, the Aliyar river has been classified as Class II source in the Resettlement register. In the year 1960, the dam across Aliyar river has been constructed under Parambikulam Aliyar project, hence, assured and regulated water supply has been given to the lands under the ayacut of Aliyar river. Therefore, the source of water under Aliyar river has been treated as Class II at the time of re-settlement.After the construction of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Aliyar dam and other dams under Parambikulam Aliyar project, the entire Parambikulam Aliyar Project has been considered as Class I source, therefore also, the revised rate of assessment has been ordered to the entire lands under Old Aliyar ayacut. 7. On consideration of the argument of both sides, the learned single Judge quashed G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 07.03.1970 and also the consequential order dated 08.03.1987 on the ground that fixing the flat rate levy at the rate of Rs.25/- for single crop and Rs.37.50 for double crop is arbitrary. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present writ appeals. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants argued that subsequent to the filing of the writ appeals, the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 07.07.2009 whereby the new land revenue was fixed from fasli year 1419 (2009-2010) and as per the new Government Order, the land revenue was reduced to Rs.2/- per acre for punja lands and Rs.5/- per acre for nanja lands, besides the Government also dispensed with the levy of surcharge, land cess etc., The learned Special Government Pleader would only contend that the Government Order will be applicable in future and therefore, for the earlier years, the writ petitioners/respondents have to pay the land revenue as fixed by the Government. In this connection, the learned Special Government Pleader would point out that originally G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue dated 07.03.1970 was passed for collection of revenue, but subsequently, on the representation being made by the members and associations as well, the Government Order was kept in abeyance. In G.O. Ms. No.1487, Revenue Department dated 27.06.1975, during the relevant period, the land owners were asked to pay the land revenue at the rate of Rs.18 per acre irrespective of the fact whether it is a single or double crop. Thereafter, the revised levy was considered by the Government and ultimately, G.O. Ms. No.1961, Revenue Department dated 10.09.1981 was issued by the Government stating that "the concessions granted in G.O. Ms. No.1487, Revenue Department dated 27.06.1975 be withdrawn from fasli 1391. The District Collector, Coimbatore is requested to give effect to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.2510, Revenue Department dated 07.03.1970 from fasli year 1391." In fact, even in this order, it has been clearly stated that pursuant to Aliyar Dam Construction , the writ petitioners/respondents lands were entitled to have more than two crops and therefore they thought it fit to increase the land revenue from the erstwhile levy. In fact, the learned Special Government Pleader relied on the Revenue Standing Order No.1 and contend that it empowers the Government to fix the land revenue and therefore the fixation is legal and valid. 9. The main contention of the learned Special Government Pleader was because of the construction of dam, an uniform rate was sought to be fixed with reference to actual usage and benefit, which the farmers derive and water will also be available for the second crop and therefore, the increase is justified. He would specifically contend that the yield of the paddy in the first crop was 75% and second crop was above 50%. Before the construction of the dam, they were only irrigating the lands with the aid of seasonal rain water flow and because of the new project, the writ petitioners/respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ could get more water. Therefore, the increase in land revenue is justifiable. 10. On the contrary, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents would contend that the Government in fact was collecting excess amount from the writ petitioners/respondents. The learned senior counsel brought to the notice of this Court that even in the affidavit filed in support of the respective writ petitions, it was stated that on the basis of land revenue, the local and panchayat union surcharge also increased to 300 to 400 per cent. Even though the original order of enhancement was kept in abeyance, the writ petitioners/respondents herein were directed to pay Rs.18 per acre irrespective of single crop or double crop. This anomaly was specifically pointed out even in the affidavits, which was not answered in the counter filed before the learned single Judge. In fact, in the counter filed in the writ petitions in para-15, the government would admit that local cess and surcharge are being collected at 45% and 250% respectively. Therefore, the learned senior counsel would contend that during the relevant period of time, till the disposal of the writ petitions, the land owners have been paying exorbitant amount of Rs.70/- inclusive of all cess and surcharge. Furthermore, he would point out that unless arrears of the land tax imposed by the government is paid, necessary endorsement will not be made by the authorities concerned in respect of any transaction relating to the land and therefore, the writ petitioners/respondents herein were compelled to pay the same. Therefore, all the petitioners have been paying during the relevant period of time, either at Rs.18/- per acre or Rs.70/- inclusive of all cess and taxes. He would further contend that in view of the subsequent G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 07.07.2009, the very levying of cess under the Old regulation has become infructuous. In fact, the learned Senior counsel would point out that the present Government order has been issued cancelling the cess, surcharge, water surcharge, water charges etc., and only land revenue is fixed and that a classification with respect to dry land and wet land alone has been made. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the earlier regulation is still in existence and the writ petitioners/ respondents are liable to pay at the rate of Rs.25/- per acre and Rs.35.70 per acre from 1987 onwards does not stand the scrutiny at all. He would further argue that when the Government was giving so many concessions to farmers even to the extent of writing off agricultural debts and giving free electricity, it has to be construed that the present Government Order itself has been issued only to help the farmers. There was no interim stay granted in the appeals, yet the writ petitioners/respondents are paying land revenue at the rate of Rs.18/- along with others, which ultimately comes to Rs.70/-. Considering the plight of the farmers alone, the Government has issued the present G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 07.07.2009 and therefore, the relief sought for in the appeals have become infructuous. 11. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants as well as the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. A perusal of the G.O. Ms. No.223, Revenue Department dated 07.07.2009 would make it clear that the Government relaxed the stringent method of collecting the land tax from the farmers. In the said Government Order, it was stated that the amount of Rs.15/- per acre was collected from the dry lands and Rs.50/- from the agricultural lands has been reduced to Rs.2/- and Rs.5/- respectively, which would clearly indicate that the Government itself has given a go-bye to the earlier fixation of land revenue at the rate of Rs.25/- and Rs.37.50 per acre, which are the subject matter of writ petition and writ appeals. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, it was stated that the cess and other surcharges are being collected at Rs.70/- per acre which would amply prove that in view of the subsequent Government Order, no relief can be granted in these writ appeals. When it was accepted in the present Government Order, which was issued during the pendency of the writ appeals, that the government is collecting different rate than what was fixed in the earlier Government Order, it has to be construed that the present Government Order was issued to help the farmers. Therefore, it is clear that the writ appeals have now become only in the academic interest and not otherwise. In any view of the matter, now the Government itself has passed a consolidated Government Order nullifying the earlier Government Orders, which are the subject matter of the writ petitions as well as writ appeals and therefore, the relief sought for in the writ appeals by the Government has become irrelevant when compared with the present Government Order. Moreover, the writ petitioners/respondents are also paying at a rate much more than the actual claim in the earlier Government Order during the pendency of the writ petitions as well as the writ appeals. Moreover, in the present Government Order, it was clearly stated that the Government is collecting different rate towards land revenue than what was collected based on the previous Government Order, which was challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, in view of the present Government Order No.223 dated 07.07.2009, the contentions raised in the writ appeals need not be considered as the relief sought for in the writ appeals have become infructuous. 13. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the writ appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The Deputy Secretary (Revenue) Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 3. The District Collector (Revenue) Coimbatore. 1 cc To Mr.G.M.Mani Asociates, Advocate, SR.53659 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.53641 WA No. 2721 to 2723/2001 ar(Co) pmk.4.8.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/