{"id":242602,"date":"1971-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971"},"modified":"2018-12-22T01:05:37","modified_gmt":"2018-12-21T19:35:37","slug":"dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","title":{"rendered":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 828, \t\t 1972 SCR (2) 900<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Dua, I.D., Khanna, Hans Raj, Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDANTULURI RAM RAJU AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nMITTER, G.K.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR  828\t\t  1972 SCR  (2) 900\n 1972 SCC  (1) 421\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1973 SC1374\t (12)\n R\t    1980 SC1382\t (75)\n\n\nACT:\nAndhra\tPradesh (Krishna and Godavari Delta  Area)  Drainage\nCess   Act  1968-Whether  violative  of\t Art.  14   of\t the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe vires of the Andhra Pradesh (Krishna and Godavari  Delta\narea) Drainage Cess Act 1968 has been challenged in C.A. No.\n223  of 1970 and in writ petition No. 251 of 1971.  The\t Act\nof 1968 applies to all the lands comprised within the  delta\nareas  of Krishna & Godavari rivers in the State  of  Andhra\nPradesh.   The\tAct  provided for  levy\t and  collection  of\ndrainage  cess on all lands comprised within the delta\tarea\nof  Krishna  & Godavari rivers, for the purpose\t of  raising\nfunds  to  meet the expenses incurred  on  drainage  schemes\nundertaken  in the said area for its protection from  floods\nand  for matters connected therewith, Under the Act,  for  6\nyears,\ta  tax\tat the rate varying from Rs.  10\/-  for\t the\nGodavari  eastern Delta to Rs. 20\/- per acre per  annum\t for\nGodavari Western Delta was levied.  A number of points\twere\nraised\tby  the Appellants but the High Court  rejected\t all\ntheir contentions.\nIn  appeal, the Appellants contended that the provisions  of\nthe  Act is violative of Art. 14 of the\t Constitution,\tthat\nthe right of appeal provided by 5 of the Act is illusory and\nlastly,\t there\tis excessive delegation of  the\t legislative\nfunction  inasmuch as no minimum rate of the cess  has\tbeen\nprescribed.  Dismissing the appeal and the writ petition,\nHELD  :\t (1)  The provisions of the impugned  Act  at,-\t not\nviolative  of Art. 14 of the Constitution.  The\t floods\t and\ndrainage  problems of all the lands in the delta  area\twere\nnot similar or of equal magnitude.  They varied considerably\nfrom  one  part\t of  the delta area to\tthe  other  and\t the\nestimated cost of the proposed work also varied from area to\narea.\tThe flood strike equally all lands in the  area\t and\nmake  no  discrimination so far as  quality  and  productive\ncapacity   of\tthose\tlands\tare   Concerned.    In\t the\ncircumstances,\tit  appears to be just and  reasonable\tthat\neach  acre  in a division should bear equal  burden  of\t the\namount\twhich is sought to be raised to fight the danger  of\nflood  and  provide  for an efficient  system  of  drainage.\nFurther\t as  the  cost\tof drainage  scheme  varies  in\t the\ndifferent  divisions,  the rate of cess has  been  fixed  at\ndifferent  rates for the divisions keeping in view the\tcost\nof  drainage scheme in each division.  The  differential  in\nthe cost of drainage schemes for the four divisions has been\nproperly  reflected  in the varying rates of cess  for\teach\ndivision.  In the present case, the Act contains  sufficient\nguidelines  for\t the fixation of rate of cess and  there  is\njustification  for a uniform rate of cess for each  acre  of\nland in a division of the deltaic area.\t Therefore, there is\nno discrimination and the provisions of the impugned Act are\nnot violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.  The fact that\non  account of topographical situation some land-owners\t get\ngreater\t benefit  of the drainage scheme  because  of  their\nlands  being more prone to damage by floods is a  fortuitous\ncircumstance  and the same would not be a valid\t ground\t for\nstriking down the impugned legislation. [916 D-917 G]\n901\n(2)The right of appeal provided\t sec. 5 of the Act is  not\nillusory.   An aggrieved person can agitate in appeal  about\nthe  area for which the cess is levied or the  ownership  of\nthat  area or that he owned an area which is less than\tthat\nfor which a cess is levied.  Therefore, this right is no,\n(3)  There   is\t  also\tno  excessive  delegation   of\t the\nlegislative  power.  The State has adhered  to\tthe  maximum\nprescribed  by the Act.\t The absence of\t minimum  limit will\nnot vitiate a taxing statute.\nKhandige  shah Bhat & Others v. The Agricultural  Income-tax\nOfficer,<\/a>  1, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 809, East India Tobacco Co.  v.\nState of Andhra Pra<\/a>[1963] 1 S.C.R. 404, Twyford Tea Co.\t Ltd\nv.  The State of Kerala,<\/a> [1970] 3 S.C.R. 383, State of\tA.P.\nv. Nalla Raja Reddy, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 28, State of Kerala  v.\nHaji K. Haji K. Kutty Naha,<\/a> [1969] 1 S.C.R. 645 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 223 of 1970.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated March 27, 1969\t of
\nthe  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.  998  of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 251 of 197 1.
\nUnder  Article\t32  of the Constitution\t of  India  for\t the
\nenforcement of the Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
L.M.  Singhvi, Krovidi Narasimhan, S. K. Dhingra  and  A.
\nSubba Rao, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 223 of 1970).
\nK.R.  Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chowdhary for  the  peti-
\ntioners (in W.P. No. 251 of 1971):.\n<\/p>\n
P.Ram  Reddy and P. Parameswara Rao, for respondents  (in
\nboth the matters).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKhanna,\t J.  The vires of the Andhra  Pradesh  (Krishna\t and
\nGodavari Delta Area) Drainage Cess Act, 1968 (Act No. 11  of
\n1968),\thereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act,  has\tbeen
\nchallenged  in\tCivil Appeal No. 223 of 1970 as well  as  in
\nWrit  Petition No. 25 1 of 1971.  Civil Appeal No.  223\t has
\nbeen  filed on a certificate granted by the  Andhra  Pradesh
\nHigh  Court  against  the judgment  of\tthat  Court  whereby
\npetition  under\t article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India
\npresented  on behalf of the eight appellants to\t assail\t the
\nvires  of the Act was dismissed at the stage  of  admission.
\nWrit  Petition\tNo.  251  of 1971  has\tbeen  filed  by\t 434
\npetitioners.  The respondents in the appeal are the State of
\nAndhra\tPradesh and the Collector of West Godavari  District
\nwhile  those  in the writ petition are the State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh and the Collector of Krishna District.
\nThe  appellants\t in  the civil appeal  belong  to  different
\nTaluks of the West Godavari District and own extensive areas
\nof land in
\n10-L736S,SupCl\/72
\n902<\/span>
\nthat  district.\t  As  such,  they are  liable  to  pay\tland
\nrevenue.  Petitioners Nos. 1 to 38 in the writ petition\t are
\nresidents  of Tenneru within the area of  Vijayawada  Taluk.
\nThey own about 500 acres of land in and around that village.
\nThe  rest  of  the petitioners are  residents  of  different
\nvillages in Krishna district and own an area of about  4,000
\nacres in that district.\n<\/p>\n
As  the\t petition under article 226 of the  Constitution  of
\nIndia which is the subject of civil appeal was dismissed  at
\nthe  stage  of\tadmission, no affidavit\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents  was filed in the High Court.   The\t respondents
\nwere  consequently  permitted to file an affidavit  in\tthis
\nCourt.\tAffidavit of Shri D. Venkatdri, Assistant Secretary,
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh was thereafter filed on  behalf
\nof the respondents.  A more detailed supplementary affidavit
\nof  Shri  Venkatdri has also been filed on  behalf  ,of\t the
\nrespondents and the same officer has filed his affidavit  in
\nopposition   to\t the  petition\tunder  article\t32  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before dealing with the different provisions of the Act\t and
\nthe contentions advanced, it would be apposite to  reproduce
\nthe  Statement\tof Objects and Reasons of the Bill  for\t the
\npurpose\t of understanding the historical background and\t the
\nantecedent  state  of  affairs leading up  to  the  impugned
\nlegislation.  The Statement of objects and Reasons reads as,
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The ‘coastal districts of East Godavari, West
\n\t      Godavari,\t  Krishna  and\tGuntur\t are   being
\n\t      subjected\t to  floods every year\twhich  cause
\n\t      immense  damage  to crops as well\t as  private
\n\t      properties  besides disrupting rail  and\troad
\n\t      communications for considerable periods in the
\n\t      year.   The  intensity  of  the  floods  which
\n\t      occurred\tin  1953, 1962 and  1964  have\thigh
\n\t      lighted  the  need for  immediate\t action\t for
\n\t      solving this recurring problem and to  suggest
\n\t      remedial\tmeasures for mitigating or  avoiding
\n\t      in future the damage to crops and property  in
\n\t      the  area on account of similar  floods.\t The
\n\t      Committee\t after having an extensive  tour  in
\n\t      the   area,  made\t some  recommendations\t for
\n\t      improving all the drains-in the delta area  of
\n\t      the  Krishna  and\t Godavari  rivers  and\talso
\n\t      formation\t  of  flood  moderating\t  reservoirs
\n\t      across  Budameru, Yerrakalva.  Tammileru\tetc.
\n\t      The  total cost of all the  drain\t improvement
\n\t      schemes  As  well\t as  the  flood\t  moderating
\n\t      reservoirs   as  recommended  by\tthe   Expert
\n\t      Committee\t is estimated roughly to be  Rs.  27
\n\t      crores.\tIt  is considered that it  might  be
\n\t      necessary\t to undertake in the delta area\t not
\n\t      only  the schemes and works suggested  by\t the
\n\t      Expert  Committee but also some other  schemes
\n\t      and works for the purpose in view.  The actual
\n\t      cost of all the schemes and works required  to
\n\t      be undertaken in the
\n\t      903<\/span>
\n\t      delta  area is likely to exceed the  cost,  as
\n\t      estimated\t above.\t  In  view  of\tthe  present
\n\t      difficult\t ways and means position, it is\t not
\n\t      possible\t to  provide  the  necessary   funds
\n\t      required\tfor  the purpose either\t under\tthe
\n\t      flood  control sector or under the  irrigation
\n\t      sector  of  the,\tState.\t It  is,  therefore,
\n\t      considered  necessary to levy a drainage\tcess
\n\t      on all the lands ‘comprised within each of the
\n\t      divisions\t in  the delta of  the\tKrishna\t and
\n\t      Godavari rivers, for a period of six years, at
\n\t      a\t rate not exceeding rupees ten per acre\t per
\n\t      annum  in\t respect of lands  in  the  Godavari
\n\t      eastern deltaic division and Godavari  Central
\n\t      deltaic division, rupees twenty-five per\tacre
\n\t      per annum in respect of lands in the  division
\n\t      comprising   the\tGodavari   western   deltaic
\n\t      division\tand the Krishna eastern and  Krishna
\n\t      Central\tdeltaic\t divisions  and\t at   rupees
\n\t      fifteen per acre per annum in respect of lands
\n\t      in the Krishna western deltaic division.
\n\t      It is also proposed to constitute the proceeds
\n\t      of the drainage cess into a separate fund\t and
\n\t      to  establish a Board to administer  the\tsaid
\n\t      Fund   and  to  apply  the  proceeds  of\t the
\n\t      drainage_cess  derived in a  division  towards
\n\t      meeting\tthe   cost   of\t  drainage   schemes
\n\t      undertaken in that division.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      This  Bill is intended to give effect  to\t the
\n\t      above objects.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Act came into force on 20th December, 1968.\t It  applies
\nto all the lands comprised within the delta areas of Krishna
\nand  Godavari  rivers  in  the\tState  of  Andhra   Pradesh.
\nAccording  to  the  preamble of the Act, it is\t“an  Act  to
\nprovide for the levy and collection of drainage cess on\t all
\nlands  comprised  within the delta area of the\tKrishna\t and
\nGodavari  rivers  in  the State of Andhra  Pradesh  for\t the
\npurpose\t of raising funds to meet the expenses\tincurred  on
\ndrainage  schemes undertaken in the said delta area and\t for
\nmatters connected therewith.” Section 2 of the Act  contains
\nvarious definitions, “Board” has been defined in clause\t (a)
\nto mean the Krishna and Godavari Delta Drainage Board estab-
\nlished under section 7 of the Act.  “Delta area according to
\nclause,\t (c)  means  the area comprising the  lands  in\t the
\ndeltas of Krishna and Godavari rivers, irrigated whether by
\nflow  or lift, under the network of canals taking  off\tfrom
\nthe  barrage  near Vijayawada on the Krishna river  and\t the
\nanicut near Dowlaishwaram on the Godavari river.  “Division”
\nhas been defined in clause (d) to mean any of the following,
\ndivisions in the delta area, namely\n<\/p>\n
(i) the Godavari eastern  delta;\n<\/p>\n
9 04\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the Godavari central delta;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)the  area comprising the Godavari\twestern\t delta,
\nthe Krishna eastern delta and the Krishna central delta;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) the, Krishna western delta;\n<\/p>\n
According  to  clause  (e), “drainage cess’  means  the\t tax
\nleviable and collectable under section 3. Clause (f) defines
\ndrainage scheme” as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(f)  “drainage scheme” means any\t scheme\t for
\n\t      the  improvement of drains in the\t delta\tarea
\n\t      and  for\tthe formation  of  flood  moderating
\n\t      reservoirs  in  the upland  areas\t across\t the
\n\t      rivers and streams flowing into the delta area
\n\t      and  includes  any  scheme  relating  to\t the
\n\t      following\t works in the delta area  which\t are
\n\t      owned  or\t controlled  by\t the  Government  or
\n\t      constructed  or  maintained by  them  and\t not
\n\t      handed over to any person :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)channels, whether natural or artificial,
\n\t      for  the discharge of waste or surplus  water,
\n\t      and  escape channels from an irrigation  work,
\n\t      together\t with  dams,   embankments,   weirs,
\n\t      sluices, groynes, pumping sets and other works
\n\t      connected\t with  or  auxilliary  to  all\tsuch
\n\t      channels;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)all  works for the protection\t of  lands
\n\t      from floods or from erosion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation  For the purpose of  this  clause,
\n\t      any part or stage of a scheme shall be  deemed
\n\t      to be a scheme.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
“Government” according to clause (g) means the State Govern-
\nment, while., “land” has been defined in clause (h) to\tmean
\nwet or dry land.  Clause (j) defines “owner” in relation  to
\nany  land  as  meaning the person liable  to  pay  the\tland
\nrevenue\t due  on  the  land and includes  a  ryot  having  a
\npermanent  right  of  occupancy withIn the  meaning  of\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t (Andhra  Area)\t Estates  Land\tAct,   1908.
\nAccording to the explanation to that clause,, the expression
\n“person liable to pay the public revenue” in relation to any
\nland in respect of which no public revenue is payable  means
\nthe person who would have been liable to pay public  revenue
\nhad it been payable on such land.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 3  of\tthe Act deals with levy\t and  collection  of
\ndrainage cess.\tAccording to sub-section (1) of the section,
\nthere shall be levied and collected by the Government, for a
\nperiod of six years from the date of the commencement of the
\nAct,  as  a drainage cess on every land in  the\t delta\tarea
\ncomprised  within a division specified in column (2) of\t the
\nSchedule,  for the purposes of this Act in that division,  a
\ntax at such rate per acre per annum, not exceeding the\trate
\nspecified in the corresponding entry in column (3)
\n905<\/span>
\nthereof, as the Government may, by notification, specify  in
\nrespect\t of that division.  According to sub-section (3)  of
\nthat  section, the drainage cess leviable under the  section
\non any land shall be payable by the owner of such land while
\naccording  to  subsection (2), nothing\tin  sub-section\t (1)
\nshall prevent the Government from levying and collecting  at
\nany time after the expiration of the period of six years the
\ndrainage  cess or any arrears pertaining thereto,  which  is
\nleviable or collectable during the said period of six years.
\nThe  Schedule referred to in the section fixes\tthe  maximum
\nrate  at which drainage cess may be collected and  according
\nto  it the maximum rate shall be Rs. 10 per acre  per  annum
\nfor  the  Godavari eastern delta and  the  Godavari  central
\ndelta, Rs. 20 per acre Per annum for the area comprising the
\nGodavari  western  delta,  Krishna  eastern  delta  and\t the
\nKrishna central dealta and Rs. 15 per acre per annum for the
\nKrishna western delta.\n<\/p>\n
Section 4 of the Act gives the procedure to be followed\t be-
\nfore levying drainage cess.  According to this section,\t the
\ncollector  before levying the cess in respect of  any  land,
\nshall cause a notice to be served on the owner of the  land,
\nrequiring him to make payment of the amount of the  drainage
\ncess within 45 days of the service of the notice.  Section 5
\ngives a right of appeal to the person aggrieved by the\tlevy
\nof  the drainage cess, while section 6 makes  provision\t for
\norder in revision by the Government.  Section 7 provides for
\nthe  establishment  of\tthe  Krishna  and  Godavatri   Delta
\nDrainage  Board.   Provision  for the  constitution  of\t the
\nproceeds  of the drainage cess into a fund and its  adminis-
\ntration and application is made in section 8 which  as under
\n\t      ”\t 8(1)  The proceeds of the drainage  cess  I
\n\t      vied and collected under this Act, reduced  by
\n\t      the  cost of collection as determined  by\t the
\n\t      Government, shall after due appropriation made
\n\t      by   the\t State\tLegislature   by   law,\t  be
\n\t      constituted  into\t a  fund to  be\t called\t the
\n\t      “Krishna\tand  Godavari  Delta  Drainage\tCess
\n\t      Fund.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)In addition to the proceeds referred  to
\n\t      in  subsection (1), any moneys  received\tfrom
\n\t      the  State or Central Government or any  other
\n\t      source for the purposes of this Act, shall  be
\n\t      credited to the Fund.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)The   Fund   shall  vest  in,\t and   be
\n\t      administered  by the Board in such  manner  as
\n\t      may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (4)The Fund, in so far as it relates to the
\n\t      proceeds\tof  the\t drainage  cess\t levied\t and
\n\t      collected\t in  a division,  shall\t be  applied
\n\t      towards  meeting\tthe  cost  of  the  drainage
\n\t      schemes which the Board may, with the  concur-
\n\t      rence  of\t the Government, undertake  in\tthat
\n\t      division.\n<\/p>\n
\t      9 06
\n\t      The  expenses of the Board and its  Committees
\n\t      shall also be met out of the Fund
\n\t      Provided\tthat  it shall not be  necessary  to
\n\t      obtain  the concurrence of the  Government  as
\n\t      aforesaid in respect of such class of drainage
\n\t      schemes as may be prescribed;\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided further that the expenditure incurred
\n\t      by the Board for any purpose common to all  or
\n\t      any  of  the divisions  shall  be\t apportioned
\n\t      among  the divisions concerned in such  manner
\n\t      as may be prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n
According to section 9, the drainage cess payable under the.
\nAct by an owner in respect of any land shall be deemed to be
\npublic revenue due upon the said land and the provisions  of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, shall  apply.
\nSection 10 gives power to the Government to fix\t instalments
\nfor payment of drainage cess while section I I empowers\t the
\nGovernment  to grant exemption or make reduction in case  of
\nundue  hardship on account of unseen calamity or  any  other
\nreasonable  cause  to an owner or class of owners  of  land.
\nSection\t 12  pertains to the bar of  jurisdiction  of  civil
\ncourts in respect of matters falling within the scope of the
\nauthorities acting under the Act.  According to section\t 13,
\nthe  provisions\t of the Andhra Pradesh Irrigation  (Levy  of
\nBetterment Contribution and Advance Betterment Contribution)
\nAct,  1955 in so far as they relate to drainage work,  shall
\nnot apply to any drainage scheme under the Act.\t Section  14
\ngives  powers  to the Government to give directions  to\t the
\nBoard.\tRules under the Act are made by the Government under
\nsection\t 15  of the Act for carrying out all or any  of\t the
\npurpose–, of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  Krishna and Godavari Delta Drainage Board\tCess  Found.
\nRules made under section 15 of the Act were issued in  April
\n1969.  It is not necessary to refer to the different  rules.
\nFor our purposes, it would suffice to reproduce clauses\t (1)
\nto (3) of rule 21 as, under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)The  drainage\t cess shall  be\t collected
\n\t      along  with the land revenue and\tcredited  To
\n\t      “M.H.  IX-Land  Revenues”.   Subtract  to\t the
\n\t      provision under sub-section (1 ) of section  8
\n\t      at   the\tend  of\t each  financial  year,\t  an
\n\t      equivalent amount shall be transferred to\t the
\n\t      Krishna\tand  Godavari  drainage\t cess\tfund
\n\t      account by debit to “9. Land Revenue”.
\n\t      (2)The expenditure on the drainage  schemes
\n\t      shall be debited to the’ appropriate head-  of
\n\t      account  within the  Consolidated Fund of\t the
\n\t      State, either in the revenu
\n\t      907<\/span>
\n\t      or  capital head according to the\t expenditure
\n\t      falling  under revenue or capital head and  at
\n\t      the end of each financial year, an  equivalent
\n\t      amount  shall be transferred from the  Krishna
\n\t      and Godavari Drainage Cess Fund account to the
\n\t      concerned head by means of a deduct entry.
\n\t      (3)The  expenditure incurred by the Board\t for
\n\t      purposes\t common\t to  all  or  any   of\t the
\n\t      divisions,  like the establishment, tools\t and
\n\t      plants,\tshall  be  apportioned\t among\t the
\n\t      division\tconcerned as far as possible in\t the
\n\t      proportion   in  which  the   expenditure\t  is
\n\t      incurred\ton  the drainage  schemes  in  these
\n\t      respective divisions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Following  notification was issued on December\t17\/20,\t1968
\nunder subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In exercise- of the powers conferred by\tsub-
\n\t      section (1) of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
\n\t      (Krishna\tand  Godavari Delta  Area)  Drainage
\n\t      Cess  Act,  1968\t(Andhra Pradesh\t Act  11  of
\n\t      1968:), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh  hereby
\n\t      specifies in column (3) of the Table below  in
\n\t      respect  of the division mentioned  in  column
\n\t      (2)  thereof,  the rate of tax per  acre\t‘per
\n\t      annum  that shall be levied and  collected  by
\n\t      the Govemment for the first year commencing on
\n\t      the 20th December, 1968 (date of\tcommencement
\n\t      of the Act) as drainage cess on every land  in
\n\t      the  delta  area\tcomprised  within  the\tsaid
\n\t      division :-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t TABLE
\nSl.  Name of the divisionRate of drainage cess leviable
\nNo.\t\t\t\t    and collectable
\n1\t   2\t\t\t\t       3<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
1.The Godavari Eastern Delta Rs. 10;- per acre per annum.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Godavari Central Delta Rs. 10\/- per acre per annum.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The area comprising the  Rs. 20\/-per acre per annum.
\nGodavari western  Delta, the
\nKrishna Eastern Delta and the
\nKrishna Central Deta.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Krishna Western Delta\tRs. 15\/- per acre per annum.
\nThe High Court while dismissing the appellants writ petition
\nrepelled the contention that the provisions of the Act were
\nviolative  of  article 14 of the Constitution and  that\t the
\nlevied\tby the Act was a fee ,and not a tax   Likewise,\t the
\nargument  put  forth on behalf\tof the appellants  that\t the
\nstate  Legislature was not competent to\t levy drainage\tcess
\nand  there  were  no effective provisions   for\t appeal\t and
\nrevision not find favour with the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
908<\/span><\/p>\n
In appeal Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the appellants has  chal-
\nlenged\tthe  vires  of the provisions of the  Act  on  three
\ngrounds.   It  is urged\t  in the first instance\t that’\tthe,
\nprovisions  of the Act are violative’ of article 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tSecondly, according to the learned  counsel,
\nthe  right  of appeal provided by section 5 of\tthe  Act  is
\nillusory.   Lastly,  it\t is submitted,\tthere  is  excessive
\ndelegation  of\tthe  legislative  function  inasmuch  as  no
\nminimum\t rate of the cess has been prescribed.\tThe  grounds
\nthat  drainage\tcess  amounted to fee  and  that  the  State
\nLegislature was not competent to enact the Act have not been
\npressed in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
In  the writ petition under article 32 of the  Constitution,
\nMr. Choudhury on behalf of the petitioners, has adopted\t the
\ncontentions advanced by Dr. Singhvi.\n<\/p>\n
The  above contentions have, been controverted by Mr.  Reddy
\non  behalf  of\tthe respondents and according  to  him,\t the
\nprovisions of the Act suffer from no legal or constitutional
\ninfirmity.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tdealing\t with the question as to whether  there\t has
\nbeen  an infringement of article 14 of the Constitution,  we
\nmay mention that the material on record shows that the State
\nof  Andhra Pradesh is one of the major rice producing  State
\nin  the country.  The Krishna Godavari Delta area  has\tmost
\nfertile\t lands\tand  paddy crop is  raised  there-on  at  an
\nextensive scale.  The Krishna-Godavari Delta system provides
\nirrigation  facilities\tprimarily  for paddy  crop  over  an
\nayacut\tarea of about 22 lakh acres annually in the  coastal
\ndistricts  of Guntur, Krishna, West and East Godavari.\t The
\nirrigated  lands  in the above delta system are\t subject  to
\nfrequent  floods and drainage congestion resulting in  heavy
\nloss of crores of rupees per annum because of the damage  to
\nthe  crops.   The floods are caused mainly  by\trivers\tlike
\nBudameru,  Thammileru  and Yerrakalva.\tApart  from  causing
\ndamage\t to  crops,  the  floods  disrupt  rail\t  and\troad
\ncommunications for long periods.  Plans for ameliorating the
\nsituation  were\t under\tconsideration  for  nearly  half   a
\ncentury.   The\tfloods\tof 1964\t highlighted  the  need\t for
\nimmediate  action for solving the recurring problem.   The
\nGovernment of India in the Ministry of Irrigation and  Power
\nas  per\t resolution  dated October 9,  1964  constituted  an
\nExpert Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri A. C. Mitra,
\nEngineer-in-Chief,   Uttar   Pradesh   for   suggesting\t   a
\ncomprehensive plan for controlling the floods.\tThe terms of
\nreference of the Committee were :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(i)  To\tsuggest\t a  comprehensive  Plan\t for
\n\t      control  of floods in the coastal rivers\tlike
\n\t      Budameru,\t  Thammileru   and   Yerrakalva\t  by
\n\t      construction  of\tdetention reservoirs  or  by
\n\t      diversion into adjoining valley\tor any other
\n\t      methods.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      9 09\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  To consider and recommend proposals\t for
\n\t      lowering\tthe  flood  level  of  Kelleru\tlake
\n\t      either   by  improving  the  outfall   channel
\n\t      Upputeru or by Pumping or by both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) To consider and recommend proposals\t for
\n\t      improving the drainage system in the area and;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)  Any\t  other\t recommendation\t  that\t the
\n\t      Committee\t desires to make for  prevention  of
\n\t      floods and inundation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Committee\tin  its report\tsubmitted  in  January\t1966
\nsuggested  various  measures and schemes  for  tackling\t the
\nproblem\t of floods and drainage.  The Committee\t noted\tthat
\nmost of the existing drains were small in size and short  in
\nlength.\t  One  of the recommendations of the  Committee\t was
\nthat  the aforesaid drains should be improved  by  deepening
\nand  widening the to suitable sections.\t Recommendation\t was
\nalso made that “all drains should be brought to their design
\nsection and maintained in that condition”.
\nThe  execution\tof  the schemes and  implementation  of\t the
\nmeasures  suggested  by the Mitra Committee along  with\t the
\nother  drainage\t schemes as might be found  necessary  after
\ndetailed  investigation involved an expenditure\t of  several
\ncrores of rupees.  As the financial resources of the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t  Government   were   already\tover-strained,\t the
\nGovernment  had to think of other measures for\traising\t the
\nnecessary  funds.  The matter was thereafter discussed\twith
\n,he representatives of the people belonging, to the area and
\na  proposal was adopted for collection of drainage cess\t for
\ntackling the problem of floods and drainage in the  Krishna-
\nGodavari  delta.   The\tEstimates Committee  of\t the  Andhra
\nPradesh\t Legislative Assembly in its report also  recognized
\nthe need for solving the problem of drainage in the area and
\nobserved  that the amount of drainage cess collected  should
\nbe  kept separate.  The Bill which formed the basis  of\t the
\nAct  was  there\t after\tintroduced  in\tthe  Andhra  Pradesh
\nLegislative Assembly in June 1968.\n<\/p>\n
The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents shows\tthat
\nthe  floods  and drainage problems of all the lands  in\t the
\ndelta area were not similar or of equal magnitude.  As such,
\nthe  need  for\timproving the existing\tdrainage  works\t and
\nconstructing  new  works  for  the  control  of\t floods\t and
\ndrainage  problems varied considerably from one part of\t the
\ndelta  area to the other.  This fact resulted in  difference
\nin  the\t magnitude of the proposed work\t and  the  estimated
\nexpenditure for one part of the delta area and those for the
\nother.\tIt was, therefore, considered unjust and  irrational
\nto  treat the entire delta area as single unit\tand  collect
\ndrainage  cess\tat a uniform rate from all the\tlands.\t The
\nwhole delta area
\n910<\/span>
\nwas  consequently divided into four compact  and  contiguous
\nunits which were termed “divisions” by broadly adopting\t the
\nfollowing criteria :\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.    The geographical features of the area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    The\t drainage  characteristics  and\t the
\n\t      unity  of drainage system, or systems  in\t the
\n\t      area.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.    The extent of improvement needed in\t the
\n\t      existing\tflood control and drainage  work  in
\n\t      the area and their estimated expenditure; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.    The\t need  to  construct  further  flood
\n\t      control  and  drainage works in the  area\t and
\n\t      their estimated expenditure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  four divisions were : (1) Godavari Eastern Delta;\t(ii)
\nthe  Godavari Central Delta; (iii) the area  comprising\t the
\nGodavari  Western  Delta,  Krishna  Eastern  Delta  and\t the
\nKrishna Central Delta and (iv) Krishna Western Delta.
\nThe above division of the delta area into four units was  in
\naccordance with the findings of the Mitra Committee.  It was
\nalso  felt  that  in view of the nature of  floods  and\t the
\ndrainage  problems,  the  unity\t of  the  existing  drainage
\nsystems, the geographical situation and the benefits  likely
\nto  be derived from the improvements proposed, it  would  be
\nneither\t desirable  nor\t technically  feasible\t‘to  further
\nsubdivide any of the above divisions into smaller units.  On
\naccount of the difference in the nature of problems and\t the
\nneeds\tof   improvement  requiring  different\t scales\t  of
\nexpenditure  in each division, it was decided that the\tlevy
\nof  drainage cess on the lands in each division should\tvary
\nin  rate  in accordance with the estimated  expenditure\t for
\ndrainage  work\tin  that division.  The\t Chief\tEngineer  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh expressed the view that the  proposed  flood
\ncontrol\t and  drainage\tschemes could be  implemented  in  a
\nperiod\t of  six  to  seven  years  if\tadequate   financial
\nresources,  including  foreign\texchange  for  the  required
\ndredging  equipment,  were  made available.   It  was  after
\ntaking\tinto  account  the quantum  of\texpenditure  on\t the
\nschemes\t proposed  and\tthe irrigated area  which  would  be
\nbenefited  as  a result of those schemes  in  each  division
\nand–also  keeping  in\tview the fact  that  the  period  of
\ncollection  of\tdrainage cess was six years that  the  State
\nLegislature provided the rates of drainage cess per acre per
\nannum  for  the four divisions, Originally in  the  Bill  as
\nintroduced in the Legislature a rate of Rs. 25 per acre\t per
\nannum  was  prescribed in division comprising  the  Godavari
\nwestern\t delta,\t Krishna  eastern  delta  and  the   Krishna
\ncentral,  delta,  but the Legislature reduced The  rate\t for
\nthat division from Rs. 25,to Ps.,29 per acre per annum.\n<\/p>\n
911<\/span><\/p>\n
At  the time the above-mentioned Bill was introduced in\t the
\nLegislature  in July 1968 the following estimate in  tabular
\nform of the various expenditures was given on behalf of\t the
\nGovernment:\n<\/p>\n
S. Name of Division Total esti- Approxi- Maximum Total maxi-\n<\/p>\n
No\t\t    mated ex-\t mate Ayacut Rate of  mum\n\t\t  penditure   in acres\tdrainage  amount of\n\t\t on schemes\t     cess  per\tdrainage\n\t\tin lakhs\t      acre per\t cess anti-\n\t       Rs.\t\t       annum\t  cipated to\n\t\t\t\t       Rs.     be collected\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  over 6\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   years in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t lakhs Rs.\n1.  Krishna-Western delta 500  4,86,800\t  15\/-\t     438\n2.  Krishna Central\t       1,25,500\n    Krishna Eastern and\t       6,12,700\n    Godavari Western\t       4,90,000\n     deltas.\t\t 1073 12,28,200\t  25\/-\t    1842\n3. Godavari Central delta 150\t2,00,000   10\/-\t     120\n4. Godavari Eastern\t 2003,\t20,000\t    10\/-     192\n\t  Total\t\t 2923\t22,35,000\t    2592\n<\/pre>\n
It  may\t be  noted  that  as  against  the  total  estimated
\nexpenditure  of Rs. 2,923 lakhs, the Government proposed  to
\nraise  only a suni of Rs. 2,592 lakhs through collection  of
\ndrainage  cess over a period oil six years.   The  estimated
\nexpenditure,  according to the affidavit filed on behalf  of
\nthe respondents, was expected to go up by 10 to 20 per\tcent
\nduring the course of six to seven years of the completion of
\nthe  scheme.  The total expenditure was thus expected to  go
\nup  to\tRs. 35 crores and the excess  over  the\t anticipated
\ncollection amounting to about Rs. 9 crores would be borne by
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards  the  argument about  the  infringement  of\t the
\nequality clause embodied in article 14, it may be  mentioned
\nthat  a tax statute is as much subject to article 14 as\t any
\nother\tstatute.   In  the  application,  however,  of\t the
\nprinciple  embodied in that article, the Courts. in view  of
\nthe  inherent  complexity  of fiscal  adjustment  of  divers
\nelements,  permit a larger discretion to the Legislature  in
\nthe  matter  of\t classification so long it  adheres  to\t the
\nfundamental principles underlying the doctrine of equality.
\nThe power of the Legislature to classify is of, wide  range,
\nand  ,flexibility”,  so\t that it can adjust  its  system  of
\ntaxation  in all’ proper and reasonable ways. (see  Khandige
\nShah.\tBhat  and Other s v. The Agriculture at\t Income\t Tax
\nOfficer(1); as well as the recent decision of this Court
\n(1)  [1963] 3S.C.R.809.\n<\/p>\n
912<\/span><\/p>\n
in  Vivian  Joseph  Ferreira  and  Anr.\t v.  The   Municipal
\nCorporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., Writ<\/a> petition No.\t 187
\nof  1970  decided  on  November 4,  1971).   Willis  in\t his
\nConstitution Law has summed up the position as under on page
\n587 :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A  State does not have to tax  everything  in
\n\t      order to tax something.  It is allowed to pick
\n\t      and   choose  districts,\t objects,   persons,
\n\t      methods and even rates for taxation if it does
\n\t      so reasonably…… The Supreme Court has been
\n\t      practical\t and  has  permitted  a\t very\twide
\n\t      latitude in classification for taxation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The above principle was approved by this Court in East India
\nTobacco\t Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a>(1) and\tTwyford\t Tea
\nCo. Ltd. and Another v., The State of Kerala and Another(2).
\nIt was also observed in the last mentioned case that  burden
\nis  on a person complaining of discrimination and, for\tthis
\npurpose,  it is necessary to prove not\tpossible  inequality
\nbut hostile unequal treatment.\n<\/p>\n
The  modern  trend in all progressive countries\t is  towards
\nestablishment of a welfare State and with this end in  view,
\nthe State has to prepare plans and devise beneficent schemes
\nfor  the good of the common people.  The  implementation  of
\nthose  plans and schemes entails colossal expenditure.\t The
\nState has consequently to tap various sources for augmenting
\nits  income and raisin,- the revenue.  Taxes are levied\t for
\nthis  purpose, and the Stat is given a wide range of  choice
\nfor the purpose of taxation.  It is axiomatic that different
\nsituations call for different fiscal measures.\tThe State is
\npresumed  to  know the requirements of the tuition  and\t act
\naccordingly.   No rigidity being possible, it is  difficult
\nto  apply  any\tset  formula.\tMuch  greater  latitude\t and
\ndiscretion  has, therefore, to be allowed to the  State\t for
\nthe  purpose of taxation the context of article 1 4  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the appellants has referred to\t The
\nfact  that there is flat and uniform rate of cess  for\teach
\nacre  in respect of all lands in a division irrespective  of
\nthe  quality  and productive capacity of the  land.   It  is
\nurged  that  a\tflat and uniform rate for  all\tlands  in  a
\ndivision  results in inequality and is violative of  article\n<\/p>\n
14. In this connection, we find that the material on record,
\nto  which  reference has been made earlier, shows  that\t the
\nrate  of cess prescribed for each division has\ta  rational
\nnexus\twith  the  object  of  the  Act\t and  is  based\t  on
\nintelligible differentia.  The object of the Act is to raise
\nfunds\tfor  the  implementation  of  schemes\tto secure
\nprotection of the lands in the deltaic area from ravages  of
\nthe  floods.  As the Act is designed to benefit the land  in
\nthe  divisions\tof  the deltaic area, the levy\tof  cess  at
\nuniform rate for each acre of the land in a division  cannot
\nbe considered to offend the
\n(1) [1963] 1 S.C.R.404.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1970] 3 S.C.R.383.\n<\/p>\n
913<\/span><\/p>\n
principLe of equality.\tThe floods strike equally all  lands
\nin The area and make no discrimination so far as the quality
\nand  productive capacity of those lands are  concerned.\t  In
\nthe circumstances, it appears to be Just and reasonable that
\neach  acre  in a division should bear equal  burden  of\t the
\namount\twhich is sought to be raised to fight the danger  of
\nfloods\tand  provide for an efficient  system  of  drainage.
\nFurther,  as  the  cost, of drainage scheme  varies  in\t thE
\ndifferent  divisions,  the rate of cess has  been  fixed  at
\ndifferent  rates for the divisions keeping in view the\tcost
\nof  drainage scheme in each division.  The  differential  in
\nthe cost of drainage schemes for the four divisions, in\t our
\nopinion, has been properly reflected in the varying rates of
\ncess for each division.\n<\/p>\n
Reference has been made on behalf of the appellants, with  a
\nview  to show that lack of classification in the  matter  of
\ntax can create inequality, to the following cases: :
\nKunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair ,v.  The State of Kerala and
\nAnother(1)
\nNew Manek Chowk Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Ors.
\nv. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and Ors.<\/a> (2)
\nState  of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Nalla Raja Reddy  &\tOrs.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(3)<\/span><\/p>\n
State  of Kerala v. Haji K. Haji K. Kutt Naha &\t Ors.\tEtc.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(4)<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the case of K.T. Moopil Nair this Court  considered\t the
\nprovisions of Travancore Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955 and found
\nthat all lands in the State of whatever description were  to
\nbe  charged basic tax at uniform rate per acre\tirrespective
\nof  the quality of the land and the fact whether it  yielded
\nor was capable of yielding any income.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t case  of  Nalla Raja  Reddy  this  Court  held\t the
\nprovisions  of\tAndhra\tPradesh\t Land  Revenue\t (Additional
\nAssessment) and’ Cess Revision Act, 1962 to be violative  of
\narticle 14.  The said’ Act was passed to bring uniformity in
\nassessment of land revenue in the Telengana and Andhra areas
\nof the State of Andhra Pradesh.\t An additional assessment at
\nthe rate of 75 per cent of the yearly assessment was imposed
\non dry land and the total assessment was not to be less than
\n50  paise per acre.  On wet land the  additional  assessment
\nwas to be 100 per cent for land irrigated from a  Government
\nsource\tand  50 per cent in case of other  wet\tlands.\t The
\nminimum\t total\tdemand\twas also prescribed.   The  Act\t was
\nconsidered to–be discriminatory as the. minimum had no-
\n(1)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 77.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1967] 3 S.C.R. 28.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1967] 2 S.C.R. 679.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1969] 1 S.C.R. 645
\n914<\/span>
\nrelation  to the fertility of the land.\t It was\t also  found
\nthat the assessment was left to the arbitrary discretion  of
\nan officer with-out an opportunity to question his findings.
\nThis case, as observed in the later case of Twyford Tea\t Co.
\nv.  The\t State of ‘Kerala and Another-(1)  was\tpeculiar  to
\nitself.\n<\/p>\n
In  the case of New Manek Chowk Spinning and  Weaving  Mills
\nand  Haji  K. Haji K. Kutty Naha, the question\twas  one  of
\nrating.\t  What was held in those cases was that taking\tonly
\nthe floor area of a building as the basis for  determination
\nof  a  tax  was\t an  arbitrary\tmethod\twhen  buildings\t had
\ndifferent  rental  values depending upon the nature  of\t the
\nconstruction and the purpose for which they were used These
\nfacts were held to be vital in the rating of buildings.\t  It
\nis  manifest that the principle involved in these cases\t has
\nnot much relevance for the present case.\n<\/p>\n
So  far\t as the case of K. T. Moopil Nair is  concerned,  we
\nfind that the majority quoted with approval the\t following
\nobservation  of Das C.J. in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v.\tShri
\nJustice S. R Tendolkar, and Others<\/a>(2).\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  determining the question of the  validity
\n\t      or otherwise of such a statute the Court\twill
\n\t      not  strike  down\t the law out  of  hand\tonly
\n\t      because no classification appears on its\tface
\n\t      or  because  at  discretion is  given  to\t the
\n\t      Government   to\tmake   the   selection\t  or
\n\t      classification  but will go on to examine\t and
\n\t      ascertain\t if  the statute has laid  down\t any
\n\t      principle\t or policy for the guidance of\tthe
\n\t      exercise\t,of discretion by the Government  in
\n\t      the matter of the selection or classification.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      After  such  scrutiny the ‘Court\twill  strike
\n\t\t\t    down  the statute if it does not lay d
\nown  any
\n\t      principle or policy for guiding. the  exercise
\n\t      of discretion by the Government in the  matter
\n\t      of selection or classification, on the  ground
\n\t      that; the ‘statute provides for the delegation
\n\t      of  arbitrary  and uncontrolled power  to\t the
\n\t      Government so as to enable it to\tdiscriminate
\n\t      between  persons or things  similarly  situate
\n\t      and  that,  therefore, the  discrimination  is
\n\t      inherent in the statute itself.”\n<\/p>\n
Keeping the above observations in view we find that’ in\t the
\npresent case the Act contains sufficient guidelines for\t the
\nfixation  of  the  rate of cess and  there  is\talso  enough
\nmaterial  on  record to justify a uniform rate of  cess\t for
\neach  acre  of land in a division of the deltaic  are.\t The
\nimposition  of tax on land for raising general\trevenue\t is
\nsubstantially different from the levy of cess for
\n(1) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 383
\n(2) [1961] 3 S.C.R.77
\n915<\/span>
\nimplementation of a drainage scheme for the benefit of lands
\nin an area and the principles applicable in one, case  would
\nnot necessarily hold good in the other.\n<\/p>\n
Reference has then been made on behalf of the appellants  to
\nan  American case, Village of Norwvod v. Ellen R.  Baker(1).
\nIn that case the Court considered special assessment upon an
\nabutting  property by the front door without taking  special
\nbenefits into account for the entire cost and expenditure of
\nopening\t a street.  It was held that the exaction  from\t the
\nowner\tof  a  private\tproperty  of  the  cost\t of   public
\nimprovement  in substantial excess of the  special  benefits
\naccruing  to  him is to the extent of such excess  a  taking
\nunder the guise of taxation of private, property for  public
\nuse  without compensation.  Perusal of that authority  shows
\nthat the Court invoked the doctrine of due process of law in
\narriving at the above conclusion.  The aforesaid doctrine of
\ndue process of law is not applicable to India and, as  such,
\nthe  appellants\t cannot\t derive much  assistance  from\tthat
\nauthority.   Another American case referred to on behalf  of
\nthe  appellants is Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v.\tRoad
\nImprovement Dist.  No. 6 ( 2). The question involved in that
\ncase was whether a railway property in an area is subject to
\nassessment to help cost of constructing a local\t improvement
\nin the nature of a country highway.  The Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Obviously,  the railroad companies  have\t not
\n\t      been  ,treated like individual owners, and  we
\n\t      think  the  discrimination  so  palpable\t and
\n\t      arbitrary\t as  to amount to a  denial  of\t the
\n\t      equal  protection of the law.   Benefits\tfrom
\n\t      local   improvements  must be  estimated\tupon
\n\t      contiguous Property according to some standard
\n\t\t\t    which   will  probably  produce   appr
\noximately
\n\t      correct  general\tresults.  To  say  that\t 9.7
\n\t      miles of railroad in a purely farming section,
\n\t      treated  as  an  aliquot\tpart  of  the  whole
\n\t      system,  will receive benefits amounting to  $
\n\t      67,900 from the construction of 11.2 miles  of
\n\t      gravel  road seems wholly improbable,  it\t not
\n\t      impossible.   Classification,  of\t course,  is
\n\t      permissible,  but\t we  can  find\tno  adequate
\n\t      reason  for  what has been  attempted  in\t the
\n\t      present case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  question involved in the above case, in our  view,\t was
\nmaterially  different  and, as such, the  appellants  cannot
\nderive much assistance from it also.\n<\/p>\n
it  has\t also been argued on behalf of the  appellants\tthat
\ntheir  lands  are  not benefited by  the  proposed  drainage
\nschemes as those lands are not subject to floods.  Reference
\nin this context has
\n(1) 43 L. ed. 441.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  65 L. ed. 1157.\n<\/p>\n
916<\/span><\/p>\n
been  made  to a statement which constitutes Appendix  F  to
\nVol. II of the report of the Mitra Committee wherein details
\nare  given  of ,the areas damaged by floods.   According  to
\nthat  statement,  the  average area  damaged  in  floods  in
\nGodavari  western  delta, to which  the\t appellants  belong,
\nduring the years 1955 to 1964 was 33,091 acres.\t The land on
\nwhich cess is proposed to be levied in the Godavari  western
\ndelta,\taccording to the estimate in tabular form  given  on
\nbehalf of the State Government to State Legislature in\tJuly
\n1968,  measured\t 4,90,000 acres.   Dr.\tSinghvi\t accordingly
\nconcludes  that\t only  7 per cent of the  land\tin  Godavari
\nwestern delta is to be benefited as a result of the drainage
\nscheme\tand that 93 per cent of landowners in  the  Godavari
\nwestern\t delta are being made to pay the cost of the  scheme
\nwhich would benefit 7 per cent of the lands in that area.
\nWe  are not impressed by the above contention.\t The  floods
\nhave a vagary and caprice of their own, and it is  difficult
\nto  predicate  about  the behaviour of\tflood  waters.\t The
\nproblem\t which\tarises in one year cannot afford  a  proper,
\nguidance  for the following year because the  dimensions  of
\nthe  problems  in  the subsequent year\tmay  be\t hundredfold
\ncompared  to  those of the previous year.  This\t is  evident
\nfrom the figures in the table relied upon by Dr. Singhvi.  R
\nwould  appear  therefrom that in the year  1961\t only  1,149
\nacres of land in the Godavari western delta were damaged  by
\nfloods,\t while\tin the year 1959 the damage  caused  by\t the
\nfloods\tin  that  area covered 89,528 acres  of\t land.\t The
\nmaterial on record further shows that during 1969 floods, an
\narea of as much as 3,69,395 acres out of a total of 4,90,000
\nacres, that is, about 75 per cent of the appear was  damaged
\nby floods in the Godavari western delta.  It is,  therefore,
\nplain that we cannot stick to the average damage referred to
\nby  Dr. Singhvi in considering the scheme of  drainage.\t  An
\neffective  system  of  drainage has in the  very  nature  of
\nthings to make provision not only for a normal rainfall\t but
\nalso  to  meet those contingencies as arise when  there\t are
\nunusual rains and heavy floods.\t It is indeed only then that
\nthe  efficacy of a drainage system is proved.  We also\tfind
\nit  difficult to accede to the submission made on behalf  of
\nthe  appellants\t that we should not take  into\taccount\t the
\nfigures\t of  damage done in the 1969 floods.   The  proposed
\ndrainage  scheme has to provide for years to  come  adequate
\nsafeguards  and\t protect against  contingencies\t created  by
\nunusually  heavy  rains\t and  floods.\tThe  fact  that\t the
\nimpugned Act enacted in 1968 covered 4,90,000 acres of\tland
\nin  the\t Godavari  western  delta shows.  in  the  light  of
\nsubsequent 1969 floods, the foresight of the authors of\t the
\ndrainage  scheme  which\t is  the  subject  of  the  impugned
\nlegislation.\n<\/p>\n
The an The appellants lands are admittedly irrigated in\t the
\ndeltaic\t area.\tThe benefit to the appellants land,  in\t the
\ncircumstances, is implicit in the scheme of drainage.  It is
\nnot disputed that proper
\n917<\/span>
\ndrainage is an essential concomitant of an efficient  system
\nof irrigation.\tWithout adequate drainage the irrigated land
\ngradually  loses  its fertility, becomes  saline  and  water
\nlogged.\t The following extracts from the proceedings of\t the
\nFirst  Inter-Society  Conferenc on Irrigation  and  Drainage
\nwould show the importance of drainage for irrigation :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Drainage is the removal of both excess  water
\n\t      and salines from agricultural soils.   Surface
\n\t      drainage\t  is   the   removal,\tof    excess
\n\t      precipitation  and  irrigation wastes  at\t the
\n\t      surface to prevent flooding and to minify\t the
\n\t      more costly sub-surface drainage requirements.
\n\t      Efficient\t  engineering  designs\tof   surface
\n\t      drains   require\tonly  an  understanding\t  of
\n\t      topographic  conditions,\tpumping.   Effective
\n\t      surface drainage is comparatively\t inexpensive
\n\t      and  is essential to permanence of  irrigation
\n\t      agriculture.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  affidavit\tof  Shri Venkatadri shows  that\t apart\tfrom
\nprevention  of\tdamage\tto crop\t by  floods,  the  following
\nindirect benefit& are derived by irrigated land as a  result
\nof drainage
\n\t      “(1) Facilitates early ploughing and planting,
\n\t      (2)  lengthens  the crop-growing\tseason,\t (3)
\n\t      provides\tmore  available, soil  moisture\t and
\n\t      plant  food by increasing the depth  of  root-
\n\t      zone  soil (4) helps in soil  ventilation\t (5)
\n\t      decrees\tsoil   erosion\tand   gullying,\t  by
\n\t      increasing water infiltration into soils,\t (6)
\n\t      favours  growth of soil bacteria, (7)  leaches
\n\t      excess salts from soil and (8) assures  higher
\n\t      soil temperatures.” I
\nThere is one integrated drainage scheme for the division  in
\nwhich the appellants lands are situated and the\t appellants,
\nin our opinion, are beneficiaries of that scheme in the same
\nway as the other landowners in that division.  The fact that
\non  account of topographical situation some  landowners\t get
\ngreater\t benefit  of the drainage scheme  because  of  their
\nlands  being more prone to damage by floods is a  fortuitous
\ncircumstance  and the same would not be a valid\t ground\t for
\nstriking   down\t the  impugned\tlegislation.   It  is\twell
\nestablished that if there is equality and uniformity  within
\neach group, the law will not be condemned as  discriminative
\nthough due to some fortuitous circumstances arising out of a
\npeculiar  situation,  some  included  in  a  class  get\t  an
\nadvantage  over others so long as they are not\tsingled\t out
\nfor special treatment. (Khandige Sham Bhat and Others v. The
\nAgricultural Income Tax Officer, Supra).
\nIn the<\/a> case of Vivian Joseph Ferriera and Anr. v. The  Muni-
\ncipal  Corporation  of Greater Bombay & Ors.  (Supra),\tthis
\nCourt dealt with the validity of the Bombay Building Repairs
\nand Reconstruction Board Act of 1969.  The said Act  related
\nto  the problems arising out of the collapse of\t residential
\nbuildings and\n<\/p>\n
-L736Sup CI\/72
\n918<\/span>
\nacute shortage of housing accommodation.  Provision was made
\nin  the Act for establishing a Board to deal with  the\tsaid
\nproblem\t by  carrying out structural  repairs  to  dangerous
\nbuildings  by acquiring and reconstructing  buildings  which
\nwere  beyond repair and for the rehousing of  occupiers\t who
\nbecause of such repairs would be dishoused.  Temporary\tlevy
\nof  an\tadditional cess on buildings and lands to  meet\t the
\nexpenditure  for the aforesaid purposes was provided for  in
\nthat  Act.  One of the grounds which was urged on behalf  of
\nthe petitioners was that the Act was violative of article 14
\nin  that  it  failed to recognize  the\tmaterial  difference
\nbetween\t various  buildings with regard\t to  their  physical
\nconditions and treated unequals as equals.  The\t petitioners
\nin that case were owners of a residential building which  by
\nreason\tof its having been recently constructed was  neither
\ndilapidated  nor  in dangerous\tcondition.   Repelling,\t the
\nabove contention this Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  contention\tthat some of  the  buildings
\n\t      falling  in categories B and C would not\tneed
\n\t      structural repairs throughout the life of\t the
\n\t      Act or that such repairs would be carried\t out
\n\t      in  buildings  not  cared\t for  by  defaulting
\n\t      landlords,  takes no notice of the  fact\tthat
\n\t      the primary object of the Act is not to repair
\n\t      all  buildings subject to cess but to  prevent
\n\t      the’  annually  recurrent\t mischief  of  house
\n\t      collapses\t  and\tthe   human   tragedy\t and
\n\t      deprivations they cause.\tThe cess being\tthus
\n\t      levied to prevent such disasters, there is  no
\n\t      question\tof  unequal  treatment\tbetween\t one
\n\t\t\t    class of owners and another.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  are, therefore, of the view that the, provisions of\t the
\nimpugned  Act  are  not\t violative  of\tarticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
There  is no substance in the contention advanced on  behalf
\nof  the\t appellants  that the right of\tappeal\tprovided  by
\nsection\t 5  of\tthe Act is illusory.   The  legislature\t has
\nprescribed  the\t maximum limit of the rate of cess  and\t the
\nnotification issued under the Act has fixed that rate.\t The
\nprocedure to be adopted before the levy of the cess has been
\nprescribed in section 4 of the Act.  Section 5 gives a right
\nof appeal to a person aggrieved by the levy of the  drainage
\ncess  under section 4. The matters which can be agitated  in
\nappeal\tmay relate to the area for which the cess is  levied
\nor the ownership of that area.\tIn case a landowner’s  stand
\nis  that the area owned by him is less than that  for  which
\ncess  is levied or that he has transferred the said land  or
\npart  of it, he can agitate the matter in appeal.  The\tfact
\nthat  no discretion is given to the appellate  authority  to
\ndetermine the rate of cess would not introduce an  infirmity
\nor make the right of appeal to be illusory.\n<\/p>\n
919<\/span><\/p>\n
The argument that there has been excessive delegation of the
\nlegislative  power in the matter of determining the rate  of
\ncess is equally devoid of force.  According to Dr.  Singhvi,
\nthe  legislature has merely prescribed the maximum  rate  at
\nwhich cess may be levied but has not fixed the minimum\trate
\nof  the\t cess.\t The Precise rate of cess  is  left  to\t the
\nGovernment  by section 3 of the Act and, as such,  according
\nto the learned counsel, there has been excessive, delegation
\nof the legislative power.  In this connection, we find\tthat
\nit is open to the legislature to prescribe the maximum\trate
\nof cess.  The authority mentioned in the statute, subject to
\nother  legal requirements, can levy cess up to\tthat  limit.
\nAs  things are the State Government in the present case\t has
\nadhered\t  to  the  maximum  prescribed\tby  the\t  Act\tvide
\nnotification  dated December 17\/20, 1968.  The power of\t the
\nlegislature  to\t fix  or change the limit of  tax  has\tbeen
\ndiscussed in para 165 of the Law of Taxation by Cooley,\t 4th
\nEdition, in the following, words :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Power of legislature to fix or change limit :
\n\t      In addition to, or in place of, constitutional
\n\t      provisions, there are statutes in many  states
\n\t      limiting\tthe amount or rate of taxation by  a
\n\t      country,\ttown, municipality, or\tother  local
\n\t      subdivision;  and\t sometimes  the\t  limitation
\n\t      imposed  upon a municipality is found  in\t its
\n\t      charter.\t A  valid limitation  on  the  rate,
\n\t      where  fixed  by the legislature, is  just  as
\n\t      binding  on counties and municipalities as  is
\n\t      such a limitation fixed by the constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No  authority  has been cited before us to  show  that\teven
\nthough\tmaximum\t limit of the tax has been  prescribed,\t the
\nabsence of a minimum limit vitiates the taxing statute.\t It
\nis not necessary, however, to dilate upon this aspect of the
\nmatter\tas we find that there are enough guidelines  in\t the
\nAct in respect of the rate of cess because the rate of\tcess
\nin  a  division\t has  to  be  corrected\t to  the  amount  of
\nexpenditure  to be incurred on the drainage scheme  in\tthat
\ndivision.\n<\/p>\n
It may also be mentioned that subsequent to the decision  of
\nthe  writ  petition  which is the  subject  of\tthe  present
\nappeal, validity of the provisions of the Act was challenged
\nin a batch of writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The matter was then referred to a full bench.\t The
\nlearned judges constituting the full bench by means of three
\nseparate judgments upheld the constitutional validity of the
\nprovisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
As  a result of the above, the appeal and the writ  petition
\nare dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without cost.\n<\/p>\n
S.C.\t\t      Appeal and petition dismissed.\n920<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 828, 1972 SCR (2) 900 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Dua, I.D., Khanna, Hans Raj, Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: DANTULURI RAM RAJU AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\"},\"wordCount\":7861,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\",\"name\":\"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971","datePublished":"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971"},"wordCount":7861,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971","name":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T19:35:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dantuluri-ram-raju-and-ors-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr-on-16-december-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dantuluri Ram Raju And Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 16 December, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}