KONDRAGUNTA KOTAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions that arise for consideration in this revision petition directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Guntur in L.R.A.No. 78/1975 are; "(1) Whether the extent of Ac. 10-77 cents covered by S.Nos. 140-A, 140-B, and 140-C, which are registered as dry lands in the "Revenue Account" should be treated as wet lands for the reason that they are included in the ayacut of the Nagarjunasagar. (2) Whether an extent of Ac, 8-40 cents covered by the agreements of sale Exs. A.4 and A-8 respectively, dated 7-1-1976 and 12-3-1976, should be included in computing the holding of the declarant. On the first question, the Original Tribunal did not give any specific finding. But the Appellate Tribunal held that since the lands are included in the ayacut, they must be treated as wet lands. On the second question the Original Tribunal heldthat since the agreements of sale are not registered, the said extents cannot be excluded. The Appellate Tribunal, thought it is unnecessary to go into the question of genuineness of the transactions evidenced by Exs. P.4 and P.8 on the assumption that since the transactions are not covered by registered documents, the extents covered by the said documents any how have to be included in the holding of the declarant.

(2.) It is admitted that the lands bearing S.Nos. 140-A, 140-B and 140-C measuring Ac. 10-77 cents in all are registered as 'dry' in the -Revenue Accounts'. It is also the admitted case of both the parties that these survey numbers are included in the ayacut of Nagaarjunasagar, but even upto the notified date they have not been supplied with water and no irrigated crop has been raised with the use of the water from the Government source of irrigation. It is however, contended by the learned Govt. Pleader that in view of the definition of the 'wet land' under section 3 (v) although these lands are not registered as wet, since they are included in the ayacut of a Government source of irrigation, they would be deemed to be wet lands.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary toread the definition of 'dry land' and 'wet land' under the Act. Sec- tion 3(e) defines 'dry land' as under,-