M JANARDHAN REDDY Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR ADILABAD DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

(2.) Aggrieved by the demand of the 2nd respondent Mandal Revenue Officer demanding wet land revenue for the lands possessed and cultivated by the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The petitioners herein are the joint owners of the lands admeasuring Ac.34-38 guntas in S. Nos.45/2, 69, 70 to 74 and 78 of Jogapur village, Nennal Mandal, Adilabad district. They were cultivating these lands by erecting a cross-bund to a spring channel that was passing besides their lands. These lands were being treated as dry lands by the Revenue authorities and the petitioners were paying land revenue accordingly. However, during the year 1971-72, when the Tahsildar, Chennur sought to collect wet land revenue for these lands, the petitioners approached the Jama Bandi Officer. The Jama Bandi Officer, on a consideration of the material on record, held that the petitioner need not pay wet land revenue and directed collection of only dry land revenue. Thereafter, only dry land revenue was collected from the petitioners. However, the Tahsildar, Chennur issued a show-cause notice on 22-7-1980 calling upon the petitioners as to why the lands should not be treated as wet lands and wet land revenue should not be collected. The petitioners then submitted their explanation on 12-8-1980 explaining as to why wet land revenue cannot be collected. After considering the explanation and also after conducting personal inspection, the Tahsildar, Chennur passed orders on 21-2-1981 under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Enhancement) Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') holding that the cross-bound across the channel was constructed by their own cost. He accordingly declared that the lands in question are dry lands under Section 4(1) of the Act. Thereafter, only dry land revenue was being collected. But, surprisingly, on 5-1-1989, the 2nd respondent has again demanded wet land revenue. That demand is now under challenge in this writ petition.