Case: Vishwesha Thirtha Swamiari &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Mysore And Anr

under Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it was common ground that there was inequality in taxation between the lands comprised in the South Kanara District and the areas in the erstwhile Mysore State. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the land revenue was highest in the Madras area of the State as it was represented to it that in the old Madras State half of the estimated net produce was taken as land revenue where as in other areas only 1/16th of the gross produce was taken as land revenue. These facts were not admitted by the State but the High Court assumed those facts for the purpose of the case to be correct. We will also proceed on those assumptions because even assuming these facts it cannot be said that there has been any breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.16. This Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy, ((1967) 3 SCR 28 : AIR 1967 SC 1458 ) while dealing with the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision Act 22 of 1962, made the following general observations :"A statutory provision may offend Article 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 differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question."17. After referring to the decision of the Madras High Court in the Rajagopalachariars case (supra), this Court observed :"In the said Madras Acts a surcharge was imposed in addition to the pervious rates and the previous rates had been made on the basis of the Ryotwari settlements which did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, a small addition to the said rates could not likewise infringe the said article."18. Referring to the judgment under appeal in the present case, this Court observed in Nalla Reddys case (supra), as follows :"Nor has the decision of the Mysore High Court in H. H. Vishwesha Thirtha Swamiar or Sri Pejawar Mutt v. The State of Mysore, ((1966) 1 Mys LJ 351) 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 was an additional imposition of land tax and, therefore there Mysore High Court held that it did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. In holding that Article 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 jurisdiction 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."19. It seems to us that this Court rightly distinguished the two above mentioned cases on good grounds. We have here a temporary measure imposing additional land revenue while resettlement and survey was being done in the entire State. This process necessarily takes a long time. It is stated in the judgment of the High Court that the settlement report was received by the Government only in 1963. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the State acted arbitrarily in imposing a surcharge on land revenue which was being levied under the existing settlements and Acts.20. Reorganisation of the States is an important in factor in considering Article 14 and existing laws or any temporary laws that may be made because of reorganisation. This Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., ((1964) 6 SCR 846 : AIR 1964 SC 1179 ) observed :"Continuance of the laws of the old region after the reorganisation of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act was by it self not discriminatory even though it resulted in differential treatment of persons, objects and transactions an the new State, because it was intended to serve a dual purpose - facilitating the early formation of homogeneous units in the larger interest of the Union, and maintaining even while merging its political identity in the new unit, the distinctive character of each region, till uniformity of laws was secured in those branches in which it was expedient after full enquiry to do so."In reply to the argument that the State had sufficient time and opportunity to decide whether the continence of the impugned Act in the Bhopal region would be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court observed :"It would be impossible to lay down any definite time limit within which the State had to make necessary adjustments so as to effectuate the equality clause of the Constitution."21. The learned counsel contended before us that the State could have easily waited for a few years before levying the additional surcharge while the enquiries were pending. This is a matter not for the Courts but for the State Legislature to determine. If the State needs funds urgently it is for it to levy additional revenue provided it does not infringe Article 14. In view of the facts of this case, the temporary nature of the Acts, and the pendency of the re-settlement and survey proceeding we cannot say that the legislature has acted contrary to the provisions of Article 14.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. It seems to us that the Act clearly levies land revenue although it is by way of surcharge on the existing land revenue. If this is so, the fact that the surcharge was raised to 100 per cent. of the land revenue on the wet and garden lands and 75 per cent. of the land revenue in respect of dry lands, subject to some minor exceptions, does not change the nature of the imposition.13. We may mention that the Madras High Court took the same view in C. V. Rajagopalachariar v. State of Madras. (AIR 1960 Mad 543  ).14. We agree with the High Court that the Mysore Legislature was competent to enact the impugned Acts.It seems to us that this Court rightly distinguished the two above mentioned cases on good grounds. We have here a temporary measure imposing additional land revenue while resettlement and survey was being done in the entire State. This process necessarily takes a long time. It is stated in the judgment of the High Court that the settlement report was received by the Government only in 1963. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the State acted arbitrarily in imposing a surcharge on land revenue which was being levied under the existing settlements and Acts.20. Reorganisation of the States is an important in factor in considering Article 14 and existing laws or any temporary laws that may be made because ofis a matter not for the Courts but for the State Legislature to determine. If the State needs funds urgently it is for it to levy additional revenue provided it does not infringe Article 14. In view of the facts of this case, the temporary nature of the Acts, and the pendency of the re-settlement and survey proceeding we cannot say that the legislature has acted contrary to the provisions of Article 14.