PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the appellant who was the petitioner and is directed against the order dt. 2-9-1974 of venkataramaiah, J. (as he then was) dis posing of his W. P. No. 793 of 1973 which is since reported as 1975 (1) karnataka Law Journal 208. ( 2 ) AMONG others, the appellant who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives was the owner of lands bearing Sy. Nos. 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25 and 86 of K. Hunasavalli Village, Kerehalli hobli, Hosanagar Taluk, Shiinoga district classified as wet or garden as the case may ' be. On the said lands land revenue assessment was levied and collected under the Mysore Land revenue Code, 1888 (Mysore Act IV of 1888) ('the Code') till that code was in force in the old Mysore area. Land revenue fixed for the lands under the code also included the water rate payable to Government for supply oi water from an irrigation work maintained by Government. ( 3 ) THE uniform Karnataka Irrigation (Levy of Betterment Contribution and Water Rate) Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1957 ('the Act') enacted by the new State to regulate the levy of betterment contribution and water rate in the State, came into force on 31-10-1957 replacing the corresponding provisions in the Code and other laws that were in force in the other integrating areas Of the State. ( 4 ) WE will notice only those provisions that relate to levy of water rate under the Act with which alone we are concerned in this case. ( 5 ) S. 2 (e) of the Act exhaustively defines the term 'irrigation work'. S. 10 of the Act authorises the levy of water rate for the supply of water from irrigation works in accordance with the rates to be fixed by Government in accordance with the Rules made thereto under the Act. For the said purpose, government framed the Karnataka irrigation (Levy of Water Rates) rules, 1965 ('the Rules') which came into force from 1-7. 1965. The Rules regulated the levy of water rates from irrigation works in the State, their determination and collection. Rule 3 of the Rules regulated the levy of water rate for different classes of lands in the State. ( 6 ) IN W. P. Nos. 1965. The Rules regulated the levy of water rates from irrigation works in the State, their determination and collection. Rule 3 of the Rules regulated the levy of water rate for different classes of lands in the State. ( 6 ) IN W. P. Nos. 2333 of 1970 and connected cases (Achutharao v. State of Karnataka and Ors.) the petitioner and several others, challenged the vires of S. 10 of the Act and the Rules under Art. 226 of the Constitution. On 9-2-1971 a Division Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and struck down II. 3 of the Rules as violative of Art 14 of the Constitution, which however did not prevent Government from framing a fresh Rule on the same topic. In that view. Government framed the Mysore Irrigation (Levy of water Rates) (Amendment) (Rules, 1971 ('new Rule') on 33-7-1971 expressly giving it retrospective effect from 1. 7-1965. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the new rule and the purported compliance of the rules, the Tahsildar, Hosanagar ('tahsildar') issued a demand notice to the petitioner on 9-10-1972 (Exhi- bit-B) calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,522-55 as arrears of water rate on the aforesaid lands for a period of 7 years from 1965-66 to 1971-72. In w. P. No. 793 of 1973 the petitioner again challenged the new Rule and the said demand notice issued by the Tahsildar. A few other lands owners of the District had also challenged the new Rule and similar demand notice received by them. On 2. 9-1974 Venkataramiah, j. (as he then was) disposed of all those writ petitions by a common order, in which His Lordship upheld the validity of R. 3 but reserved liberty to the petitioners to file appeals against the demand notices before the assistant Commissioner of the area ('ac') to be disposed of on merits. Without availing the liberty reserved to him, the appellant has filed this appeal reiterating the very contentions urged by him before the learned Judge. ( 8 ) SRI. T. S. Ramachandra, leaned counsel or the appellant contends that the reasoning and conclusion of tin. ' learned Judge ior upholding the new r. 3 of the Rules, was erroneous and that Rule was violative of Art. 11 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) SRI. ( 8 ) SRI. T. S. Ramachandra, leaned counsel or the appellant contends that the reasoning and conclusion of tin. ' learned Judge ior upholding the new r. 3 of the Rules, was erroneous and that Rule was violative of Art. 11 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) SRI. S. Rajendra Babu, learned government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the order of the learned Judge. ( 10 ) WE may at this stage read the new rule which reads thus:"3. Levy of water rates for the use of water from irrigation works: (1) in respect of water supplied made available or used from an irrigation work for growing the crops specified in Column (2) of the table below, water Rates at the rate specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof shall, in respect of each such crop grown, be levied:this rule fixes rates with reference to the nature of crops grown on lands. The rates have been fixed with due regard to whether the crop grown like sugarcane was a commercial crop or not and the use of water thereto for the same. ( 11 ) IN examining the validity of the Rule, the learned Judge has kept before him, the correct legal principles and has found that the same was not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. We are of the view that the reasoning and conclusion of the- learned Judge to sustain the validity of the impugned rule is unexceptionable. ( 12 ) THE water rates fixed by government in the Rule is really in the nature of a tax and the measure is really a taxation measure. When we so examine the Rule, as that should be, on the princpiles stated by Hidayatul- lah, CJ. speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court in The Twyford tea Company Limited and Anr. v. The state of Kerala and Anr. (AIR 1970 S. C. 1133), there is hardly any ground for this Court to hold that the new Rule is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. From this it follows that there is no merit in this contention of Sri. Ra- machandra and we reject the same. ( 13 ) SRI. v. The state of Kerala and Anr. (AIR 1970 S. C. 1133), there is hardly any ground for this Court to hold that the new Rule is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. From this it follows that there is no merit in this contention of Sri. Ra- machandra and we reject the same. ( 13 ) SRI. Ramachandra next contends that even if the new Rule was upheld, then also the findings of the learned Judge upholding the recoveries for periods prior to the determination made by the Tahsildar and the issue of notice of demand by him thereto was erroneous. In support of his contention Sri, Ramachandra strongly relies on the ruling of the Supreme court in City Municipal Council, Mangalore v. Frederick Pais Etc. , (AIR 1970 S. C. 417 ). ( 14 ) SRI. Babu contends that when once the levy is fixed in the Rules from 1-7-1965, the determination and recovery must be in conformity with the same and not inconf ormity with the earlier rates, if any, prevailing in the area. ( 15 ) WE have carefully read the reasoning and conclusions of the learned Judge on this aspect. Before us this contention has been projected and. developed by both sides in a slightly different manner. We, therefore, consider it proper to independently examine the same. ( 16 ) EARLIER, we have noticed that the new Rules have come into force from 1-7. 1965. ( 17 ) S. 11 (3) of the Act empowers government to make a rule retrospectively in exercise of which Government had given retrospective effect to the new Rule from 1-7-1965. Sri. Ramachandra does not dispute the power of government to give retrospectivity to the new Rule. ( 18 ) EVEN the very heading of the new Rule which gives a clue to its understanding, states that what is done is levy of water rates for use of water from irrigation works in the State. In clear and express terms, the new Rule levies or fixes Water Rates in the State under the Act from 1-7-1965. ( 19 ) THE term levy is not a term of art that carries one and only meaning in every context but has different meanings in different contexts. In taxation measure 'levy' is generally understood as the 'levy', charge or rate fixed by the competent legislative authority. ( 19 ) THE term levy is not a term of art that carries one and only meaning in every context but has different meanings in different contexts. In taxation measure 'levy' is generally understood as the 'levy', charge or rate fixed by the competent legislative authority. On this aspect Lord Dunedin in Whitney v. Commissioner of Inland revenue (1926) 10 Tax Gas. 88 at 110) speaking for the House of Lords has very neatly and tersely explained thus-:"my Lords, I shall now permit myself a general observation. Once that it is fixed that there is liability it is antecedently highly improbable that the statute should not go on to make that liability effective. A statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. Now, there are three stages in the imposition of a tax; there is the declaration of liability, that is the part of the statute which determines what person in respect of what property are liable. Next, there is the assessment. Liability does not depend on assessment. That ex hypothesi, has already been fixed. But, assessment particularises the exact sum which a person liable has to pay. Lastly, come the methods of. recovery, if the person taxed does not voluntarily pay. "if one examines the new Rule in the pontext, scheme and object of the Act, as that should be, it is crystal clear that the same levies or fixes water rates in the State from 1-7-1965. Whatever be the action or inaction of the authorities functioning under the Act and the rules, the legal effect of the new Rule is that there is a levy made under the act in the State from 1-7-1965. When once there is a levy under the Act from 1-7-1965, it is that levy that holds the field from that date and not the earlier levies under the previous laws that were in force in the several integrating areas of the State. From this it follows that the 2nd proviso to S. 12 of the Act does not really help the appellant. ( 20 ) WHAT the Tahsildar or the other competent authority does under r. 4 of the Rules is only the determination, assessment or quantification and no more. From this it follows that the 2nd proviso to S. 12 of the Act does not really help the appellant. ( 20 ) WHAT the Tahsildar or the other competent authority does under r. 4 of the Rules is only the determination, assessment or quantification and no more. The power exercised under r. 4 of the Rules is entirely different to the power conferred and exercised by Government under the Act in levying or fixing the water rates under the Act. In this view, no reliance can be placed on R. 4 of the Rules. ( 21 ) IN Frederick Pais's case the court was examining the validity of a demand made by the Municipal council without imposition oi levy under the relevant law for the relevant period. But, that is not the position in the present case. Hence, the ratio in frederick Pais's case, does not really bear on the point. ( 22 ) ON the above discussion, we hold that water rate levied or fired from 1-7-1965 under the new Rule can be determined or assessed by the authority under the Act and then recovered in accordance with law. From this it follows that the conclusion of the learned Judge on this aspect does not call for our interference though not for the very reasons given by His lordship but for the reasons given by us. ( 23 ) ON the contention of the petitioner, that the Tahsijdar before determining the water rate due by him. should have afforded him an opportunity of hearing, the learned Judge had expressed that such an opportunity can be provided by the AC. if he were to file an appeal under R. 4 of the rules. Under R. 4, if the determination made by the Tahsildar is objected to by the land owner in an appeal, then the AC is required to hold an inquiry and provide an opportunity of hearing to the land owner and then determine all questions of fact and law that arise in such an appeal. We are of the view that this conclusion of the learned judge is in accord with the Rules and the requirements of the principles of natural justice that provide for a post decisional hearing and the same does not call for our interference. We are of the view that this conclusion of the learned judge is in accord with the Rules and the requirements of the principles of natural justice that provide for a post decisional hearing and the same does not call for our interference. ( 24 ) WHILE pursuing this appeal before this Court, the appellant had not availed the concession extended to him by the learned Judge and has not filed an appeal before the AC. For various reasons with which we are not concerned, this appeal, some what respectfully, has not been heard and decided for over ten years. But. the long pendency of this appeal itself cannot affect the interests of the petitioner. Sri. Babu in our opinion, very rightly states that if PP appeal is filed by the petitioner within 30 days from this day the AC will deal with the same on merits. ( 25 ) IN the light of onr above discussion, we dismiss this appeal. But, we however, declare that it is open to the appellant to file an appeal against the notice dated 9-10-1972 (Exhibit-B) of the Tahsildar before the Assistant commissioner, Sagar, within 30 days from this day and if such an appeal is filed before him, within that time, then that authority is directed to dispose of the said appeal on merits in accordance with law and the observations made by us and the learned judge on that aspect. ( 26 ) WRIT Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 27 ) LET this order be communicated to the respondents and also the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division, Sagar, Shimoga District within 15 days from this day. --- *** --- .