STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. PAREDDI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision petition arises out of a declaration filed by the respondent under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is the Government The Civil Revision petition has been filed by the Government aggrieved by the view taken by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal with regard to certain items of land whether they are liable to be treated as single crop wet lands or double crop wet lands. The lands are situated in Survey Nos. 428/2. 482/2, 481/4, 482/3 484/2, 484/3 and 10/4 of Voolapalli village. These are one set of lands. They are registered as dry lands in the revenue Accounts of the Government, but they have been included in Schedule-B of the localisation G.O. The Land Reforms Tribunal treated these lands as double crop wet lands on the ground that they are included in the 'B' Schedule.

(2.) The contention of the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal, and which was accepted by it is, though the lands are registered dry lands since they are included under a Government source of irrigation no doubt, they are liable to be treated as wet lands as per the definition of 'he term 'wet land' given under section 3(v) of the Act, but, at the same lime, they cannot be treated as double crop wet lands as per the definition given under .section 3(d) of the Act, merely on the ground that they were included in Schedule 'B'. According to the contention of the respondent, it is only when registered wet lands are included in Schedule-B then only, they have to be treated as double crop wet lands, as per the definition given under section (3) (d) of the Act. This is the view taken by this Court in Anantha Peda Muttaiah v. The State of A.P. (1) 1978 (2) (H.C.) APLJ 235.

(3.) However, Shri Balaiah, the learned Government Pleader, has argued that it does not matter whether the land is registered as dry or wet in the revenue accounts of the Government, but once it is included in Schedule-B, it is liable to be treated as double crop wet land as per the definition given under Section 3(d) of the Act. It is convenient to extract here section 3 d) of the Act to the extent it is relevant for our purpose: