STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. VEGULLA JANAKIRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After bearing the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, I find that the Revision Petition raise 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 te decided authoritatively by a Division Bench. Hence, the orders of My Lord the Chief Justice will be obtained for posting before a Division Bench. Pursuant to the above order the petition came on for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Ramachandra Raju and Madhava Rao, JJ. The Government Pleader for G.A.D., on behalf of Petitioner. G.R.Subbarayan, Advocate, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Ramachandra Raju, J.-The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the State of Andhra Pradesh. The revision arises out of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Geilirg on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) The respondent filed his declaration under section 8 of tbe Act with regard to the lands held by him including those comprised in S. Nos. 262/2, 262/8, 248/2 and 233/3 of Nalluru village in East Godavari District. According to the declarant-respondent, these lands are single crop wet lands. But according to the Government, they are double crop wet lands having been included in Schedule B appended to the Draft Rules published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 16th July, 1962. The Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada found them to be double crop wet lands on the ground that they are included in Schedule B. In the appeal filed by the declarant the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, without giving any definite finding whether the lands are included in Schedule B or not, came to the conclusion that the lands are single crop wet lands by applying cultivation test. If the lands are included in the B Schedule, we have held today in the judgment delivered in C.R.P. No. 2443 of 1976 that once the lands are included in Schedule B they have to be treated as double crop wet lands unless it can be shown that Proviso (1) mentioned in the definition of the 'double crop wet land' under section 3(d) of the Act is attracted. If the lands are included in Schedule B they cease to be double crop wet lands only if it can be shown that at least during four faslis out of the six faslis in question, namely faslis 1378 to 1383 dufassal crop could not be raised for want of supply of water from the Government source of irrigation. Unless that is shown the lands included in B Schedule have to be treated as double crop wet lands.

(3.) It appears that these lands are also included in triennial rotation zone of A Schedule appended to tbe Draft Rules mentioned above in which case second crop paddy can also be raised in the lands in turn years once in three years. The lands included in V Schedule are entitled to receive water only once in ten days in both the first and second crop seasons as laid down in the Draft Rules, that is, for raising dufassal crops only. Therefore, the lands cannot cease to be double crop wet lands simply because recond crop could not be raised at least during four faslis out of the six faslis. As already mentioned above, if the lands in question are included in Schedule B, they can be treated as single crop wet lands if it can be shown that dufassal crop could not be raised at least in four fasli years out of six fasli years. What is meant by dufassal crop, we will get in Standing Order 5-A, 2 (i) in Chapter 1 of the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, Volume I, at page 10, wherein it is described as :