STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus NALLA RAJA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 28-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 13 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[K. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
J 
I 
SUBBA RAO, 
v. 
NALLA RAJA REDDY & ORS. 
February 28, 1967 
C.J., J. C. SHAH, J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA 
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
The Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) 
and 
Cess Revision Act 22 of 1962, ss. 3, 4, 6 and 8-Providing for addi-
tional assessment to land revenue at minimuni flat rate without refer~ 
ence to productivity of land or duration of water 
supply-Additional 
assessment to be levied as land revenue-No procedure prescribed in the 
A 
B 
Act-Whether Act discriminatory and vlolalive of Art. 14. 
C 
The Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Additional 
Assessment) 
and 
Cess. Revision Act, 1962 (Act 22 of 1962) was passed with the object 
of bringing uniformity in assessment of land revenue in the Telengana 
and Andhra areas of the State. It also provided for additional levies on 
certain classes of land. When the assessment 
of 
land revenue 
was 
sought to be collected from the respondents, they filed· writ petitions in 
the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and the 
D 
petitions were allowed. 
In appeal by the State to this Court, 
HELD : The Act offended Art. 14 of the Constitution and was there-
fore void. 
Both in Andhra as well as Telengana area under the Ryotwari system, 
the land revenue which was a share of the produce of the land commuted 
in money value varied according to the classification of so·1 based upon 
its prodUctivity; the soils of similar grain values were bracketed together 
in orders called 'taran1s' or 'Bhagana' and the rates were 
further 
ad-
justed in the dry land having regard to the water supply, But in both 
the. cases, the quality and the grade of the soil divided in 'Taralns' or 
'BhaganaS was the main basis for assessment. [37 E-GJ 
SeCtions.. 3 and 4 of the Act, in fixing the minimum fiat rate for dry 
or wet lands, ignored the well-establishetl. taram principle; 
and in the 
case of wet lands an, attempt had been made to classify different systems 
on the basis of the ayacuts; but this test was unreasonable and had no 
relation to either the duration of water supply or to the quality or the 
productivity of the soil. 
The classification attempted in either case had 
no reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved, namely, im-
position of fair assessments and rationalisation 
of th~ revenue assess-
ment structure. 
An arbitrary method has been introduced 
displacing 
one of the most equitable and reasonable methods 
adopted for many 
years in the revenue administration of the State. [44 C-E] 
Further, the imposition of assessment was left to the arbitrary dis-
cretion of the officers not named in the Act without giving any notice, 
opportunity or remedy to the assessees for questioning 
the correctness 
of any of the important stages in the 
matter of assessment, such as 
ayacut tatam, rate or classification or even in regard to the calculation 
of the figures. It is not possible to read into the section the entire series 
of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue which deal with 
the 
mode of assessment; for if it was the intention of the Legislature that 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A. P. STATE v. NALLA REDDY (Subba Rao, C.J.) 
29 
the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue should 
be brought into 
the Act by incol',Poration, it would have certainly used appropriates words 
to convey that idea. [45 D-E; 48 E-FJ 
Kunnathat Thath11nni Moopil Nair v. The State of Kera/a, [1961) 3 
S.C.R. 77, East India Tobacco Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1963] 1 
S.C.R. 404 and Khandige Sham B/1111 v. The 
Agricultural Income-tax 
Officer, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 809, applied. 
C. V. Rajagopalachariar v. State of Madras, A.LR. 1960 Mad. 543 
and H. H. Yislni:uslza Tliirtha 
Swaniiar of Sri 
Pejavar Mutt v. The 
State of Mysore, [1966] 1 Mys. L.J. 351, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 40-46, 
48-68, 70-74 and 76-86 of 1966. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 2, 1955 
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 96, 281, 
303, 836, 1029, 1130, 1219 and 1497 of 1963, and 79, 94, 111, 
112, 141, 142, 148, 149, 159, 167, 171, 172, 173, 183, 256, 
267,286,443,491,497,549,571,591,611,616,680,695, 700, 
720, 725, 737, 760, 1148, 1464 and 1789 of 1964 respectively. 
S. V. Guple, Solicitor-General and A. V. Rangam, for the 
appellants in (C.A. No. 40 of 1966) . 
P. Ram Reddy, A. V. V. Nair and A. V. Rangam, for the 
appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.