STATE OF A P Vs. GOGINENI BRAHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of Civil Revision Petitions filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh respresented by the District Collector, Guntur under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, thereinafter called the Act), it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that, the lands covered by the declarations in resp-ct of the lands situated in Guntur, Mutluru, Kovelamudi, Uppalapadu, Takkallapadu, Jupudi, Thurlapadu' Kollimerela. Batpatla, Peddakakani, Pathareddipalem, Agarthavarappadu,Tenali, Kollakalur, Namburu, Sekuru, Brahmanakoduru, Eluru and Vijayarai in Guntur District should be treated as delta lands and not uplands. The Land Reforms Tribunal treated the lands as 'delta' whereas the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal held that they should be treated as 'upland'. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal relied upon the re-settlement particulars of 1904-1905 furnished by the Guntur District Gazette of the year 1935. On the basis of the particulars gathered from the said gazette, the Appellate Tribunal observed as follows -

(2.) The learned Government Pleader did not challenge the correctness of the aforesaid statement contained in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It was contended before the Appellate Tribunal that only the area which was irrigated by the Krishna River was treated as delta in 1904-1905; and as the waters from the Krishna river are being supplied for irrigation of several other lands by the date of the notification, the a fore said lands should be treated as delta for purposes of application of the ceiling limit. But the Tribunal held that in order to determine whether a particular land is delta or upland, the tract and the group as mentioned in the schedule to the Act should be taken into consideration and not the supply of water for irrigation from the Krishn ; River. The learned Government Pleader challenges this view ta en by the Tribunal and contends that the original settlement only a small area was treated as delta because only the said lands were being irrigated by the Krishna River and now that due to development of projects the waters are being supplied from the Krishna River to other lands, they should also be treated as delta and that in view of the conversion of the lands into wet, and also the improvements effected on account of the supply of water from the River Krishna and in view of the increase of the value of the lands irrigated by the Krishna waters they should be treated as 'delta.'

(3.) There is no dispute now about the taram or whether the lands in question are wet or dry. The only question is whether the lands should be treated as delta or upland. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to refer to the first schedule to the Act which deals with classification of the land. Item-1 reads "Wet lands bearing the tarams or bhagannas in each of the settlement tracts or groups, as the case may be shall be classified into respective classes, A, B, C, D, E, and F, as shown in the fable below:-