( 1 ) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are holders of agricultural lands in the Dist of Shimoga. In these writ petitions, they have questioned the notices of demand served on them under the provisions of the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1057 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), calling upon them to pay water rate as determined by the Tahsildar under Rule 4 (1) of the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). The lands held by the petitioners are wet lands on which wet crops are, grown with the aid of water belonging to Govt. S. 10 of the act authorises the levy of water rate. It reads as follows :"10. Levy of water rate- (1) Whenever- (a) {b) water is supplied, made available or used for purpose of irrigation or any other purpose from any work belonging to, or constructed by, or or on behalf of the Government; and (c) water from any such work, by direct flow, percolation or by indirect flow, percolation, drainage from or, through adjoining land irrigates any land under cultivation or flows into a reservoir and thereafter by direct flow or porcolation or by indirect flow, percolation or drainage from or through adjoining land irrigates any land under cultivation and, in the opinion of the Deputy Commr such irrigation is beneficial to and sufficient for the requirements of crop on such land. (d) water supplied or made available to, the Govt by the, authority established under Sec. 67 of the Andhra State Act, 1953, is supplied, made available or used for purposes of irrigation or any other purpose;. the Govt shall be entitled to, levy a separate charge for such water hereinafter referred to as water rate and the Govt may prescribe the rates at which such water rates shall be levied, which may be,- (i) different in respect of water supplied, made available or used for different purposes; (ii) different in respect of water supplied, made available or used from different irrigation works, and when water is supplied, made available or used for irrigation of any land, with or without reference to the crop or crops grown or. which may be grown on such land; (iii) in lieu of water rate, if any, payable under any other law; and the manner in which and the authority by which the amount of water rate levied shall be determined, (2) * * * * (3) The, amount of water rate shall be recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue due on the land. "sec. 10 of the Act confers the power to prescribe the rates at which rates can be collected from the holders of lands, on the State Govt. In exercise of, the said power, the State Govt by a notification dt. 3-8-1967, amended rule 3 of the Rules classifying the lands in respect of which water was supplied or made available on the basis of the irrigation work from which water was being supplied for purposes of levying water ratp. The said Rule was questioned before this Court in Achuta Rao v. State of Mysore (1 ). In these petitions, Rule 3 as it stood then was struck down on the ground that it was unconstitutional. Thereafter, the State Govt amended Rule 3. It now reads as follows ; 3. Levy of water rates for the use of water from irrigation works:- (1) In respect of water supplied, made available or used from any irrigation work for growing the crops specified in column (2) of the Table below, water rate at the rate specified in the corrseponding entries in column (3) thereof shall, in respect, of each such crop grown. bo levied- ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH in the earlier writ petitions disposed of by this Court, the petitioners therein had challenged S. 10 of the. Act also in these, petitions, the challenge, is confined to Rules 3 (1) and 4 of the Rules only. Rula 3 which has already been extracted above lays down the rate, at which water rate is leviable. Under Rule 3 (1) the State Govt has classified the lands into five categories on the basis of the crops grown on them for purposes of levy of water rate,. An acre of land on which sugar cane crop to be harvested within a period of 12 months is grown, has to bear water rate of Rs 20. Under Rule 3 (1) the State Govt has classified the lands into five categories on the basis of the crops grown on them for purposes of levy of water rate,. An acre of land on which sugar cane crop to be harvested within a period of 12 months is grown, has to bear water rate of Rs 20. An acre of land on which sugar cane crop to be harvested after a period of 12 months but before a period of 18 months is grown, has to besr water rate, of Rs. 30. An acre of land on which paddy crop is grown is liable to pay water rate of Rs. 11 Lands falling under SI. NO. 3, 4 and 5 in the Table given in Rule 3 (1) have to bear water rates at the rate of rs. 5-50p, Rs. 3 and Rs. 12 respectively per acre. ( 3 ) THE first contention urged by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, regarding the validity of Rule 3 (1) is that the classification that has been made under Rule 3 (1) is contrary to the directions contained in S. 10 of the Act. It was contended by him that it was obligatory on the part of the State Govt to have classified the lands for purposes of levy of water rates on the basis of tha nature, and size of the irrigation works and the cost of construction and maintenance of the said irrigation works which constituted the source of supply of water to the lands in question. It was argued that in the absence of such classification, art 14 of the Constn has been violated by the Rule making authority. S. 10 of the Act provides that the Slate Govt may prescribe the, rates at which water rates shall be levied on the, basis of the purposes for which the water is used or on the basis of the irrigation work from which water is supplied or on the basis of the crops grown on the lands. In the instant case, the classification of lands had been made under Rule 3 (1) as it stands today, on the basis of the, crops grown on them. The classification of lands made by Rule, 3 (1) cannot, therefore be held as being inconsistent with s. 10 of the Act. In the instant case, the classification of lands had been made under Rule 3 (1) as it stands today, on the basis of the, crops grown on them. The classification of lands made by Rule, 3 (1) cannot, therefore be held as being inconsistent with s. 10 of the Act. The contention that the, classification made under R. 3 (l) is contrary to Art:l4 of the Constn is also untenable. What has to be, seen is whether there exists an intelligible differentia between the lands belonging to one group and the lands belonging to another group and whether the classification bears reasonable relationship to the object in view. It is well known that the yield from a piece of land on which sugarcane is grown is much higher than the yield from a, land on which paddy is grown. Even in the case of lands on which sugarcane, is grown, the yield from a land on which sugarcane, is to be harvested within a period of 12 months is grown is less than the yield from the, land on which sugarcane to be harvestqd after a period of 12 months is grown a perusal of the Table given under Rule 3 (1) shows that the water rate payable not merely bears a reasonable Relationship to the yield from the lands but also to the quantity of water that is consumed It is seen from the said Table that lands which require more water are made, liable to pay higher water rate than the lands which require lesser quantity of water. I do not therefore, consider that the, State Govt has violated Art. 14 of the Constn in classifying the lands on the basis of the, crops grown on them for purposes of levy of water; rate. ( 4 ) THE next submission made, by Sri T. S. Ramachandra depends upon the construction of the -third proviso to S. 12 of the Act. By S. 12, certain enactments and provisions referred to therein were repealed. One of the provisions which was repealed by S. 12 was S. 53 of the Mysore Land revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of, 1888) (hereinafter referred to as the 'code' ). By S. 12, certain enactments and provisions referred to therein were repealed. One of the provisions which was repealed by S. 12 was S. 53 of the Mysore Land revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of, 1888) (hereinafter referred to as the 'code' ). The 3rd prqviso to S. 12 of the Act provided that the water rate,, water cess or irrigation cess levied in respect of any land undar any repealed enactment shall continue to be levied until water rates shall be levied in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Relying upon S. 48 of the Code, which provided for the levy of land revenue and water rate respectively, Sri T. S. Ramachandra contended that since water rate was included in the assessment levied in respect of those lands under the. Code, it was not open to the, authorities under the Act to call upon the petitioners to pay water rate until the notices of demand were served on them under the Act. In other words, he contended that for the period between 1965 and 1973 the authorities could not have made any demand under the Act calling upon the petitioners to pay water rate in respect of their lands. S. 48 of the Code provided that land revenue was leviable, under the provisions of the, Code upon land appropriated for the purpose of agriculture. For purposes of levy of land revenue under S. 48 of the Code, lands were calssified on the basis of the availability or supply of water to, the lands concerned, as set out in para 185 of the Mysore Land Revenue Manual published in the year 1921. Reliance was also placed on the ' Mysore govt Guarantee' which was also known as 'survey Guarantee' appearing in para 186 of the said Manual in which it was stipulated that the govt had reserved right under the said guarantee to levy additional assessment if Govt afforded additional supply of water by the construction of new works or by the improvement of existing works (vide sub-para V of para 186 of the Manual ). It was argued that since the State Govt had fixed the assessment in respect of the lands on the basis of the availability of water and para V of the survey guarantee stipulated that the Govt had reserved the right to levy additional assessment only when additional supply of water was made available, it should be assumed that under the code, water rate had already been levied in respect of theses lands and that payment of the land revenue already fixed absolved the petitioners from the liability to pay water rate undar the Act until a notice of demand was served on them in the year 1973, in view of the third proviso to S. 12 which provided that water rate, water cess and irrigation cess levied in respect of any land under any repealed enactment would continue to be levied until water rates were levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The argument urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted in view of section 53 of the Code, and the revised survey guarantee which is to be found in para 193 of the Mysore Revenue Manual published in the year 1967. It is no doubt true that the lands were directed to be classified for purposes of levy of land revenue into several categories, depending upon the availability of water supply but it is not correct to say that merely because the lands in question were assessed at a higher rate; having regard to their nature and petentiality, the Sftate Govt had included on the assessment water rate payable by the landholders. S. 53 of the Code la|d down thai the Govt through the Deputy Commr could levy a separate rate for the use of water. In sub para 2 of para 193 of the Mysore Revenue Manual, 1967 it is provided that the Govt reserves to itself the righit of imposing an extra cess or rate for the use of water, the right to which vests in Govt or which has been made available by the construction, improvement or repair of any irrigational or other works by Govt. It is clear from S. 53 of the Cods and sub-para 2 of para 193 of the, revised guarantee, that the. land revenue determined in respect of the lands in question did not include water rate payable in respect of them. It is clear from S. 53 of the Cods and sub-para 2 of para 193 of the, revised guarantee, that the. land revenue determined in respect of the lands in question did not include water rate payable in respect of them. Hence, the petitioners cannot derive any assistance from the third proviso to S. 12 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE next submission made on behalf of the petitioners relates to, the validity of the notices of demand issued by the Tahsildar. It is contended that it was obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to- have held an enquiry into the amount payable by the petitioners by way of water rate after giving them a reasonable opportunity to urge their contentions and in the absence of such an opportunity being given, the demand notices have op be struck down as being opposed to principles of natural justice. Rule 4 (1) of the Rules does not expressly provide that the holders of land should be given an opportunity to show cause against any action to, be taken by the Tahsildar under the said provision. It is no doubt true that whenever an assessment of a liability in the nature of a rate or tax on a person is made, he should have an opportunity to participate in the assessment procecidings and to, show cause against the proposed action before liability gets unalterably fixed. The question for consideration in this case is whether the) non-issue of notices by the Tahsildar has resulted in the notices of demand becoming void. Rule 4 of the, Rules reads as follows :" 4. Determination of ware rates.- (1) In respect of each crop or revenue year, as the case may be, the Tahsildar shall, after such enquiry as he deems fit and after satisfying himself that water was supplied, made available pr used for the irrigation of any land, prepare a statement of water rate* payable by each landholder. Determination of ware rates.- (1) In respect of each crop or revenue year, as the case may be, the Tahsildar shall, after such enquiry as he deems fit and after satisfying himself that water was supplied, made available pr used for the irrigation of any land, prepare a statement of water rate* payable by each landholder. (2) After the preparation of the, statement of water rates payable by each landholder under sub-rule (1) the Tahsildar shall issue a notice, of demand to the person liable to pay the water rate and cause such notice to, be served on such person byrendering or delivering it to such person or his agent, if any, or if he, or his agent cannot be found by tendering or delivering it, to an adult member or his family residing with him, or by affixing a copy thereof on his place of residence, or by sending the same by registered post to his last known place of residence. (3) Any person objecting to the levy of water rate as specified in the notice, of demand served on him may within thirty days from the date; of service of such notice appeal to the Asst Commr who shall after giving the appellant an opportunity of beting heard pass such orders on the appeal as he thinks fit: provided that the Asst Commr may admit an appeal preferred after the peripd of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not prefering the appeal within that period. (4) The amount of water rate specified in the notice of demand served under sub-rule (2) shall be paid within fifteen days from the date of service of such notice and where an appeal has been preferred u sub-rule (3) against such notice of demand, the amount of waiter rate, payable in accordance with the decision of such appeal, shall be paid within fifteen days from the date of the, appellate order. "sub-rule, (1) of Rule 4 confers the power on the Tahsildar to Determine the water rate payable by each holder of land on the basis of an enquiry made by him. Sub-rule (2) authorises service of notice, of demand on the holder of the land. "sub-rule, (1) of Rule 4 confers the power on the Tahsildar to Determine the water rate payable by each holder of land on the basis of an enquiry made by him. Sub-rule (2) authorises service of notice, of demand on the holder of the land. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 4, the water rate demanded from the holder under Rule) 4 (2) Would be payable within 15 days from the date, of service of such notice. But, where a holder of the, land has objected to the, levy of water rate, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 before the Assistant commr, the amount of water rate payable in accordance with the decision on such appeal has to be paid within 15 days from the date of the appellate order. It was contended by Sri T. S. Ramachandra, that in view of the, fact that the notice, of demand issued under sub-rule, (2) of Rule 4 becomes enforceable on the expiry of 15 days from the, date of sesrvice of such notice even though a period of 30 days has been prescribed as the period under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 for preferring objections to the notice of demand before the Asst Commr. it had to be held that the notice of demand issued under sub-rule (2) would be ineffective or inoperative tall the expiry of the period of 30 days prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 to prefer an appeal before the Asst Commr and when an appeal is preferred till the expiry of 15 days from the date of the appellate order, On behalf of the State Govt, it is urged that as there is provision for preferring objections to the notice of demand before the Asst Commr under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, there is no contravention of principles of natural justice. In the instant cases, it is unnecessary to pronounce on the above question because the period of 30 days prescribed for filing appeals is over. The petitioners have not also filed, the appeals before the Asst Commr thinking that they would get relief in these writ petitions. Now that the validity of Rule 3 has been upheld, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to prefer appeals before the Asst Commr under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. The petitioners have not also filed, the appeals before the Asst Commr thinking that they would get relief in these writ petitions. Now that the validity of Rule 3 has been upheld, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to prefer appeals before the Asst Commr under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. Under the proviso to sub-rule (3), it is open to the Asst Commr to admit an appeal preferred after the period of 30 days prescribed in that sub-rule if he is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the period prescribed. The; fact that these writ petitions have been pending all these days is a, ground which may be urged by the petitioners before the Asst Commr for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals. If the petitioners prefer appeals against the notices of'demand within 30 days from today, the Asst Commr shall entertain them without reference to the question of limitation and dispose them of in accordance with law. It has, however, to be observed at this stage that the Asst Commr should give reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as to why the water rate should not be collected from them at the rates determined by the Tahsildar and if necessary to permit them to adduce evidence also before him, because the petitioners had no opportunity to adduce any evidence before the Tahsildar, The Asst Commr shall dispose of the appeals as if they are original proceedings before him. The only order that can be made in these cases therefore is that the impugned notices of demand shall not be enforced against the petitioners until fee expiry of 30 days from today and if the petitioners prefer appeals before the Asst Commr, until the expiry of 15 days from the date of the appellate orders. These petitions are allowed to the above limited extent only. No costs. --- *** --- .