JUDGMENT V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner and cultivator of paddy land 3 acres in extent in Muppayikkadu Padasekharam. In this Padasekharam one crop alone used to be raised as the land used to be inundated by monsoon water. The 2nd respondent, Kerala Land Development Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation) came forward with a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited (Special Powers) Act, 1974 (Act 5 of 1974) (the Act), to which the owners of the land also agreed for putting up a bund to enable the raising of a second crop in that Padasekharam. Though the construction of the bund is stated to have been completed early in 1979, the second crop as envisaged could not be raised as the monsoon water flowed over the bund and there was also breach of the bund. The result was that the Kanni crop attempted to be raised was completely destroyed. The 5th respondent, the Revenue Officer of the Corporation, however, without taking these circumstances into account, demanded contribution from the cultivators. They submitted a representation, a copy of which is Ext. P-1, dated 10th February 1979. Though a further representation Ext. P-2 was submitted by the petitioner himself on 28th August 1979 highlighting the problems, it did not yield the desired result. On the other hand, the petitioner received a demand notice, a true copy of which is Ext. P3. In Ext. P3 it is seen stated that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1877.55 which comprises of the annual instalment of Rs. 639.84 and the interest of Rs. 1237.71. Aggrieved by Ext. P-3 demand notice the petitioner submitted an appeal to the 4th respondent, the District Collector of Kottayam, who made it over to the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who by virtue of the provisions contained in S.16 of the Act is competent to consider and dispose of the appeal. Ext. P4 is the copy of the order by which the 3rd respondent disposed of the appeal. The operative portion of Ext. P4 order, contained in the concluding paragraph reads as follows:- "I understand that the appellant has a feeling and belief that the present bund cannot be relied upon to raise two crops as proposed by the KLDC. Ext. P4 is the copy of the order by which the 3rd respondent disposed of the appeal. The operative portion of Ext. P4 order, contained in the concluding paragraph reads as follows:- "I understand that the appellant has a feeling and belief that the present bund cannot be relied upon to raise two crops as proposed by the KLDC. Therefore, the question whether the present height of the bund has to be raised for preventing loss of crops from flood in the Muppaikkadu Padasekharam in rainy season may be examined from the technical point of view by the Kerala Land Development Corporation and if found necessary, it may be done under the rules in force in the matter." 2. This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of Ext. P3 demand notice and for incidental reliefs. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner did not benefit from the bund erected, he would not be liable to pay the contribution towards the expenditure incurred in the execution of the work under the scheme, as his liability is restricted to cases where he has benefited from that work. According to him, as the crop raised early in 1979 was practically washed off, the avowed object of the bund did not materialise and, therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner had benefited from the erection of the bund. In support of his argument he relied on the expression "and has benefited his land" used in S.10(1) of the Act which reads as follows:- "(1) Every owner of land included in the scheme shall pay the cost or part of the cost, as the case may be, of the work which under the scheme is carried out by the Corporation and has benefited his land." I for one cannot agree with this reasoning advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. The real test is whether the execution of the work by the Corporation in exercise of the power under S.9 of the Act is in due compliance with the procedure prescribed under S.3 to 8 of the Act, and in that scheme the land owned by the petitioner was also included. The real test is whether the execution of the work by the Corporation in exercise of the power under S.9 of the Act is in due compliance with the procedure prescribed under S.3 to 8 of the Act, and in that scheme the land owned by the petitioner was also included. If the execution of the work was in compliance with the provisions contained in S.3 to 8 by virtue of the authority under S.9, the petitioner who is the owner of a portion of the land covered by the scheme could not disown his liability putting forward the plea that immediately after the work was completed or at any later point of time he did not derive any benefit. As long as the execution of the work is without the violation of the provisions contained in S.3 to 8 of the Act the petitioner cannot wriggle out from his liability putting forward such a plea. For satisfying the requirements of S.10(1) of the Act, in my view, it would be sufficient that work was executed under the scheme for the benefit of the land, and whether the owner benefited in a particular year or at a particular point of time is immaterial. The expression "and has benefited his land" has to be read and understood in this way; otherwise the object of the legislation is likely to get defeated. 3. The petitioner's grievance, however, that he has been called upon to pay the instalment of the cost without the bund being erected in accordance with the estimate and the specification requires consideration. Both in Exts. P-1 and P-2 this point is seen to have been highlighted. In Ext. P-4 order the 3rd respondent appellate authority, while giving expression to this feeling of the petitioner, has not categorically stated whether the petitioner was or was not liable to pay the amount mentioned in Ext. P-3 demand notice. 4. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that after Ext. P-4 order defects pointed out have been cured. There is no material on record to ascertain this. Assuming that the defects have been cared after the passing of Ext. P-4 order, dated 9th December 1980, the further question whether, in the light of that fact, the petitioner could be asked to pay the instalment for the year 1979 remains to be without being decided. I would, therefore, think that Ext. Assuming that the defects have been cared after the passing of Ext. P-4 order, dated 9th December 1980, the further question whether, in the light of that fact, the petitioner could be asked to pay the instalment for the year 1979 remains to be without being decided. I would, therefore, think that Ext. P-3 demand notice deserves to be quashed. Accordingly I allow the writ petition quashing Ext. P-3 notice, however, without any order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.