NAMMAYYAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader, 1 find that the Revision Petitions raises questions of considerable importance which turn upon the interpretation of the definition of "double crop wet land" in Section 3 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. These questions are likely to arise frequently in a number of cases, and I think that the questions that arise in the Revision Petitions should be decided authoritatively by a Division Bench. Hence, the orders of My Lord the Chief Justice will be obtained for posting before a Division Bench. [This petetion came on for hearing before the Bench Consituted as above] JUDGMENT

(2.) The civil revision petition is filed under section 21 of Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hearinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Civil revision petition in the first instance came f up before out learned brother, Ramachandra Rao, J. On the ground that the questions involved are of considerable importance, he referred the case to a Division Bench. That is how this case came up before us. The petitioner filed his declaration as provided under section 8 of the Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur. The Tribunal found tnat the family unit of the petitioner owns an extent of land equivalent to 0.4025standard holding in excess of the ceiling area and is therefore liable to surrender that land as provided under section 10 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Land Refotms Tribunal that certain lands are double crop wet lands as defined in section 3 (d) of the Act.

(3.) The Land Reforms Tribunal treated the lands relating to S.Nos. 230/2 (0-17 cents) 231/1 (0.86cents) 231/2 (0-47 cents) 231/3 (Ac. 1-54 cents), 239/2 (0-61 cents) 239/3 (0 61 cents). 249/3 (0-93 cents) 249/4 (0 51 cents) 249/5 (0-47 cents) 249/6 (0-47 cents) 249/7 (Ac. 1-30 cents) and 249/8 (0-32 cents) as Double crop wet lands. With regard to these lands the csntention of the petitioner is that they are not included in B Schedule appended to the Draft Rules relating to irrigation of lands under Godavari Western, Eastern and Central Delta as published in the Gazette dated 16th July, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Draft Rules 'so' as to attract the definition of'double crop wet land' as defined under sec. 3 (d) of the Act. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that though the lands in S Nos 477/1(0-96 cents) 477/4 (0-50 cents) 478/1 Ac. 2-80 cents), 486/4 (0-44 cents) and 478/3 (1.18 cents) are included in B Schedule since they are also included in triennial rotation zone of 'A' Schedule appended to the Draft Rules, for the purpose of raising second ctop, water was made available only in those Faslis when there was second crop according to triennial rotation and water was not supplied during the Faslis when there was no second crop and that not only these lands but also all the lands in the neighbourhood did not enjoy every year the facility of water during the second crop season. Therefore they cannot be treated as doable crop wet lands. With regard to the first category of lands mentioned above i. e., Nos. 230/5 etc.. now it is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader that they appear to be in Part II of Schedule C appended to Draft Rules.The learned Government Pleader on perusal of the records is not able to assert that they are included in Schedule B. Therefore, so far as those lands are concerned the matter has to be reinvestigated. It is true that even though they came under Part II of Schedule C, still they will be double crop wet lands within the definition. But the computation will be different as provided in the proviso to Section 5 of the Act for the purpose of arriving at the standard holding. Therefore, it is necessary to find whether the lands are in B Schedule or in Part II of C Schedule or only in A Schedule. With regard to the second group of lands mentioned above comprised in S.No-477/1 etc., admittedly they are in B Schedule. Both the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru have come to the conclusion that since they are included in B Schedule, irrespective of anything else they have necessarily become double crop wet lands whether water was made available in both the first crop and second corp seasons or not.