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

2. There are six appeals before us but the learned counsel for the appellant gave us facts relating to writ petition arising from South Kanara District only. It is common ground that if the High Court judgment on the writ petition arising from South Kanara District is upheld, the other appeals must also fail.3. In writ petition No. 1137 of 1963, which is concerned with lands in South Kanara District, the facts in brief are these. The petitioner mutt, which is appellant before us, owned immovable properties in the district of South Kanara and was paying an assessment to the Government approximately of about Rs. 8, 000/- per annum. In respect of these lands survey and settlements were introduced from 1902 to 1904 and classified into three major classes of lands, viz., dry, wet and garden. The settlement was for a period of thirty years and the wet lands were further classified into sub-classes.4. Under the terms of the Ryotwari settlement governing the district the revenue assessment rates for the different classes of lands were fixed for a period of thirty years and they could not be varied during that period. In 1934, after the said period of 30 years, by notification, dated April 20, 1934 the rates of assessment of garden and wet lands were revised and increased uniformly by 12.1/2 per cent. on the existing rates. Under the settlement of 1934 it was an express term and condition that there was to be no increment of assessment during the period of thirty years of the settlement of any assessment.5. The Madras Legislature levied a surcharge on these lands in 1954, and again in 1955, but by the time anything could be done under the Madras Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1954 and the Madras Land Revenue (Additional Surcharge) Act, 1955, the district of South Kanara with the exception of Kasaragod Taluk became integrated with Mysore and other areas and formed the new State.6. By virtue of Section 119 of the States Re-organisation Act the lands continued to pay land revenue under the existing law, but the new State enacted Mysore Act No. XIII of 1961, called the Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1961, which came into force in April 1, 1961. Under this Act a surcharge on the land revenue at the rate of 15 np. on every rupee of land revenue was levied and this was payable by every landholder liable to pay a sum exceeding Rs. 20 as land revenue. Section 3(2) provided for an exemption to merged territories or merged areas within the Bombay Area, or within the Hyderabad area, if on such land the land revenue payable had not been fixed by a revenue survey and settlement made under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, or the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1318 Fasli, and the land revenue payable after remission, if any, was equal to or more than the land revenue and the surcharge under sub-section (1) payable on similar lands in the nearest neighbouring village to which the revenue survey and settlement had been introduced.7. Another Act, called the Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) (Amendment) Act, 1962 was enacted and it came into force from April 1, 1962. Under this Act the surcharge for the two years, viz., 1962-63 and 1963-64 was raised to 100 per cent. of the land revenue in the case of the wet and garden lands and 75 per cent. of the land revenue in respect of such dry lands. Section 5 of the Surcharge Act of 1961 provided for the surcharge being treated as land revenue and being recovered as such.8. Before the High Court the Acts were challenged on four groundsThe Mysore Legislature had no legislative competence to enact the Mysore Act No. 13 of 1961 or the amending the Act;(2) Under any circumstances the Legislature had no competence to levy additional land revenue if the levy in question was considered as land revenue during the period the settlement was in force;(3) The impugned Act was ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution; and(4) The levy in question was hit by Article by Article 14 of the Constitution as the same was discriminatory in character. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his attack on the first and the fourth grounds.The High Court held that the so-called land revenue surcharge was but an additional imposition of land revenue or a land tax and fell either within Entry 45 or Entry 49 of the State List.

Court's reasoning:
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.