K PANDURANGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only contention raised in this revision petition is that pot kharab land should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. But the definition of land in section 3 (j) includes also "waste land". THErefore it is not enough for the petitioner if the petitioner establishes that the land is 'pot kharab. THE learned Counsel relies upon K. Ramareddy v. State. I agree with the view of the learned Judge that pot kharab should be excluded provided it is established that the said land is not capable of being! used for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. In the instant case except stating that the land is "pot kharab" it is not established as to what its extent is and the nature of it and as to why it is not capable of being used for agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. THErefore the contention that the land alleged to be occupied by pot kharab should be excluded cannot be accepted. No other contention has been raised.

(2.) IN the result the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Revision dismissed.