BAJANURU VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference wherein two revision petitions are concerned, interpretation of the provisions of Section 3 (v) (i) and explanation VI to Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' is involved.

(2.) The question which arises for determination is whether a land, though included in the ayacut of a Government source of irrigation, be deemed to be wet land unless it is actually included as wet land in the ayacut, and whether the provisions of Explanation VI to Section 10 and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act are applicable to the lands in the instant case since they are irrigable dry lands though included in the ayacut of the K.C. Canal, a Government source of irrigation.

(3.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-declarant declared ands situated in various villages in Kurnool District, under Section 8 of the Act. The said lands are localised as "irrigable dry" lands under the K.C. Canal. Though the lands were localised, water was not supplied for irrigation from the K.C. Canal, and a certificate was produced showing that water was not supplied to the said lands for faslis 1378 to 1383 due to non-availability of water. This was accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal; and after verification from the Adangals, it was held that wet crops were not raised. So, the Tribunal computed all the lands as dry lands, and determined the holding of the declarant at 1 0635 Standard Holdings. The Tribunal also made a different calculation treating all the irrigable dry lands as wet lands and computed the total holding as 1.9.117 Standard Holdings. It accordingly declared a surplus of 0.0635 standard holding to be surrendered immediately. It further held that the declarant should surrender 0.8528 standard holding on receipt of water to his lands under the K.C. Canal, under Explanation VI to Section 10 of the Act and until such time as water is received, Section 17 of the Act would apply to the case. The said order was appealed against; and the petitioner-appellant contended that the prohibition under Section 17 of the Act does not apply to his case. This argument did not find favour with the Appellate Tribunal. The facts in both the C.R.Ps. are similar. Hence these revisions.