MADDINENI ANJAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point that arises in this revision is whether the Tribunals below erred in re-entertaining the application made at the time of surrender proceedings to the effect that three survey numbers have been wrongly classified as double crop wet instead of single crop wet as they were registered as dry and included in the ayacut as single crop wet. No doubt, crop test has been satisfied; but they had no right to water so far as second crop is concerned. On merits, the case may stand on a very good and favourable position with reference to the decided cases. But the question which falls for determination in the main herein is whether, as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a claim for the first time for proper classification of land, can be said to be a mistake or error, to be rectified within the meaning of Rule 16 (5) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules). Rule 16 (5) (b) of the rules reads as under:-

(2.) Admittedly the primary Tribunal at the time of filing the original declaration, determined these three survey numbers as double crop wet and so computed in the holding of the petitioner and on the basis certain excess was also declared. Thereafter an appeal was preferred, wherein the classification as such was not disputed arid the appeal became final. So also in the revision the dispute with regard to the classification which was also affirmed as determined by the Primary Tribunal, was not raised In the revisional jurisdiction also, the said survey numbers stood treated as double crop wet. In fact surrender was also made of certain survey numbers. It is thereafter, a decision was rendered by this Court on merits with reference to the provisions enacted in section 2c 3 (v) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 wherein a Bench of this Court held that if a land is registered as dry and even included in the ayacut and if two crops have been raised, unless and until it is shown that for the second crop, as of right, the land-holder utilised water, the same cannot be treated as donble crop wet and it has to be treated only as single crop wet. It is only after having the knowledge of the decision, the petitioner herein tried to have the matter re-opened by way of re-agitation invoking the provisions enacted in Rule 16 (5) (b) of the rules. The contention of the learned counsel is that it cannot be said that there has been any decision at all with reference to these three survey numbers vis-a-vis classification. In fact, there is no decision at all. May be, there is some force in so far as this contention is concerned; but certainly, it is constructive res judicata. Surely the petitioner when the lands were explicitly classified as double crop wet. he should have raised this point and got the adjudication on that Having failed to do so, certainly he is bound by the principle of constructive res-judicata. Hence the contention has no force and is untenable; because in my judgment it cannot be reckoned as a mistaks apparent on the face of the record so that successfully the provisions enacted in Rule 16 (5) (b) of the rules could be invocked as they cannot be made applicable to a situation of this kind. One could conceive of several cases of apparent errors like the survey number being wrongly mentioned, the extent of the said survey number wrongly mentioned and the inclusion of the survey number is said to have been mistaken for tha exclusion, so on and so forth. It is therefore manifest for all the reasons stated above that this case cannot fall within the gamut of Rule 1 6 (5) (b) of the rules. Hence the contention fails and is rejected and consequently the order under revision does not warrant any interference

(3.) In the result the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/-.