STATE OF MYSORE ETC. versus M. L. NAGADE AND GADAG & ORS.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 06-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

93 
STATE OF MYSORE ETC. 
A 
v. 
M. L. NAGADE AND GADAG & ORS. 
May 6, 1983 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY JJ.j 
B 
Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules subsequently repealed and re-enacted as. 
Andhra Pradesh (Te/engana 11.rea) Land Revenue,. Rules, 1951 framed under 
Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (V/11of1317 F)~r. 71 as amended on July 4, 1958 
-Diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes-mode of assessment 
of/and revenue-Whether rule valid. 
' 
C 
Bombay Land Revenue Rules framed under Bombay Land Revenue Act, 
1879-r. 81 as amended on March 27, 1958-Whethe_r rule valid. 
, 
Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land·Revenue RuleS', Which is si:tbilat tO·r. 81 
of the BombaY'Land Revenue Rules, provides for mode of assessment of land 
· D 
revenue in the event o~ diversion of agricultural lands to 
non-agticultural 
purposes. 
The respondents in these appeals had filed certain writ petitions challe~g
ing the levy and demand of non-agricultural assessment made by the appellants, 
on the ground, among others, that the -.above rules. conferred unguided and 
. uncontrolled power and there was excessive delegation of legislative functions 
and"therefore·the rules were violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The l·!igh 
Court accepted ihe contention and quas11ed the demand of assessment. 
. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD : Delegation of some part of legislative power becomes a com-
pulsive necessity for viability and functioning. of the vatious institutions ereated· 
by the Constitution. The legislature cart delegate details to 6e' wotked out tsy 
the delegate and the details may be numerous and significant yet they tJlay wen 
be made over to the appropriat~ agency. The guideline ne·ed nOf be found iri 
the impugned provisiort. The same may be co1lected: from the setting iti which· 
the provision is pl<lced, the purpose for Which the Act is enacted and even the 
preamble of the statute in which the Provision is incorporated. The object 
sought to be achieved by legisla_tion or statute can furnish reliable guideline for .. 
the exercise of discretionary power. [104 ~, F-G, 100 H·, 101 AJ 
Constitutional Law by .Prof. Wills, p, 587; Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil 
Nair v~ The State of Kerala and Another, [1961) 3 SCR 67; New Manck Chowk 
Spinning and Jl"eaving Mills. Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Muni9ipal Corporation of the 
Ci1y of Ahmedabad and Ors. (19671 2 SCR 679; State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 
v. Na/la Raia Reddy & Ors .. [ 1967) 3 SCR 28; State of Kera/a v. Haji K. Haji K, 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(198312 S.C.R, 
K11tty Naha & Ors. etc. [1969] I SCR 645; Rangi/das Varajdas Khandwala v. 
Collector of Surat & Ors. (1961] 1 SCR 951; and Avinder Singh etc. v. State of 
Punjab & Anr. etc. [1979] I SCR 845, referred to. 
The basic purpose for which a Land Revenue Act is enacied is for 
empowering the State and its agencies and its officials t-b assess and levy land 
revenue 
The land revenue is a tax and the validity of a taX.ing statute has to 
·be determined keeping in view the fact that in the matter of taxation the Court 
allows wide area of picking and choosing and the slab system. [105 A, G·H] 
In the instant case·r. 71,is made in exercise of the rule making power 
conferred bys. 172 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. This rule making 
power is to be e;ercised for the purpose of carrying out the "provisiqns of the 
Act. Whenever land is diverted to use other than agricultural, powef: is con-
ferred to levy non-agricultural assessment or special assessment but this assess-
m~p.t is to be determin_ed under the amended-r. 71, keeping in view the purpose 
of the Act, nan1ely, levying and collection of revenue, the use to which 
the land is put, the profit deri~'ed from such deviated _use of the and a"nd 
again correlated to population as set out in various sub-clauses of amended 
r. 71 and within floor and ceiling prescribed in the impugned rule. The High 
Court fell into an error in holding that rule7 l allowed a wide margin to the 
revenue officers in the 1natter of determining the special· assessment to be levied 
on !and used for non-agricultural purposes. The High Court failed io notice 
that area within which the discretion of the revenue officer can operate is cir-
cUmscribed both by the· fl.oaf and ceiling fixed and while deternlining the 
quantum of assessment, the revenue officer h;:ts to bear in mind the use to which 
land is ·pufas also the profit derived fron1 the use of the of lan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.