LAXMAN SASTRY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raises four contentions. The first contention is that an extent of Ac. 1-00 of land in the village of Covoor should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner in so far as there is a drain over the extent. The authorities below found as a fact that there is such a drain, but refused to exclude it on the ground that the drain is being used for purposes ancillary to agriculture. The petitioner's learned Counsel states that the drain is used to drain out water flowing from the fields in the higher level and to prevent the fields of the petitioner from being submerged and that therefore, the drain is not being used for 'purposes ancillary to agriculture'. A purpose ancillary to agriculture is not necessarily a purpose to raise crop. If agriculture is carried on in the fields of the petitioner and if the drain is dug out in a portion of the lands for the purpose of proper agriculture, the drain is certainly being used for a purpose ancillary to agriculture. I am therefore not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner's learned Counsel in this regard.

(2.) The second contention is that having rightly found that there is a 'vagu' in an extent of Ac. O. 38 cents in Survey No. 110/1 and Ac. O. 48 cents in S. No. 110/3 of Pegdapalli village and that the same is therefore liable to exclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, by over-sight, did not exclude it in its final order. An examination of the ordef of the Appellate Tribunal clearly shows that this contention is correct and should be accepted. There is a 'vagu' in the two extents of Ac. 0.38 cents and Ac. 0 48 cents in S. Nos. 110/1 and 110/3 respectively and these two extents must be excluded from the holding of the petitioner in so far as they cannot be used for agriculture or any purpose ancillary to agriculture.

(3.) The third contention is that Acs. 5-03 guntas of land comprised in Survey No. 552/1 ought to have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner in so far as the same was sold away in the year 1957. Admittedly, the patta for the land still stands in the name of the petitioner. The affidavit, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner's learned Counsel, though it is dated 19th April, 1968, cannot be of any help to the petitioner. In the affidavit, the vtndee is shown as one P. Jagannadha Rao. According to the petitioner the vendees are Sangameshwar Rao and Sanga Reddi. In the affidavit, the date of the agreement of sale is shown as 14th December, 1960. But, according to the petitioner the sale agreement is of the year 1957. Even the pahani patrikas do not help the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal has very carefully considered this contention and gave cogent and sound reasons for rejecting the sale in the paragraphs 23 to 35. I do not find any valid reason to differ from the considered conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal in this regard.