Prospective rate revision in irrigation restoration charges cannot apply to earlier water allocations under the governing policy regime.

Irrigation restoration charges were held to depend on the date of water reservation or allocation, not on the later execution of a detailed agreement. The governing policy and circulars showed that the recoverable charge reflected expenditure already incurred for irrigation infrastructure, so a circular enhancing the maximum rate prospectively from 01.04.2009 could not apply to a reservation finalized on 12.12.2007. The later agreement and undertaking remained subordinate to the earlier allocation regime, and the representation did not create a fresh dispute on area. The revised rate was therefore inapplicable, and charges had to be levied at the earlier rate with interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revised irrigation restoration charges fixed prospectively from 01.04.2009 could be applied to the petitioner's water allocation finalized earlier, and whether the respondents were bound to levy irrigation restoration charges at the earlier rate.

Analysis: The governing policy and circulars showed that irrigation restoration charges were linked to the date of water allocation or reservation, not the later date of execution of the detailed agreement. The scheme contemplated that the cost recoverable depended on the expenditure already incurred or foregone for irrigation infrastructure as on the date the water was reserved for non-irrigation use. The later circular enhancing the maximum rate to Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare operated prospectively from 01.04.2009 and could not govern a reservation finalized on 12.12.2007. The agreement and undertaking executed later were treated as subordinate to the pending representation and the earlier allocation regime. The Court also held that the petitioner's representation did not itself create a fresh dispute on area, since the area had not been disputed in the representation and the subsequent revision in irrigation potential could not enlarge the petitioner's burden.

Conclusion: The revised rate of Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare was inapplicable to the petitioner, and the respondents were required to levy irrigation restoration charges at Rs. 50,000 per hectare with interest as directed.

---