# VISHWESHA THIRTHA SWAMIAR!& ORS v. STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 137
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-08-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 2222 of 1966
- **Bench:** S.M. Sikri, A.N. Ray, D.G. Palekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vishwesha-thirtha-swamiar-ors-v-state-of-mysore-and-anr-5337
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1961 as amended-Competence of State Legislature to lei·y-Surcharge on land rerenaeWhether the Acts discriminatory and therefore violatil'e of Art. 14 o/" the
Constitution.
In 1961, the new State of Mysore enacted Mysore Land Revenue
C
(Surcharge) Act,
1961, by
which a surcharge on the Land Re1·enoc
@15 n.p. 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.
By another enactment Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge)
Amendment Act, 1962,
the surcharge for 1962-63 and 1963-64 was
raised to 100 per cent of the land revenue in the case of wet and garJcn
lands and 75 % in respect of dry lands.
D
E
F
Both these Acts were challenged before the High Court on severa 1
grounds but the High Court rejected them and dismissed the petitions.
In appeal, before this Court it was contended (i) that the Mvsore
Legislature was not competent to enact the Mysore Act of 196i and
the amending Act and (ii) that since there is inequality in taxation
between lands comprised in South Kanara District and the areas in the
erstwhile Mysore State, the levy is hit by Art 14 as being discriminatory
in character and therefore bad in law. Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (i) Surcharge fell squarely under Entry 45
of List
II
and it is not a tax on land revenue but an enhancement of land rel'enue
by way of surcharge and even if it is raised by J 00 % does not change
the nature of the imposition. It is still land reven,ue and the Mysore
Legislature is competent to enact the impugned Acts.
[140 D-E]
(ii) In view of the temporary nature of. the Acts imposing additional
land revenue, while resettlement and survey was being done in the
entire State in order to have a uniform land revenue law, the Acts in
question are not violative of Art 14 of the Constitution.
[144F]
C. V. Rajagopalachariar v.
State of Madras, A.I.R. J 960 Mad.
G
543, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Na/la Raja Reddy [1967] 3 S. C. R. 28
and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.[1964]6
S.C.R. 846, referred to.

## Text

.,
A
B
VISHWESHA THIRTHA SWAMIAR!& ORS
v.
STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR.
August 12, 1971.
137
[S.M. SIKRI, C. J., A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.,]
Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) Act, 1961 as amended-Competence of State Legislature to lei·y-Surcharge on land rerenaeWhether the Acts discriminatory and therefore violatil'e of Art. 14 o/" the
Constitution.
In 1961, the new State of Mysore enacted Mysore Land Revenue
C
(Surcharge) Act,
1961, by
which a surcharge on the Land Re1·enoc
@15 n.p. 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.
By another enactment Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge)
Amendment Act, 1962,
the surcharge for 1962-63 and 1963-64 was
raised to 100 per cent of the land revenue in the case of wet and garJcn
lands and 75 % in respect of dry lands.
D
E
F
Both these Acts were challenged before the High Court on severa 1
grounds but the High Court rejected them and dismissed the petitions.
In appeal, before this Court it was contended (i) that the Mvsore
Legislature was not competent to enact the Mysore Act of 196i and
the amending Act and (ii) that since there is inequality in taxation
between lands comprised in South Kanara District and the areas in the
erstwhile Mysore State, the levy is hit by Art 14 as being discriminatory
in character and therefore bad in law. Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: (i) Surcharge fell squarely under Entry 45
of List
II
and it is not a tax on land revenue but an enhancement of land rel'enue
by way of surcharge and even if it is raised by J 00 % does not change
the nature of the imposition. It is still land reven,ue and the Mysore
Legislature is competent to enact the impugned Acts.
[140 D-E]
(ii) In view of the temporary nature of. the Acts imposing additional
land revenue, while resettlement and survey was being done in the
entire State in order to have a uniform land revenue law, the Acts in
question are not violative of Art 14 of the Constitution.
[144F]
C. V. Rajagopalachariar v.
State of Madras, A.I.R. J 960 Mad.
G
543, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Na/la Raja Reddy [1967] 3 S. C. R. 28
and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd.[1964]6
S.C.R. 846, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.
2222 of 1966, 441 to 444 and 446 of 1970.
H
Appeal from the judgment and o_rder ~ated .s.eptember
17 1965 of the Mysore High Court m Wnt Petlt10ns Nos.
1173, 1138, 1151, 1152, 1153 and 1155of1963.
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C .. R.
V. S. Desai and R. B. Datar, for the appellants (in
A
all the appeals).
R. Gopalakrishnan and M. Veerappa, for the respondents
(in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, C. J.-Seven writ petitions were filed in the
Mysore High Court under art. 226 of the Constitution
challenging the validity of the Mysore Land Revenue
(Surcharge) Act, 1961-Mysore Act XIII of 1961-,
B
as (}mended by Mysore Acts 1 and 31 of 1963, as being
ultra rires the Constitution. Some of the petitioners were c
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 Arts. 14, 19
D
or 3'1 of the Constitution.
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 E
petition arising from South Kanara district is upheld,
the other appeals must also fail.
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
F
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 settlement were introduced from 1902 to 1904 and classified into three major
classes of lands, riz., dry, wet and garden. The settleG
ment was for a period of 30 years and the wet lands were
further classified into sub-classes.
Under the terms of the Ryotwari settlement governing
the district the revenue assessment rates for the different
classes oflands were fixed for a period of 30 years and they
could not be varied during that period. In 1934, after the
H
said· period of 30 years, by notification dated April 20,
1934.
the rates of assessment of garden and wet lands.
J
A
B
V!SHWESHA SWAMIAR I'. MYSORE (Sikri, C.J.)
139
were revised and increased uniformly by 12! 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 30 years of
the settlement of any assessment.
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
c the exception of Kasaragod Taluk became integrated
with Mysore and other areas and formed the new State.
By virtue of s. 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.
D 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 Rs. 20 as land revenue.
Section
3 (2)
E 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
F land revenue payable after remission, if any, was equal to
or more than the land revenue and the surcharge under
sub-s. (1) payable on similar lands in the nearest neighbouring villages to which the revenue survey and settlement had been introduced.
G
Another Act, called the Mysore Land Revenue (Surcharge) (Amendment) Act,
1962,
was enacted and it
came into force from April I, 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 wet and garden lands and 75 per cent of the land reH venue 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.
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
Before the High Court the Acts were challenged on four
grounds : (1) The Mysore Legislature had no legislative
competence to enact the Mysore Act No. 13
of 1961 or
A
the amending Act; (2) Under any [circumstances, the
Legislature had no competence to levy
additional land
revenue if the levy
in question was considered as land s
revenue
during the period the settlement was in force;
(3) The impugned Act was ultra-vires art.
19 (1) (f)
and art.
31 of the Constitution; and (4)
The levy in
question was hit by art. 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 c
first and the fourth grounds.
The High Court held that the so-called land revenue
surcharge was but an additional imposition of land re~
venue or a land tax and fell either within Entry 45 or
Entry 49 of the State List.
D
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 E
the Indian Legislatures to impose surcb,arge on existing
tax. Even
art. 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 mentio11ed in art. 269
and art. 270.
Section 3 (!)of the Act of 1961 reads:
"3(1 )-Notwithstanding anything contained in
any contract, grant or other instrument, or in
the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore
Act IV of 1888) or any other corresponding law or
orders having the force of law in any area of the
State:-
(a) Every landholder liable to pay a sum exceeding
twenty rupees for a revenue year to the
Government in respect of all lands held by him
shall pay for every revenue year surcharge at the
rate of fifteei1 naye paise on every rupee of the land
revenue payable by him; and
·
F
G
H
A
B
c
V!SHWESHA SWAMIAR V. MYSORE (Sikri, C.J.)
l 4 I
(b) where the term for which the assessment of
land revenue on any land fixed under the Mysore
Land Revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of
1888) or under any corresponding law or order in
force in any area of the State has expired, every
such landholder shall pay for every revenue year
an additional surcharge at the rate of twenty naye
paise on every rupee of the land revenue on such
land until the land revenue fixed
at the next
revenue survey and settlement on such land
becomes payable."
It seems to us that the Act clearly levies land revenue
although it is by way of surcharge on the existing )and
revenue. If this is so,
the fact that the surcharge was
raised to 100 % of the land revenue on the wet and garden
land and 75 % of the land revenue in respect of dry lands,
D subject to some minor exceptions, does not change the
nature of the imposition.
E
We may mention that the Madras High Court took
the same view in C.
V.
Rajagopalachariar v. State of
Madras. (1)
We agree with the High Court that the Mysore Legislature was competent to enact the impugned Acts.
The learned counsel challenged the vaiidity of the Acts
under art. 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it
F 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 wa&
highest in the Madras area of the
State as it was represented to it that in the old Madras
G State half of the estimated net produce was taken as land
revenue where as in other areas only l/16th of the gross
produce was taken as land revenue. These facts were not
admitted by the State but the High Court assumed those
facts for the purpose of the case to· be correct.
We wi II
also proceed on those assumptions because even assuming
H facts it cannot be said that there has been any breach of
art. 14 of the Constitution.
(1) A.LR. [196ll Mad.543.
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
This Court, in State
of Andhra
Pradesh
v.
Nalia
A
Raja Reddy (1), while dealing with the Andhra Pradesh
Land Revenue (Additional Assessment) and Cess Revision
Act 22 of 1962, made the following general
observations :
"A statutory prov1s10n may offend Art. 14 of
the Constitution both by finding differences where
there are none and by making no difference where
there is one. Decided cases laid down two tests
to ascertain whether a classification is permissible
or not, viz., (i) the classification must be founded
on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group; and (ii) that the
differential must have a rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the statute in
question."
After referring to the decision of the Madras
High Court in Rajagopalachariar' s (2) case this
Court observed:
"In the said Madras Acts a surcharge was imB
c
D
posed in addition to the previous rates and the
E
previous rates had been made on the basis of
ryotwari settlements which did not offend Art. 14
of the Constitution and, therefore, a small addition to the said rates could not likewise infringe the
said article."
Referring to the judgment under appeal in the present case, this Court observed in Na/la Reddy's case (1)
as follows:
"Nor has
the
decision
of the Mysore High
F
Court in H.H. Vishwasha Thirtha Swamiar or
G
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
H
Court held that it did not offend Art. 14 of the
{I) [1267] 3 S.C.R. 28, 46·48.
(2) A.LR. 1960 Med. 543.
A
B
c
D
VISHWESHA SWAMIAR V. MYSORE (Sikri, C.J.)
143
Constitution. In holding that Art. 14 was not
infringed, the Court said: .
"We
have
before us a temporary
measure. That
is an
extremely important
circumstance. The State, not
unreasonably,
proceeded
on
the
basis that a temporary levy could be,
made on the basis of existing rates.
We
can think of no other reasonable
basis on which the levy
could have
been made.
It may be that in the result
some areas were taxed more than others.
But yet it cannot be said with any justification that there
was any hostile
discrimination between one area and
another."
It will be seen that in that case on existing rates
based upon scientific data a surcharge was imposed as a temporary measure till a uniform land
revenue law was enacted for the whole State."
It seems to us that this Court rightly distinguished
E 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
F 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.
Reorganisation of the State is an important factor
G in considering art.
14 and existing laws or any temporary laws that may be made because of reorganisation. This Court, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhopal
Sugar Industries Ltd. (1) observed:
"Continuance of the laws of the old region after
the reorganisation by s. 119 of the
States
Reorganisation Act was by itself not discrimi-
(1) [1964] 6, S.C.R. 846, 852-53,
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R
natory 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
expediel).i;:::-after full enquiry to do so."
B
In reply to the argument that the State had sufficient
time and opportunity to decide whether the continuance
C
of the impugned act in the Bhopal region would be consistent with art. 14
of the
Constitution,
this
Court
observed:
"It would be impossible to lay down any definite
time-limit within which the State had to make
D
necessary
adjustments so as to effectuate
the
equality clause of the Constitution."
The learned counsel contended before
us that
the
State could have easily waited for a few years before
levying
the additional surcharge
while the enquiries
E
were pending. This is 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 art. 14. In view of the
facts
of this case,
the temporary nature of the Acts,
and the pendency of the re-settlement and survey proceedF
ing we cannot say that the Legislature has acted contrary
to the provisions of art. 14.
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed but
there will be no order as to costs in these appeals.
s.c.
Appeals dismissed.