PENDALA APPARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribnnal, Srikakulam, in L. R. A No. 64 of 1978. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the extents of lands irrigated by the six sources of irrigation mentioned in the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal viz,, Gorja water, Ramanna Cheruvu Vuracheruvu, Vutagummi, Gundam Cheruvu, Kondibila Cheruvu, Buddavani Cheruvu, Biladharam and Barlavani Cheruvu, should be treated as double crop wet lands because two inigated crops have been raised in at least four out of the six relevant faslis or should they be treated as dry lands as they are not irrigated from a Government source of irrigation as defined uuder section 3 (h) of the Act. Both the Tribunals have held against the petitionerdeclarant.

(2.) IT is not disputed that at least two irrigated crops have been raised in at least four out of six relevant faslis immediately prior to 1st January, 1975 and they are registered as double crop wet lands in the land revenue accounts. If therefore the source from which water was supplied to raise the irrigated crops, in the relevant faslis is a Government source of irrigation, then, undoubtedly, the lands are double crop wet lands and the order under revision does not call for interference. However, it is seen from the record that the source of these tanks is shown as either Biladharam or spring. Whether the spring forms the source of irrigation and irrigates the land or the tank as such has a regular ayacut is a matter of record. From the record produced, it is clear that these lam s were treated as dry lands under the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Enharcement) Act, 1967 and assessed as such. This assessment continued even upto the notified Cate and Continued even upto this date, as is clear from the letter of the Special Deputy Tahsil dar (Land Reforms) Ichapurarn L. C. C. No. 316/ GCH/75, dated 23rd March, 1978 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lands Reforms, Srikakulara. Under se.ticn 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue (Enhancement) Act, 1967, every wet land in the State which is registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as being ted under any well, Spring channel parre kaiva, naddinala, vagunla, kasam, sona. bila, uppalwat bonda, doruvu, bhurki kole or by cross-bunding, is directed to be treated as dry land. IT is a pursuance of this statutory provision that ths lands in question which were originally registered as double crop wet lands in the survey and setemant operations, are treated as dry lands, although in fact irrigated crops are rasied. IT is no body's case that the lands are irrigated by a well constructed or maintained by the Government. Further, only if the lands are irrigated with the water of a spring channel, parre kalava, naddinala, vagunala, kasam, sona, bila, uppalwat, bonda, doruvu, bhurki, kole or by cross-bunding, they could be assessed as dry. When these lands are assessed as dry lands under the said Act, it must be concluded that they are irrigated with the water of one of those sources. If the water is supplied from one of these sources then, any of these sources cannot be deemed to be Government sources of irrigation as defined under section 3 (h) of the Act which reads follows: 'Government source of irrigation, means a source of irrigation registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as such, including a well constructed or maintained by the Government or any local authority, but does not include a spring channel, parre-kalava, naddinala vagunala, kasam, sona, bila, uppalwat bonda, doruvu, bhurki, kole or crossbunding". Though in fact these sources of irrigation may be Government sources, but for the purpose of Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, they are excluded from the category of "Government source of irrigation". Consequently, even if the requisite number of irrigated crops are raised within the relevant four faslis, such lands cannot be treated as wet lands at all. They have to be treated only as dry lands. The orders of both the Tribunals to the contrary is therefore set aside. These lands shall be computed as dry lands for deteimining the holding of the petitioner and the surplus, if any, liable to be surrendered by him. This civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as the costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150. Revision allowed.