K RAMA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises for consideration in this revision petition filed by the declarant against the judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in L.R.A. No. 326 of 1976 is whether the "Pot Kharab" land is "Land" within the meaning of Sec. 3 (j) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the -'Act" and could be computed in the "holding" of the declarant.

(2.) Before the Land Reforms Tribunal, petitioner declarant claimed that an extent of 6 1/2 acres of the land of which he is the ''Pattadar" comprises of "pot Kharab" land and that the same should be deducted from the holding. He further specifically pleaded that an irrigation channel runs through S. Nos. 302, 307, and 300 and the area covered by this channel is Ac. 2-00. These channels were formed by the Government about 20 years ago for the purpose of supplying water to other fields. This land also has to be excluded in computing the extent of the "Land" held by the declarant as it was no longer cultivable. The verification officer submitted his report including the said extent in the holding of the petitioner. Both the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal held that 'Pot Kharab' Lands cannot be excluded in computing the holding of the declarant. The appellate tribunal observed that "the definition of ' Land" occurring in Sec. 3 (j) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 includes waste land, and by no stretch of imagination could it be said that "Pot Kharab" land will never be capable of being cultivated. At any rate the Act does not exclude "Pot Kharab" from the definition of land for determination of the holding.

(3.) In this revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pratap Reddy, contends that by its very nature ''Pot Kharab" Land and land actually covered by irrigation channels cannot be deemed to be "Land" within the meaning of Sec. 3 (j) of the Act. Such land is neither actually cultivated nor is capable of cultivation and as such is excluded from the definition of "Land" under Sec. 3 (j) of the Act and consequently cannot be included in the holding of the declarant. He further contends that once it is shown that in the revenue accounts a particular extent in a survey number is recorded as "Pot Kharab", the presumption that such land is used for is capable of being used for agriculture or other purposes ancillary to agriculture is effectually rebutted and that extent must be excluded from the petitioner's holding.