Judgment :- 1. The petitioner questions the validity of four demand notices (Ext. P3 series, four in number) issued under S.24 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. The demands relate to dewatering charges of the petitioner's Kole lands in the Trichur Taluk and the main question for consideration in this petition is whether the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act are available to the State for the realisation of the amounts concerned. 2. By an order dated the 4th October 1950, No. A7-7955/50/Fd., D., the Government of Travancore-Cochin constituted a Kole Cultivation Authority of the same date authorising the said Authority to exercise the powers vested in the Government under S.4 and 7 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. S.4 of the Act deals with powers of requisitioning and acquisition and S.7 with the control of agriculture. Neither section empowers the Authority to invoke the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. 3. Subsequent to the constitution of the Kole Cultivation Authority rules were framed for the working of the said Authority and they were published in the Travancore-Cochin Government Gazette dated the 14th April 1953, Part I, page 883. R.12 of the said Rules reads as follows: "A flat rate of Rs. 25 per acre or the actual cost incurred by Government per acre, whichever is less, for dewatering and bunding works together shall be intimated to the cultivators by the village officers and the cultivators shall pay the charges in such instalments as the Kole Cultivation Authority may deem fit. Defaulted instalments shall carry interest at the rate of one pie a Rupee per mensem. These charges shall also be realised as an arrear of revenue under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The whole amount thus realised shall be credited to the Revenue of the P.W.D.". It is not contended that there is any statutory basis for the provision allowing the charges to be realised as an arrear of revenue under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. 4. The whole amount thus realised shall be credited to the Revenue of the P.W.D.". It is not contended that there is any statutory basis for the provision allowing the charges to be realised as an arrear of revenue under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. 4. S.62 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, provides that "All arrears of public revenue due to Government other than land revenue, all moneys due from any person to Government which under a written agreement executed by such person are recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue, and all specific pecuniary penalties to which such person renders himself liable under such agreement". "all sums declared by any other law for the time being in force to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue". and may be recovered under the provisions of that Act. It has already been pointed out that there is no law declaring the amounts concerned in this case to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue. There is also no written agreement to the effect that the said amounts "are recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue". 5. The contention of the learned Government Pleader - which I am not prepared to accept - is that the State is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act as the amounts concerned constitute "public revenue due on land" as defined in S.2(a) of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951. That section (omitting the Explanation thereto which is not material) reads as follows: "'Public revenue due on land' shall include the assessment in kind or money charged on lands and payable to the Government or Sri Pandara Vagai and all fees and cesses, whether in kind or money, which whether charged on land or not, are recovered as assessment on land and all cesses or other dues payable to the Government on account of water used for purposes of irrigation". The whole argument is based on the assumption that the amounts concerned represent dues payable to the Government "on account of water used for purposes of irrigation". There is no evidence before me that any water was supplied for the purposes of irrigation. On the other hand the entire evidence is to the effect that the amounts represent dewatering charges for the purposes of Kole cultivation. There is no evidence before me that any water was supplied for the purposes of irrigation. On the other hand the entire evidence is to the effect that the amounts represent dewatering charges for the purposes of Kole cultivation. Irrigation means the supplying of land with water by means of channels or streams, a process which should be considered as the very opposite of the dewatering undertaken by the Kole Cultivation Authority and in respect of which the amounts are claimed. 6. It follow that there is no statutory or contractual basis for invoking the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, for the recovery of the amounts specified in the demand notices impugned before me. The petition has hence to be allowed and the State directed not to proceed against the petitioner under the provisions of the said enactment. Order accordingly. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if I came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, are not applicable for the recovery of the amounts concerned - as I have done - there is no need to consider the other contentions urged by him as the petitioner will be able to raise them in his written statement, if and when a suit is filed by the State. In view of this, those contentions are not considered in this judgment and are left open for future adjudication. 8. I make no order as to costs. Allowed.