JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal is directed against the order of the Single Judge dated July 20, 1984 whereby, 277 writ petitions including the writ petition of the present appellant, were dismissed. 2. Before adverting to the two submissions made on behalf of the appellant, some facts may be stated in brief. 3. The petitioner is a landholder, whose agricultural land is situated in the Rajasthan Canal Project Area, the Land Development work of which area, has been entrusted to the Rajasthan Land Development Corporation and in connection with the land Development particularly for construction or inning of pucca water courses and for land shaping loans had been advanced. A special loan amounting to Rs. 7,337/- was sanctioned by the Corporation to the petitioner-appellant vide Anx. R/2. The petitioner's command area measuring 11.86 Bighas was situated in Chak No. 5 LSM. The Special loan was advanced for land shaping. water courses erning and evaluation of fees. The loan was to be paid in equal half yearly instalments of Rs. 368.70. In connection with the recovery of the instalments for a sum of Rs. 1385/- the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) issued a notice to the petitioner-appellant for payment of the same by the 30th of August, 1982, failing which, it was informed that action of dis-continuance of the water supply can be taken. Before issuance of that notice, a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner-appellant in respect of the payment of the amount of second instalment and the previous dues. In that notice also, it was mentioned that in case, the amount and interest thereon is not paid within the specified time, action under Section 30 of the Land Development Corporation Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for discontinuance of the water supply can be taken. Thereafter, another notice (Ex. 3) was issued to the petitioner-appellant by the Regional Manager of the Corporation for payment of sum of Rs. 1585 58 by 30th of June, 1982. The petitioner-appellant challenged the said notices and prayed that Section 30 of the Act may be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution and notices (Ex. 1 to 3) may be quashed. 4. The petitioner's case was refuted by the Corporation. 5. Two contentions were advanced before the learned Single Judge. 6. The petitioner-appellant challenged the said notices and prayed that Section 30 of the Act may be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution and notices (Ex. 1 to 3) may be quashed. 4. The petitioner's case was refuted by the Corporation. 5. Two contentions were advanced before the learned Single Judge. 6. The first contention was that as notice envisaged under Section 18-A of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 was ever served upon the petitioner to construct and/or maintain a water source at his own expenses. He should have been afforded an option to construct a water course at his own expenses and only on his failure to do so, the work should be undertaken and completed by the Divisional Irrigation Officer either himself or through the Agency of the Corporation after notice to the concerned landholder and the cost incurred in doing so could be proportionately distributed amongst the landholders. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that even on the basis of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to construct or improve the water course at his own expenses. 7. The second contention advanced was that the drastic provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act, were void. 8. Both the submissions were negatived by the learned Single Judge. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 9. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. P. Gupta and Mr. D.S. Shishodia, Advocate for the Corporation. 10. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant first submitted that under Section 24 of the Act, the petitioner-appellant should have been called upon to execute the work in his landholding within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority. Unless he is called open to execute the work by the competent authority, the landholder is not liable for the payment of proportionate cost of the work. Before the issue of notice by the Corporation, the petitioner was not called upon by the competent authority to execute the work in his land holding, so, no cost of the work can be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, is absolutely unfounded. 11. Before the issue of notice by the Corporation, the petitioner was not called upon by the competent authority to execute the work in his land holding, so, no cost of the work can be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, is absolutely unfounded. 11. For the proper appreciation and adjudication of the question and for facility of reference, we may reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act:- "2(e) Competent Authority means any authority empowered, under the relevant law, to require execution of works by landholders, or to execute or get the works executed; 2(p). Relevant Law means the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 27 1954), the Rajasthan Soil and Water Conservation Act, 1964 (Rajasthan Act 1 of 1965), the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1954), or any other law relating to land development for the time being in force in the State of Rajasthan, and any rules, notifications and orders made under any of the said enactments or such other law; Sec. 20. Sanction of Projects:-(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, sanction any project, specifying the areas entrusted to the Corporation, and the works to be executed by the Corporation in such areas. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the relevant law, the Corporation shall, in collaboration with the prescribed agency, be the sole authority for execution of works in the areas entrusted to the corporation under sub-section (1) except in cases where landholders execute works in their respective landholdings, within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority. (3) Only such of the provisions contained in the relevant law, as empower the competent authority to execute or to get the works executed, shall cease to apply in relation to the area entrusted to the corporation under sub-section (l) and in particular, nothing herein contained shall affect the exercise of powers and performance of functions by the competent authority in relation to issue of any notices, requisitions and directions by it to landholder for execution of the works. 24. 24. Proportionate cost of works to be provided by landholders:-(1) For the purpose of execution of the works, every landholder, other than those who execute the works in their respective landholdings within the period and in the manner specified by the competent authority, shall pay to the proportionate cost of works on the issue of a notice to him by the corporation. (2) The said notice shall, in addition to such other matters as the corporation may deem necessary, specify: (i) the amount of proportionate cost of works payable by the landholders to the corporation. (ii) the period within which and the place at which the payment is to be made; and (iii) number of instalments, if any, fixed for such payment, and the due date thereof. (3) The notice under this section shall be served upon the landholder in the manner provided in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956). (4) Any dispute relating to a notice shall be adjudicated in an inquiry to be held by the Collector." 12. A perusal of the above provisions would show that under the relevant law, the competent authority may require execution of the works by the landholders or to execute or get the works executed. The competent authority is empowered to do so under the relevant law, which is defined under Section 2 (p). Section 20 (2) and Section 24 (1) makes an exception to those landholdings in cases of which, the competent authority has required the land holders to execute the works in their respective landholdings within the period and in the manner specified by it. It is to such landholdings, the provision of the Act will not apply, as the landholdings have been excepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has not been able to show or place any material before us or before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's landholdings was dealt with by the competent authority and so, his case falls under an exception Section 24 or for that matter, sub-sec. (2) of Section 20 by themselves do not contemplate that the authorities under the Act are required to issue a notice to the landholder for calling upon him to execute the works in the land holding of the landholders. (2) of Section 20 by themselves do not contemplate that the authorities under the Act are required to issue a notice to the landholder for calling upon him to execute the works in the land holding of the landholders. These provisions make a reference to some action to be taken by the landholders, if so required by the competent authority under the relevant law. If such an action has already been taken, then these provisions make an exception to those landholdings, and they, by themselves do not make any provision for calling upon the landholders to execute the works. This aspect of the case has been considered by the learned Single ,Judge. The learned Single Judge dealt with the provision of Section 18-A of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 and before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner failed to show that the provisions of Section 18-A have been made applicable to the areas in which the appellant's land is situated. The learned Single Judge has noted that the petitioner has failed to show that a notification under Section 18-A was issued by the State Government, applying the provisions of that section to the area in which the petitioner's land is situated. Under sub-sec (1) of Section 18-A, it was provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 16, 17 and 18 in any area of which the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette apply the provision of Section 18-A, the Divisional Irrigation Officer may by notice require a person to construct and maintain, or a number of persons jointly to construct and maintain the water course at his own or their expenses. In the absence of any notification under section 18-A, the provision of Section 18-A would not be attracted and so, there may be no occasion for calling upon the landholders to execute the works by the competent authority under the said Act. Therefore, the provision of Section 24, to the extent it makes an exception, has no application and the petitioner was not required to serve with any notice to execute the works by the competent authority. 13. A similar submission was advanced before Sachar, J. in (1) Rawat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1976 R.L.W. 454= A.I.R. 1977 Raj 72) but that submission was rejected. 13. A similar submission was advanced before Sachar, J. in (1) Rawat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1976 R.L.W. 454= A.I.R. 1977 Raj 72) but that submission was rejected. That question again came up for consideration before G. M. Lodha, J. in (2) Gopal Mali v. Rajasthan Land Development Corporation (1982 R. L R. 52) . Learned Judge relied upon the decision in Rawatram's case (supra) and observed that it was not necessary to ask the landholder to execute the work himself. 14. The matter also came up before the Division Bench of this Court in (3) Rajasthan Land Development Corporation v. Kalyan (D. B. Special Appeal (Writs) No. 109 of 1982, decided on May 17, 1984 (Sic 1983), reported in 1984 R. L. R. 378) . An argument was advanced before the Division Bench hat under section 24 (1), there was a provision for giving a notice to every landholder to execute the work himself within a period and in the manner specified by the competent authority and in case, such work is not executed by the landholder himself, then alone he may be asked to pay the proportionate cost of the work. This contention wee overruled. The following passage from the judgment of Sachar, J. was extracted:- x x x x x x x The Division Bench agreed with the above view taken by Sachar, J. and it was held that under Section 24, the competent authority was not mandatorily required to direct the landholder to execute the work himself, even if the competent authority for good, sound and technical reasons in connection with the works, feels that such a work should not be executed by the landholders. If in a particular case the competent authority under the relevant law has not chosen fit to take any action making the landholder to execute any work, the jurisdiction of the corporation is neither suspended nor taken away. 15. We have already expressed that the exception clause contained in sub-sec.(2) of Section 20 and sub-sec. (1) of Section 24 will come into play only where any such direction is given by the competent authority under the relevant law and it has been considered by the learned Single Judge that the occasion of such a direction could not and did not arise as no notification was issued by the State Government under Section 18-A of the Rajasthan Irrigation and Drainage Act. Besides that, we are clearly of the opinion that the provisions of Section 24 (1) do not at all contemplate that before the landholder is called upon to pay proportionate cost, he should be first required to execute the work at his own expenses. The Act has been enacted for execution of the projects relating to the Land Development with a view to preventing damage to the land and loss in the agricultural productivity and to securing optimum utilisation of the land and the water resources in the State of Rajasthan - Under the Scheme of the Act, the Corporation is entrusted to execute the works in the project area and the landholders have to share the costs of the works, which are to be executed by the Corporation. The scheme of executing works under the Act is ultimately for the benefit of the landholder-1, inasmuch as, several works have to be undertaken by the Corporation in the nature of land shapping, linning of water courses etc. whereby maximum development of the land may take place and agricultural productivity may increase. Thus, in our opinion, the first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merit. 16. It is next contended by Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant that the provision of Section 30 of the Act is void being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He urged that the provisions of Sections 29 and 30 are everlapping. The situation contemplated under clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-sec (1) of Section 30 are also covered under Section 29 and no guidelines have been provided as to when the two provisions can be resorted. The recoveries of dues can be effected under Section 29 as well as the power can be exercised arbitrarily by the Authority under Section 30, so, the same is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Mridul submitted that Chapter VIII of the Act contains Section 29. dealing with recoveries of dues payable by landholders to the Corporation and Section 30 under Chapter IX provides for stoppage of water supply for irrigation. Section 30 is a drastic and harsh provision, which provision can be resorted to in an arbitrary and capricious manner by the authority, which is invalid in view of Arc. 14 of the Constitution. Mr. dealing with recoveries of dues payable by landholders to the Corporation and Section 30 under Chapter IX provides for stoppage of water supply for irrigation. Section 30 is a drastic and harsh provision, which provision can be resorted to in an arbitrary and capricious manner by the authority, which is invalid in view of Arc. 14 of the Constitution. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the appellant supported his submission by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in (4) Ram Dayal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1965 S. C. 1518) . 17. Before dealing with the aforesaid contention, we extract the two provisions :Sec. 29. Recoveries from landholders (1) Any sum due and payable by a landholder to the corporation under this Act or under any rules or regulations framed hereunder shall be deemed to be an arrear of land revenue on account of the land for the benefit of which the works have been executed and shall be recoverable as such arrear by any of the methods provided in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956). (2) The regional manager or any other officer of the corporation authorised by the corporation in this behalf shall, under his signature, send a certificate to the Collector, specifying therein the following particulars : (i) the full name and address of the land holder as available with the Corporation; (ii) the particulars of the land holding for the benefit of which the works have been executed by the Corporation and, (iii) the amount due and payable by the land holder to the corporation and the rate at which the additional interest is to be charged on the amount due till its realisation. (3) The certificate issued under sub-sec. (2) shall be conclusive evidence of the amount specified therein as being due and payable by the landholder. (4) On recovery of the amounts in pursuance of a certificate under this section the Collector shall forthwith take all necessary steps for payment thereof to the Corporation. Sec. 30. (3) The certificate issued under sub-sec. (2) shall be conclusive evidence of the amount specified therein as being due and payable by the landholder. (4) On recovery of the amounts in pursuance of a certificate under this section the Collector shall forthwith take all necessary steps for payment thereof to the Corporation. Sec. 30. Stoppage of water supply for Irrigation-(1) If the landholder,-(i) fails to provide funds to the corporation within the period allowed to him for meeting proportionate costs of works; or (ii) has failed to pay more than two consecutive instalments of the proportionate cost of works or of the special loan, as the case may be; or (iii) obstructs the execution of any works; the regional manager may make a request in writing to the Collector for issue of an order to the Divisional Irrigation Officer having jurisdiction over the land holding in question to forthwith discontinue supply of irrigation water to the land holding of such landholder, and the Collector shall issue such order to the Divisional Irrigation Officer concerned. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Raj. Irrigation and Drainage Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act 21 of 1954) the Divisional Irrigation Officer shall carry out the order issued by the Collector under sub sec. (1). (3) If upon an enquiry, after giving both to the corporation and to the land holder an opportunity of being heard, the Collector comes to the conclusion that the requisition made by the regional manager under sub-section (1) was not proper and the consequent stoppage of supply of irrigation water to the land holder had caused loss to the landholder, the Collector may pass an order directing the Corporation to pay to the landholder such amount as the Collector may assess to be reasonable compensation for such loss. (4) If the default or breach is remedied by the landholder to the satisfaction of the regional manager, the Collector shall on receipt of a written intimation from the regional manager in that regard, rescind the order issued by him under sub-section (1) and forthwith issue the necessary instructions to the Divisional Irrigation Officer concerned for resumption of irrigation water supply to the land holding of the landholder." Chapter VIII deals with the Recoveries of dues, payable by the landholders to the Corporation and Chapter IX deals with the preventive action and penalties Any sum payable by the landholder has been made recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the Raj. Land Revenue Act. In connection with such dues, the Regional Manager or any other officer of the Corporation authorised by the Corporation in this behalf is required to send a certificate to the Collector for recovery and that certificate shall be considered conclusive in respect of the dues, which are payable by the landholders. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 30 contemplates three situations, when action can be taken under section 30. The first situation is when the landholder fails to provide funds to the corporation within the period allowed to him for meeting proportionate cost of work. The second situation is when the landholder fails to pay more than two consecutive instalments of the proportionate cost of works or of special loan as the case may be. The third situation is, when the landholder obstructs the execution of any works In any one of these situations, the Regional Manager is empowered to make a request in writing to the Collector for issue of an order to the Divisional Irrigation Officer to forthwith discontinue supply of irrigation water to the landholding of such landholder. On receipt of such writing, the Collector is bound to issue such an order to the Divisional Irrigation Officer concerned. The order so issued by the Collector has to be carried out by the Divisional Irrigation Officer. Under sub-sec. (3) of Section 30, if any request has been wrongly made and an objection is raised against the discontinuance of supply of irrigation water, the Collector is empowered to hold an enquiry and if he comes to the conclusion that the request made by the Regional Manager was not proper, then the Corporation has to pay compensation as ordered by the Collector to the landholder. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (4) of Section 30 provides for rescinding the order passed by the Collector, in case, the default or breach is remedied by the landholder. 18. It is true that for situation Nos. 1 and 2 instead of taking action under Section 30, the Regional Manager may proceed to take action of recovery under Section 29. Simply for that reason, the provision of Section 30, cannot be struck down on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. So far as the situation 3 is concerned, the same undisputably is not covered by Section 29. The other, two situations, in our opinion, are also graver situations. When the landholder completely fails to provide funds to the Corporation or when he fails to pay more than two consecutive instalments, then only Section 30 can be resorted to. Having regard to the gravity of the situations, in our opinion. the legislature has enacted this drastic provision, so as to compel the land holders to make payment by discontinuing supply of irrigation water to the land holding. Ordinarily, the provision of Section 30 will not be invoked by the Regional Manager. If he invokes this provision improperly, then safeguard is provided under sub-sec. (3) and the Corporation can be made to pay loss. It is expected of the Regional Manager, who is a high authority, to invoke Section 30 only in an appropriate cases. Under Section 22 of the Act, the Corporation is empowered to appoint Regional Managers for project areas and each such Regional Manager shall be incharge of such project areas as may be allocated by the Corporation and shall work under the control and supervision of the managing director of the Corporation. Being in-charge of the project area, he is required to act fairly and impartially and to invoke powers under Section 30 of the Act only in the proper a cases, where the situations as contemplated under section 30 exist. Section 29 can be resorted to in the situations other than those which are contemplated in Section 30 and ever, for situations 1 and 2 under Section 30 it is open to him to proceed under Section 29 of the Act and simply effect the recoveries of the dues as arrears of land revenue. We may here refer to the provision contained in sub-sec. We may here refer to the provision contained in sub-sec. (3) of Section 32, which provides for wilful neglect or remission, on the part of the officers. They can be punished with a fine, which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-. Thus, looking to the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Section 30 and sub-sec. (3) of Section 32, powers under Section 30 will be exercised by the Regional Manager only in appropriate cases else the Corporation and the Manager runs the risk. 19. In the case in hand, it cannot be said that power had been wrongly exercised. No action has been taken so far under Section 30 against the petitioner. Sort of warning alone has been given to the petitioner. A situation has arisen in the present case, where the power under Section 39 can legitimately be invoked and exercised but before exercising the same, an opportunity has been given by the Regional Manager to the appellant to make payment. In our opinion, as considered above, neither arbitrary power has been conferred by law on the Regional Manager nor the same can be said as being arbitrarily exercised. 20. The learned Single Judge, while dealing with the second contention has considered the decision in Ramdayal's case (supra) and has distinguished the same. He has also considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chhagan Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ( AIR 1974 SC 2009 ) . Pendia Nadar and others v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1974 SC 2044 ) , Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Ramanlal Govindram ( AIR 1975 SC 1187 ) , Ram Sarup v. Union of India ( AIR 1965 SC 247 ) , Commissioner of Sales-tax, M P. v. Radba Krishan and others ( AIR 1979 SC 1588 ) , Ram Narayan Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. (1983 (4) SC) 276) , and R. Vishwan and others v. Union of India ( 1983 (3) SCC 401 ) . 21. In Ram Dayal's case (supra), there were two provisions in the Punjab Municipalities Act conferring powers of removal of a Member in the public interest. (1983 (4) SC) 276) , and R. Vishwan and others v. Union of India ( 1983 (3) SCC 401 ) . 21. In Ram Dayal's case (supra), there were two provisions in the Punjab Municipalities Act conferring powers of removal of a Member in the public interest. Under Section 16 (1), removal could be done for the reasons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) and it also provided for an opportunity of hearing and Section 14 (e) also provided for removal of a Member in the public interest without making any hearing. Thus. Section 14 (e), which was entirely covered by Section 16 (1) was more drastic than Section 15 (1). It was observed that for the same reasons, the State Government may take action under Section 16 (1) in which lie gives notice to the member concerned and takes his explanation. On the other hand. it has chosen to take action under Section 14 (a), in which case, it need not give any notice. It was held that it was discriminatory and, therefore, this part of Section 14 (a) was struck down as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case, action under Section 30 can be token in the special circumstances, which appear to be serious and grave and which shows continued neglect on the part of the landholder or when his attitude is recalcitrant or obstructive, in which case, the Regional Manager is expected to act reasonably, fairly, impartially and uniformly without any discrimination as he is incharge of the project area. In other cases, discussed to by the learned Single Judge conferment of power on a higher officer, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 22. In M. Chhaganlal's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act. Their Lordships held that the provisions are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of two procedures; one is onerous and harsh than the other. It was held that mere availability of two procedures will not vitiate one of them that is the special procedure. It was observed as under:X X X X X X X 23. In Commissioner of Sales-tax. M. P. v. Radha Krishan and others (supra) different procedures were prescribed for collection of sales-tax. It was held that mere availability of two procedures will not vitiate one of them that is the special procedure. It was observed as under:X X X X X X X 23. In Commissioner of Sales-tax. M. P. v. Radha Krishan and others (supra) different procedures were prescribed for collection of sales-tax. After considering the case-law, their Lordships observed as under:-X X X X X X X 24. In Smt. Vidyawanti Devi Jain & others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. (1981 (2)SCC 457) , the provisions of sales-tax recovery were challenged on the ground of arbitrariness. It was held as under:X X X X X X X 25. In Ram Narayan Agarwal's case (supra), the provisions of recovery of sales-tax arrears by arrest and detention were challenged, which were held valid and constitutional It was observed as under:X X X X X X X 26. The learned Judge after considering the principles enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under-X X X X X X X 27. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is in accord and in conformity with the principles and law, enunciated by the Supreme Court and we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 28. No other point has been pressed before us. 29. In the result, this special appeal has no force, so, it is hereby dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******