TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution. Some of the petitioners were from South Kanara District and some from Bellary District, which were part of the Madras State prior to the reorganisation of States. Some petitioners were from the Karnatak area of the then Bombay State. The High Court held that the Acts were within the competence of the Mysore legislature and did not violate Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. 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 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Mysore and other areas and formed the new State. 6. By virtue of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation 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 on 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s confined his attack on the first and the fourth grounds. 9. 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. 10. It seems to us that the surcharge fell squarely within Entry 45. The legislation is but an enhancement of the land revenue by imposition of surcharge and it cannot be called a tax on land revenue, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is a common practice among the Indian Legislatures to impose surcharge on existing tax. Even Article 271 of the Constitution speaks of a surcharge for the purpose of the Union being levied by way of increase in the duties or taxes ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ras High Court took the same view in C.V. Rajagopalachariar v. State of Madras AIR1960Mad543 . 14. We agree with the High Court that the Mysore Legislature was competent to enact the impugned Acts. 15. The learned Counsel challenged the validity of the Acts 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not likewise infringe the said article. 17. Referring to the judgment under appeal in the present case, this Court observed in Nalla Reddy's case [1967]3SCR28 as follows: Nor has the decision of the Mysore High Court in H.H. Vishwasha Thirtha Swamiar or Sri Pajawar Nutt v. The State of Mysore 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, the 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 circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reorganisation by Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act was by itself not discriminatory even though it resulted in differential treatment of persons, objects and transactions in 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. 20. In reply to the argument that the State had sufficient time and opportunity to decide whether the continuance of the impugned act in the Bhopal region would be consistent with Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
