YARLAGADDA KOTESWARA RAO Vs. MADIVEDA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent no doubt has land which is less than one hectare but is admittedly paying profession tax on an annual income of Rs.12,000 per year during all the five years 1972-73 to 1976-77. The view of the learned District Munsiff that anyone who does not have more than one hectare of wet land or more than two hectares of dry land is a small farmer if he is not a member of the Scheduled tribes, whatever his household income other than from agriculture may be, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. No doubt, as pointed out by the learned District Munsiff, there is no comma or semi-colon after the word "dry" in clause (ii) of section 3 (t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 which defines a small farmer. But, the exclusion clause "but does not include any person whose annual household income, other than from agriculture exceeds one thousand and two hundred rupees in any two years within three years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act" applies not only to the members of the Scheduled Tribes contemplated in clause (ii) but also to persons other than the members of the Scheduled Tribes contemplated in clause (i). Section 3 (t) read as follows :- "small farmer' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds and personally cultivates, or who cultivates as a tenant or share-cropper or mortgagee with possession, agricultural land which does not exceed in extent,-

(2.) Though the judgment-debtor does not have more than one hectare of wet land and thus appears to be a small farmer under clause (i) of section 3 (t), he cannot be deemed to be a small farmer in so far as he was getting an annual household income (other than from agriculture) of Rs. 12,000 for the four continuous years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. Under the circumstances, the order of the learned District Munsiff allowing E. A. No. 369 of 1977 filed by the Judgment-debtor is set aside and the judgment-debtor's application claiming benefit under section 4 of the Act is dismissed.

(3.) In the result, the revision is allowed. No costs, as the respondent has not opposed this revision. The District Munsiff is directed to proceed with the Execution Petition and dispose of the same according to law expeditiously. Revision allowed.