( 1 ) THE petitioners are owners of certain lands which are stated to be irrigated by water flowing from an irrigation work as defined in the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957. Under Rule 4 (2) of the Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the Tahsildar made demands on the petitioners to pay water rate in respect of water which the the petitioners had, according to him, used for growing crops on their lands. Aggrieved by the said notices, of demand, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. ( 2 ) THE principal contention urged by Mr. B. Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the demands made by the Tahsildar were unenforceable on the ground that no enquiry had been held by the Tahsildar in accordance with the Rules and that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why the water rates should not be levied at the rates determined by the Tahsildar. Rule 4 of the Rules reads as follows : z" 4. Determination of water rates.- (1) In respect of each crop or revenue year, as the case may be, the Tahsildar shall, alter such enquiry as he deems fit and after satisfying himself that water was supplied, made available or used for the irrigation of any land, prepare a statement of water rates payable by each land-holder. (2) After the preparation of the statements of water rates payable by each land-holder under sub-rule (1) the Tahsildar shall issue a notice of demand tp the person liable to pay the water" rate and cause such notice to be served on such person by tendering 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 of 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 Commissioner who shall after giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard pass such orders on the appeal as he thinks fit : provided that the Asst Commr may admit, an appeal preferred after the period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring 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 under sub-rule (3) against such notice of demand, the amount of water rate payable in accordance with the decision of such appeal, shall be paid within fifteen days from the date of the appellate order. "under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 the Tahsildar is required to prepare a statement of water rates payable by each land-holder in respect of each crop or revenue year, as the case may be, after such enquiry as he deems fit and after satisfying himself that water was supplied, made available or used for the irrigation of any land Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 the Tahsildar is required to issue a notice of demand to the person liable to pay the water rate stating that he has to pav water rate as determined by him under sub-rule (1) if the land-holder does not object to the demand made by the tahsildar he has to pay the water rate in accordance with the rate fixed by the Tahsildar. But if a land-holder has any obiection to the lew of water rate as specified in the notice of demand he has to file his obiection before the Asst Commr, who shall after giving the objector an opportunity of being heard pass such orders as he thinks fit It is further provided in sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 that when a person has objected to the levy of water rate before the Asst Commr, the water rate would be payable by the objector only in accordance with the decision of the Asst Commr and after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of the decision of the Asst Commr It is. therfore clear that under the rules the amount determined by the Tahsildar as water rate payable by any land-holder cannot be recovered from the land-holder if he raises any objection within the prescribed time before the asst Commr From the foregoing it is Hear that a notice of demand served by the Tahsildar on a land-holder who has an objection to it would partake of the character of a mere proposal until the Asst Commr passes his order after giving reasonable opportunity to the land-holder to show-cause against the levy. It cannot therefore he said that principles of natural iustice would not be followed in determining the water rates payable by the land-holders under Rule 4 of the Rules. ( 3 ) IT was further argued by Sri Veerabhadrappa that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 it was the duty of the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry, as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules made thereunder in respect of the liability of each land-holder in the Taluk who has got to pav the water rate before issuing of notice of demand. It is difficult to accepl this submission of Mr. Veerabhadrappa. The rule does not expressly require the Tahsildar to is a notice to each land-holder who may be liable to pav the water rate. The question for consideration is whether the principle of audi alteram partem should, in the circumstances of this case, be read into sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and the Tahsildar should be called upon to hold an enquiry in the presence of each land-holder. The rule of audi alteram patem is not of universal application. The question for consideration is whether the principle of audi alteram partem should, in the circumstances of this case, be read into sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 and the Tahsildar should be called upon to hold an enquiry in the presence of each land-holder. The rule of audi alteram patem is not of universal application. The question whether such rule is applicable to a given case is governed by the surrounding circumstances of each case and the nature of law that is being interpreted bv the Court as observed by the Supreme Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR. 1970 SC. 150. ( 4 ) WHILE interpreting Rule 4 (1) of the Rules it is necessary for the the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that in every Taluk there are thousands of land-holders-small and big-who may be liable to pay the water rate. The Tahsildar after making local enquiry regarding the nature of the crops that are grown on the lands, the quantity of water that is likely to be used, the number of crops that are grown on each land and every other relevant matter, has to prepare a statement of water rates payable by each land-holder. It may be that in a large number of cases the land-holders may have no objection at all to the determination of water rates made by the Tahsildar. If they have no objection then there would be no need to hold any further enquiry into their liability to pay water rate. But, if any land-holder feels aggrieved by the demand made on him, sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides a machinery for determination of the liability of that person after giving him reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why he should not be called upon to pav water rate at the rate determined by the Tahsildar. But, if any land-holder feels aggrieved by the demand made on him, sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides a machinery for determination of the liability of that person after giving him reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why he should not be called upon to pav water rate at the rate determined by the Tahsildar. It is no doubt true that sub-rules (3) and (4) refer to the objections of the land-holder as an appeal to the Aast Commr and to the order passed by him as an appellate order I am of the view that the expressions 'appeal' and 'appellate order' are inapposite in the circumstances of the case because the Rule itself provides that on the land-holder raising an objection to the demand made by the Tnhsildar before the Asst Commr under sub-rule (3) the said demand would become unenforceable and the only amount that the land-holder would have to pay is the water rate determined by the Asst Commr after observing the rule of audi alteram partem at that stage. In view of the foregoing I do not think that there is any substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the tahsildar while determining the water rate under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 has to follow the principle of audi alteram parlem ( 5 ) IN H. Sharanappa Swamy v. State of Karnataka, 1975 (1) Karlj. 208 , in which the facts were similar to the facts in these cases this Court permitted the petitioners therein to raise an objection before the Asst Commr under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 and the Asst Commr was directed to enquire into the liability of the petitioners after condoning the delay. I am of the view that in these cases also a similar order has to be passed. It is open to the petitioners to file their objections under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 before the Asst commr having jurisdiction over the area in question within thirty days from today questioning the correctness of notice of demand served on them. If any of the petitioners accordingly file objections before the Asst Commissioner, he shall after condoning the delay in filing them proceed to enquire into the objections (the appals) in accordance with law. The notices of demand issued by the Tahsildar shall not be enforced against those petitioners who file objections. If any of the petitioners accordingly file objections before the Asst Commissioner, he shall after condoning the delay in filing them proceed to enquire into the objections (the appals) in accordance with law. The notices of demand issued by the Tahsildar shall not be enforced against those petitioners who file objections. Their liability to pay water rate shall be governed by the order to be passed by the Asst Commr in appeal Tf any of the petitioners do not file the objections (the appeals) within thirty days, the Tahsildar shall proceed to recover the amount from them in accordance with the notice of demand served on them on the basis that they have no objection to the said demands. While enquiring into the objections under sub-rule (3)of Rule 4 the Asst Commr shall accord a. personal hearing to all the objectors (appellants) and give them all opportunity to adduce any evidence which they may have in support of their contentions. If the Asst commr feels that it is necessary to inspect the spot he shall do so before disposing of the appeals before him These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Asst Commissioner, savanur. within a week from today. --- *** --- .