ORDER
1. The petitioner who is an Ex-serviceman owns and possesses a house property in rural area within the jurisdiction of the 7th respondent-Gram Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits conferred on the Ex-serviceman under G.O. Ms. No.83, M.A., dated 15-3-1997 is restricted to the properties situate in Urban areas only and not to the properties situate in rural areas, and therefore, the State is guilty of practicing invidious discrimination offending Article 14 postulates.
2. We do not find any merit in this contention. Article 14 postulates are not attracted if the State chooses to extend the benefits in a phased manner and restricting the benefits to certain localities only. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification. Of course, in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute or instrument in question. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there is no rational basis for classification between the urban properties and the rural properties. Be that as it may, the State in its wisdom and having regard to its fiscal position could extend the benefits of exemption in a phased manner. There is no vested right in the petitioner or the like to claim that the State, as a matter of course or as a matter of right, should necessarily exempt all the properties from the payment of property tax. There
is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.