LexDANTULURI RAM RAJU AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
900
DANTIJLURI RAM RAJU AND ORS.
A
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
December 16, 1971
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA
B
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J
Andhra Pradesh (Krishna and Godavari Delta Area) Drainage Cess
Ac:: 1968-Whetliei• vio{utive of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The vires of the Andhra Pradesh (Krishna ancl Godavari Delta area)
Draina~ Cess Act 1968 has been challenged in C.A . ...No. 223 of 1970
and in writ petition No. 251 of 1971. The Act of 1968 applies to all
the lands comprised within the delta :ireas of "Krishna & Godavari rivers
in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Act provided fdr levy and collec-
tion of drainage cess on all lands comprised within the delta area of
Krishna & Godavari rivers, for tbc purpo!e of raising funds to meet the
expenses incurrc.U on drainage t>chcmes undc'rlakcn in the said area for
its protection from floods and for matters connected therewith.
Under
the Act, -fer- 6 yea'rs, a tax at the rate varying from Rs. 10/- for the-
Godavari eastern Delta to Rs. 20/ - per acre per annum for Godavari
Western Delta .was levied. A number of points were raised by the Appel-
lants but the High Court rl!jcctcd all their contentions.
In appeal, th'J Appellants contended that the provisions of tile Act is
violative of ~rt. 14 of the Constitution, that the ~ight of appeal pro·
vitled by s. 5 of the Act is illusdry and lastly, there is excessive delega-
tion of the legislative function inasmuch as no ininimum rate of the
ccss has hccn prescribed.
Disn1issing thi'.! appeal and the writ petition,
HELD : ( l) 111c. pro,•isions of. the impugned Act •are not violativl!
oi Art. 14 of tho Constitution. The floods and drainage problems of all
rho land<; in the delta area \\·ere not similar oi:: of equ~I m~itude. The\
vn'ried considerably from one part of the delta area to the other and the
c~timatetl cost of the proposed work a1so varied from area to area. 'fhe.
flo<jd strike equally all lands in the area and make no discrimination so
f::;.r as quality and productive c<lpacity of those lands are ~once{ncd. In
th~ circumstances, it appears to be just and reasonable that each aci'e
in a division should bear equal hurden of the amount which is sought
to be raisec.l to fight the danger of flood anc.l provide for an efticient sy•-
rcr.1 of drainage.
Furth·~r a~ the cost of draioa~ scheme varies in th:
di.fferent divisions, the rate of ccs-s has hee11 fixed at· different rates for
the divisions keeping ln view the cost of Jrainage scheme in ea~h. division.
The differential in tb.: cost o( -rlr~i!1age -schemes for the four divlsions has
been properly rcfiecited in the vnrying rat"!s of cess for each division.
l n the present cnse, the Act cont?. ins sufficient guidelines for the fixation
of rate of ccss and th"!Ie is justification for a uniform rate· of ccss for
cnch acre of land in a .division of the deltaic area.
Therefore, there is
no discrimination and tl'f&·provisions of the in1pugncd Act arc not viola·
tive of Art. 14 of the Gonstitution.
Th~ fact that on account of topo-
gr~phical situ<:tion some land-0\\·n~rs get greater benefit of the drainage
:')cheme because of their ]ands being -1nore prone to damage by fl£XX!s
· is a fortuitous circumst'lnce and the s~mc would not be a va1i4 g:rotind
for srriking down the impugnetl legislation. [916 D-917 G]
c
D
E
F
G
' ,
A
B
c
o. R. RAJU v. A. P. STATE (Khanna, J.)
901
(2) The right of appeal provided by sec. 5 of the Act is not illusory.
An aggrieved· person can agitate in appeal about ·the area for which the
cess is levied or the ownership of that area or that he owned an area
which is Jess than that for which a cess is levied.
Therefore, this right
is not
i."llagin~<ry.
·
( 3) Thero is also no excessive ddegation of the legislative power.
The S1'1tc Govt. has adhered to the maximum prescribed by the Act. The
absence of a nlinimum limit \Viii 11ot vitiate a taxing statute.
KiiandiRe Shch Bhat .& Others v. The Agricultural Income-lax Officer,
I, [ 1963] 3 S.C.R. 809. Eru•t India Tobacco Co. v. S!ate of Artdhra Pra·
aesh, [1963] I S.C.R. 404, Twyford Tea Co. Ltd v. The State of Kera/a,
[1970} 3 S.C.R. 383, State of A.P. v. Na/la Raja Reddy, [1969] J S.C.R.
28, State o(Kerala V.. Haji K. Haji K. Kurty Nalw, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 645
referred to.
°CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 223. of 1970.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1969
of the AndhrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.