LAWS(APH)-1980-1-2

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KOVVURI PAPAREDDY

Decided On January 23, 1980
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant
V/S
KOVVURI PAPAREDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of a reference wherein a common point is involved, and that is; whether the lands which have been registered as wet and included in the B-Schedule of the localisation G.O.. have to be classified as double crop wet lands or single crop wet lands, when the second crop has been raised from the private source of water and not from the authorised source of water, within the meaning of Section 3 (d) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, herein after referred to as 'the Act': and whether the onus is on the landholder or the Government to establish that private source of water was resorted to because of non-availability or non-supply of water from the authorised source.

(2.) The Chief contention of the learned Government Pleader is that once lands are included in the B-Schedule of the localisation G.O., and registered as 'wet', they have to be treated as 'double crop wet lands' unless it is established by evidence to be let in by the landholder that second crop was not raised or even if it is raised from the private source of water, it was because of non-availability or non-supply of water from the authorised source. It is also contended that the moment it is shown that the lands are included in the B-Schedule and registered as wet, they are entitled, as a matter of right, to water for raising second crop unlike the lands which are though included in the B-Schedule but registered as 'dry'. If that is so, such lands will have to be classified as 'double crop wet lands and, if private source of water has been used, then the burden is on the landholder to prove that water was not available in the authorised source. For this, reliance is placed on the decision in The State of A P. vs. K.V.V.V. S.L. Sakuntala (1) 1977-11, A.P.L.J. 194, wherein our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J observed,

(3.) The case chiefly turns upon the construction of relevant provision pertaining to double crop wet land, enacted in Section 3(d), which may be noticed by extraction; "(d) 'double crop wet land' means any wet land registered as double crop or compounded double crop wet land in the land revenue accounts of the Government and includes any wet land not so registered,------ (i) for which in accordance with any scheme of localisation being adopted under any Government source of irrigation water is available in both the first and second crop seasons during a fash year including the lands covered by Schedule B and Part-lf of Schedule C appended to the draft rules for the irrigation of lands in the Godavar, Western, Eastern and Central deltas published in the Rules supplement to part-11 Extraordinary of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated the 16th July, 1962; xx xx xx xx Provided that------ (a) any land entitled to the supply of water from a Government source of irrigation and on which two irrigated crops per fasli year have or a duffassal crop has, not been raised with the use of water from such source, in any four fasli years within a continuous period of six fasli years immediately before the specified date, for want of supply of water from such source