MALLEM HANUMAHTHA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in L.R.A.No. 882/76.

(2.) The excess land liable to be surrendered by the petitioner's family unit was determined at 2.4575 standard holdings. The Appellate Tribunal allowed some of thecontentions raised by the petitioner herein. It however rejected the petitioner's contention that an extent of Acs. 3-25 cents in Chintaluru village ought to have been computed as dry land and not as single crop wet land. According to the petitioner, the land is rain fed and the irrigated crop raised thereon was not with the supply of water from any Government source of irrigation. As such, it should be computed as dry land. It is not in dispute that though the land is registered as single crop wet land in the revenue accounts, actually the irrigated crop was not raised with the aid of water from Government source of irrigation. Statement No. 9 of the verification report clearly shows that in more than three faslis out of six faslis immediately preceding the notified date, either no irrigated crop was raised or whatever crop was raised was rain fed and not with the supply of water from a Government source of irrigation. In view of the proviso to Section 3(v) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, unless irrigated crop was raised in atleast four out of six faslis immediately prior to the notified date "with the use of water from a Government source of irrigation", the land which is merely registered as wet land in the revenue accounts cannot be computed as wet land under the Act for the purpose of arriving at the holding of the declarant. In view of the facts that are obvious from the records, the said extent cannot be computed as single crop wet land but has to be computed only as dry land. The order of the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal to the contrary is therefore set aside.

(3.) The next contention of Sri P. Ramakrishna Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an extent of Ac. 5-23 cents covered by S No. 17 in Mirthivada village should have been computed as dry land and not as single crop wet land. The registered source of irrigation of this land is Dhara Kalva which, according to the petitioner, is not a Government source of irrigation, Consequently, even if irrigated crops were raised in all the six faslis immediately prior to the notified date, it cannot be treated as wet land. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that Dhara Kalva is not excluded from the definition of wet land. In fact it is contended by him that once the land is registered as wet land in the revenue accounts under registered source of irrigation, such land must necessarily be treated as wet land, more so, when irrigated crops have been raised thereon in atleast four faslis out of six fashs prior to the notified date.