MANTHENA GOPALARAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The extent of the land held by the declarant was determined as 1-3977 standard holding of put which an extent of Ac. 3.61 cents which was held on lease by him was excluded and the surplus to be surrendered by the declarant was determined as O.1304 standard holding. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, contending that all the lands excepting Survey Nos. 79/3 and 31, are wrongly treated as double crop wet lands by the Land Reforms Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that the classification in respect of Survey Nos. 31/79/3 and 77/1 was proper. With regard to Survey Nos. 42/1, 82/2, 76J2, 79/6, 88/7,117 and 110/1, it was contended that in some of the relevant faslis, gingelly crop was raised as a second crop and that gingelly crop is not an irrigated crop and that water from the Government source of irrigation was not utilised for raising the gingelly crop. The Appellate Tribunal held as follows in respect of the following survey numbers:

(2.) IN this revision petition, it is contended by Sri Poornaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that gingelly crop is not an irrigated crop and that it does not require water and that actually the crop is grown with moisture content retained in the soil after paddy crop was harvested. IN support of this contention, he relies upon Manual of Madras Administration by Meclean, 1893, Vol. III at page 310 where it was stated as follows: