LAND REFORMS TENALI DIVISION Vs. VENKATRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arc filed under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1.973, (Hereinafter referred to as the Act); the first one by the Government,and tke second by the declarant against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur, in L.R.A. No. 42/1976. In the C.R P. 1676/1976 filed by the Government, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether o-25 cents in Survey No. 821/4 of Dhoolpudi Village, can be treated as Sland" within the meaning of Section 3(i) of the Act. In the C.R.P. 2002/1976 filed by the declarant, the question that arises for consideration is, whethere an extent of 0-40 cents in survey Nos. 821/6, 821/7-A and 821/7-B or Dhoolpudi village, which is used as a drainage channel, can be treated as "land" within the meaning of section 3(j) of the Act.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader contends that both the lands covered by the tank and the drainage channel are registered as 'wet lands' in the revenue records and land revenue is being paid for the same, that water in the tank and drainage channel is used for agriculture or for purpose ancillary thereto, that the said lands are held under ryotwari settlement and that therefore they should be treated as 'land' and included in the holding of the declarand. Sri G.R. Subbarayan learned counsel for the ptitioner in C.R.P 2002/1976 and the respondent in C.R.P. 1676/1976 on the other hand contends that in both the lands covered by the tank and the drainage channel, actually no agricultural operations are carried on, nor is it possible to carry on any agricultural operations on the said landsunless some aricultural operation is done on theland itself for the land directly used for an agricultural purpose, it would not constitute, 'land' within the definition of section 3(j) of the Act. The learned counsel relies open the decisions of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH OFFICER IN CHARGE, COURT OF WARDS1' and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BENOYKUMAR]2 MEENAKSHAMMA V. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX] in support of his contention. In order to appreeiate this contention, it is necessary to notice the definition of 'land' in section 3 (j) of the Act, which reads as follow;

(3.) In the instant cases what is contended for the Government is that the land is used for purposes ancillary to agriculture viz; the water in the tank is used for drinking purposes of cattle, and the land occupied by the channel isused for drainage purposes which is required for irrigated cultivation and therefore the extents covered by the tank and the drainage channel fall within the purview of the definition of land' in section 3(j) of the Act. On the order hand. Sri G.R.Subbarayan, contends that water in the tank is used only for drinking purpose by cattle and is not used for any agriculture operations or purposes ancillary therefor, that the drainage channel is used for draining off the excess water after crops are irrigated and therefore it cannot be paid that the land, occupied by the tank and the drainage channel are used for agriculture purposes ancillary thereto. The question, where a particular land is used for agriculture or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto, has to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. The evidence in these cases shows that the water in the tank is used mainly for drinking purposes. The Land Reforms Tribunal found on the material on record that the tank was being used for drinking purposes of cattle, and this was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that witer in the tank was also being used for irrigation purposes. But the evidence on record doss not support it and therefore the Tribunals rightly held that the water in the tank was being used solely for drinking purposes of cattle, and I do not find any grounds for interferring with the same in revision. So far as the drainage channel is concerned, it cannot be said that drainage is not a purpose ancillary to agriculture. Drainage is necessary for irrigated cultivation. The land occupied by the channel for drainage purposes can be said to be used for purposes ancillary to agriculture. This is also a finding of fact bised on relevant evidence and do not find any error in the said finding.