STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KARRI MAGIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The C. R. P. has arisen out of a declaration filed by the respondent under S. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural) Act 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) There was a controversy between the Government and the respondent with regard to certain items of land, which according to the respondent, they are single crop Wet Lands and which according to the Government, they are double crop Wet Lands. The controversy was with regard to items comprised in S. Nos. 3/2, 104 and 571 of Pasalapudi Village in East Godavari District. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Rajahmundry before whom the declaration was filed, found that all the three items are double crop wet-lands. In the appeal filed by the declarant the Land Reforms Appellant Tribunal, Rajahmundry came to the conclusion that the items relating to S. Nos. 3/2 and 104 are not double crop wet-lands and they should be treated as single crop wet-lands while holding that the item relating to S. No. 571 is double crop wet-land. With regard to the finding that the item relating to S. No. 571 is double crop wet-land, there is no revision filed to this court by the declarant. It is only the Government that has filed this revision questioning the correctness of the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the items relating to S. Nos. 3/2 and 104 are single crop wet-Lands.

(3.) It is not in dispute that both S. Nos. 3/2 and 104 are included in Schedule B as well as in Schedule A rotation zone and in all the six relevant faslis, 1378 to 1383 paddy crop was raised both in the first crop and second crop seasons. It is the case of the Government that since the lands are included in B Schedule they became double crop wet lands as per the definition given to it under S. 3 (d) of the Act, while according to the declarant, since no second crop was raised in the lands in any of the four faslis out of the six faslis with the aid of the water from the Government source of supply, they cannot be treated as double crop wet lands having regard to proviso (a) which finds a place in the definition of double crop wet land under S. 3 (d) of the Act.