Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The matter in controversy in the appeal is very limited and the point involved very narrow. Mr. Ram Reddylearned counsel for the appellant raised three points in support of the appeal : (1) What is the meaning of the expression 'royalty' in s. 79(1) of the Art? Does it include the royalty payable under a mining lease on the ore won by the lessee, (2) Assuming that royalty in the sense mentioned in point No. 1 is within ss. 78 and 79, of the Act the provision imposing the land cess quoad royalty under mining leases must be held to be repealed by the Mines. & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948 (Central Act Llll of 1948) or in any event, by the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act LXVII of 1957). so that after the date when these Central enactments came into force the land cess that could be levied under s. 78 must be exclusive of royalty under a mining lease. (3) Is the land cess which, was demanded by the impugned notices dated March 10, 1958 and August 29, 1960 recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under the law?

The second point has not, in our opinion, more merit The entirety of the argument on this head is based on two decisions of this Court in which this Court had to consider the continued operation of the Orissa mining areas (Deve- lopment Fund) Act, (Act XXVII of 1952) The Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. and Others v. The State of Orissa and Others(1) and State of Orissa v. M. A. Tullock & Co.(1). As a matter of fact it might be mentioned that the present appellant intervened in State of Orissa v. M. A. Tullock & Co. and there was a direction by this Court that the present appeals and petition might be heard after the judgment was pronounced in the Orissa appeals. We are, however, clearly of the opinion that neither of the two decisions, the later one really following the earlier in respect of the matter now relevant, really help the appellant in these appeals. In Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.'s case(1) the decision rendered an writ petitions filed in this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Orissa Mining Areas (Development Fund) Act. A cess had been levied under that enactment and it was the validity of the imposition of the cess that was the subject of debate in the petition. One of the points urged in support of the petition was that on the enactment of the Minoan & Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Central Act LIII of 1948) the Orissa Act stood repealed and the cess leviable under its provisions was not thereafter capable of (2) A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1284.

It will be seen that there is no resemblance, whatever, between the provisions of the Orissa Act considered in the two decisions and the provision for the levy of the land cess under ss. 78 and 79 of the Act with which we are concerned. Sections 78 and 79 have nothing to do and are not concerned with the development of mines and minerals or their regulation. The proceeds of the land cess are, under 92 of the Act, to be credited to the District fund, into which, under the terms of the Finance Rules in Sch. V to the Act, the land-cess as well as several other taxes, fees and receipts are directed to be credited. This fund is to be used under Ch. VII of the Act with which s. 112 starts "for everything necessary for or conducive to the safety, health, convenience or education of the inhabitants or the amenities of the local area concerned and everything incidental to the administration"

Under s. 78 of the Act the cess is levied on occupied land on whatever tenure held. The basis of the levy is the "annual rent value" i.e., the value of the beneficial enjoy- ment of the property. This being the basis of the tax and disclosing its true nature, s. 79 provides for the manner in which the "annual rent value" is determined i.e., what is the amount for which the land could reasonably be let, the benefit to the lessor representing the ratable value "or the annual rent value". In the case of ryotwari lands it is the assessment which is payable to the Government that is taken as the rental value being the benefit that accrues to the Government. Where the land is held under lease it is the lease amount that forms the basis. Where land is held under a mining lease, that which the occupier is willing to pay is accordingly treated as the "annual rent value" of the property. Such a rent value would, therefore, necessarily include not merely the surface rent, but the dead rent, as well as the royalty payable by the licensee, lessee or occupier for the user of the property. The position then is that the rent which a tenant might be expected to pay for the property is, in the case of lease-hold interests, treated as the statutory "annual rent value". It is therefore not possible to accept the contention, that the fact that the lessee or licensee pays a royalty on the mineral won, which is in excess of what he would pay if his right over the land extended only to the mere use of the surface land, places it in a category different from other types where the lessee uses the surface of the land alone. In each case the rent which a lessee or licensee actually pays for the land being the test, it is manifest that the land-cess is nothing else except a land tax. Learned counsel pointed out that in the case of inam lands and other lands dealt with in cls. (ii), (iii) and (iv) of s. 79 the royalty payable by the lessee or licensee did not figure in the computation of the annual rent value. That, however, appears to us to be wholly irrelevant, for what we are concerned with is whether on the terms of sub- cl. (i) the land cess is not in truth a tax on land. The last of the points raised relates to the threat on the part of the Government to recover the impugned demands as an arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel pointed out that s. 221 of the Act which made provision for the recovery of su ms due as taxes had, by reason of the changes effected in the rules, ceased to be applicable for the recovery of land cess under s. 78. The learned Judges of the High Court upheld this submission and, in our opinion, correctly, but this is of no assistance to the appellant because of s. 52 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act which enacts: