STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. DEVARAPALLI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which is of some general importance that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the lands which are registered as dry lands in the revenue records are to be treated as "double crop wet lands" on the ground that they are included in the B-Schedule.

(2.) In this revision filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh Sri. I. Balaiah. the learned Government Pleader, contends that as per the definition of "double crop wet land" any land, whether wet or dry. when included in the B-Schedule should be treated as double crop wet land, if cultivation test is satisfied The respondent-declarant filed his declaration and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Rajahmundry, determined the excess. He preferred an appeal and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Rajahmundry, accepted some of the contentions put forward by the declarant-appellant and gave further relief. One of the points raised was that the land in Ippanapadu village in Survey No. 102 is dry land but wet on ground and it should be treated only as single crop wet land and not as double crop wei land though it is included in the B Schedule. The Appellate Tribunal, relying on a decision of this Court in A. P. Muttaiah v State of A. P. (1) 1978 (2) A. P. L. J. 235 held that though the lands are included in the B-Schedule they can be treated only as single crop wet lands in as much as the particulars noted in statement No. 9 of the verification report shows that second crops were irrigated with the water from a bore-well which is a private source. The Appellate Tribunal treated that particular land as single crcp wet lard also on the ground that the definition of "Wet land" under section 3 (v) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is attracted. The Government has filed this revision questioning the said finding.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contends that the decision in A. P. Muttaiah v. State of A. P. (1) Supra cannot be applied to lands which are included in the B-Schedule and that as per the definition of "double crop wet land" any land included in the B Schedule should necessarily be treated as double crop wet land and that as per the proviso to section 3(d) it is for the declarant to show that he could not raise two irrigated crops in four out of six Faslis for want of water from a Government source. In A. P. Muttaiah's case (1) 1978 (2) A.P. L. J. 235 Ramachandra Raju J. held that to attract the definition of double crop wet land, the lands must be registered as wet in the first instance and when the lands are not registered as wet the definition of 'double crop wet land' has no application at all. The learned judge was considering a case where the lands registered as dry were localised for the irrigation under the Ayacut of Nagarjuna Sagar Project and accepted the contention of the declarant that they should be treated only as single crop wet lands. Sri I. Balaiah, the learned Government Pleader, contends that this decision is not applicable to the lands which are included in the B-Schedule,