AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Raju
After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. I find that the Revision Petitions raises questions of considerable importance which turn upon the interpretation of the definition of "double crop wet land" in Section 3 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings,) Act, 1973. These questions are likely to arise frequently in a number of cases, and I think that the questions that arise in the Revision Petitions should be decided authoritatively by a Division Bench. Hence, the orders of My Lord the Chief Justice will be obtained for posting before a Division Bench.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Raju, J.
The civil revision petition is filed u/s 21 of Andhra Pradesh (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") The Civil revision petition in the first instance came up before out learned brother, Ramachandra Rao, J. On the ground that the questions involved are of considerable importance, he referred the case to a Division Bench. That is how this case came up before us.
The petitioner filed his declaration as provided u/s 8 of the Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur. The Tribunal found that the family unit of the petitioner owns an extent of land equivalent to 0.4025 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area and is therefore liable to surrender that land as provided u/s 10 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Land Reforms Tribunal that certain lands are double crop wet lands as defined in section 3 (d) of the Act.
The Land Reforms Tribunal treated the lands relating to S. Nos. 230/2 (0-17 cents) 231/1 (0.86 cents) 231/2 (0-47 cents) 231/3 (Ac. 1-54 cents), 239/2 (0-61 cents) 239/3 (0-61 cents), 249/3 (0-93 cents) 249/4 (0-51 cents) 249/5 (0-47 cents) 249/6 (0-47 cents) 249/7 (Ac. 1-30 cents) and 249/8 (0-32 cents) as Double crop wet lands. With regard to these lands the contention of the petitioner is that they are not included in B Schedule appended to the Draft Rules relating to irrigation of lands under Godavari Western, Eastern and Central Delta as published in the Gazette dated 16th July, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Draft Rules'') so as to attract the definition of double crop wet land as defined under sec. 3 (d) of the Act. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that though the lands in S. Nos 477/1(0-96 cents) 477/4 (0-50 cents) 478/1 Ac. 2-80 cents), 486/4 (0 44 cents) and 478/3 (1.18 cents) are included in B Schedule since they are also included in triennial rotation zone of ''A'' Schedule appended to the Draft Rules, for the purpose of raising second crop, water was made available only in those Faslis when there was second crop according to triennial rotation and water was not supplied during the Faslis when there was no second crop and that not only these lands but also all the lands in the neighbourhood did not enjoy every year the facility of water during the second crop season. Therefore they cannot be treated as doable crop wet lands.
With regard to the first category of lands mentioned above i.e., Nos. 230/5 etc., now it is fairly conceded by the learned Government Pleader that they appear to be in Part II of Schedule C appended to Draft Rules. The learned Government Pleader on perusal of the records is not able to assert that they are included in Schedule B. Therefore, so far as those lauds are concerned the matter has to be reinvestigated. It is true that even though they came under Part II of Schedule C, still they will be double crop wet lands within the definition. But the computation will be different as provided in the proviso to Section 5 of the Act for the purpose of arriving at the standard holding. Therefore, it is necessary to find whether the lands are in B Schedule or in Part II of C Schedule or only in A Schedule.
With regard to the second group of lands mentioned above comprised in S. No. 477/1 etc., admittedly they are in B Schedule. Both the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru have come to the conclusion that since they are included in B Schedule, irrespective of anything else they have necessarily become double crop wet lands whether water was made available in both the first crop and second corp seasons or not.
In this connection it is necessary to examine Draft Rules published in the Gazette of 16th July, 1962. Under Rule 2 of the Draft Rules, ''first crop season'' commences on the date of the annual reopening of the canals and ends with 31st December following. ''Second crop season'' commences on the first January and when after the date of the annual closure of the canals, water ceases to flow in the canals and channels. It is also provided under Rule 4 (3) (c) (Hi) that any lands not falling either under the permanent or in the rotational zone shall not be irrigated in the second crop season under any circumstances, unless they are included either in Schedule B or in Schedule C and the lands included in the rotational zone shall not be irrigated in the second crop season during the non-turn years. It is also provided under Rule 4 (3) (e) that the lands included in B Schedule may take water for irrigation once in ten days in the first and second crop seasons.
The contention of Sri M.B. Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that as provided in Draft Rules, as a matter of fact, when no water was supplied to these lands, they cannot be treated as double crop wet lands as per the definition.
Now it is necessary to examine the definition of "double crop wet land" given in the Act. The relevant portion of the definition of double crop wet land'' as defined in section 3 (d) of the Act is extracted below:
''Double crop wet land'' means any wet land registered as double corp or compounded double crop wet land in the land revenue accounts of the Government and includes any wet land not so registered --
(i) for which in accordance with any scheme of localisation being adopted under any Government source of irrigation, water is available in both the first and second crop seasons during a fasli year including the lands covered by Schedule B and Part II of the Schedule C appended to the draft rules for the irrigation of lands in the Godavari Western, Eastern and Central deltas published in the Rules Supplement to Part II Extraordinary of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated the 16th July, 1962.
(ii) XXX XXX XXX
(iii) XXX XXX XXX
Provided that--
(a) any land entitled to the supply of water from a Government source of irrigation and on which two irrigated crops per fasli year have or a dufussal crop has not been raised with the use of water from such source, in any four fasli years within a continuous period of six fasli years immediately before the specified date, for want of supply of water from such source.
XXX XXX XXX XXX
From a reading of the above definition it appears that besides the lands registered as double crop or compounded double crop wet land in the land revenue accounts of the Government, wet lands not so registered but included in Schedule B and Part II of Schedule C appended to the Draft Rules published in the Gazette dated 16th July, 1962 are also double crop wet lands but subject to the provision mentioned in the proviso (a). As per provision made in the proviso (a) if on any land entitled to supply of water from Government source of irrigation for two irrigated crops per Fasli year or a duffassal crop could not be raised for want of supply of water from such source of irrigation in any four Fasli years within a continuous period of six Fasli years immediately before the specified date, then that land would not become a double crop wet land as per the definition even if it is include in the B Schedule. Therefore during the six fasli years in question, if no irrigated crop or duffassal crop could be raised at least is four Faslis for want of supply of water from the Government source of irrigation, it will not come under the definition of double crop wet land. By reading the definition of ''double crop wet land'' as a whole it is not possible to say that all the lands included in Schedule B would become double crop wet lands irrespective of the fact whether two irrigated crop per fasli year or a duffassal crop could be raised atleast in 4 Fasli years within six Fasli years in question from the water that could be obtained from the Government sources of irrigation. Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether, as a matter of fact, on the lands comprised in S. Nos. 477/1, 477/4, 478/1, 486/4 and 478/3 two irrigated crops per Fasli year or a duffassal crop had been raised at least in four Fasli years during the six fasli years in question and if not whether it was due to want of supply of water from Government source of irrigation. Both the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur and the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru did not go into this question as they thought that the mere fact that the lands were included in B Schedule is sufficient to treat them as double crop wet lands. We hold that if any land included in B Schedule is not found to have been cultivated with two irrigated crops or a duffassal crop per Fasli at least in four Fasli years out of six Fasli years in question for want of supply of water from Government source of irrigation, it cannot be treated as double crop wet land within the definition.
Therefore, the C.R.P. is allowed, the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur and Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru are set aside with regard to the land mentioned above and the case is remitted to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kovvur to decide, if necessary, after giving an opportunity to both the sides to adduce additional evidence on the following points: (1) Whether the lands comprised in S. Nos. 230/2. 231/1, 231/2, 231/3 239/2, 239/3, 249/3 249/4, 149/5 149/6, 149/7 and 249/8 are included in B Schedule or Part II of C Schedule? : and
(2) Whether the lands comprised in S. Nos. 477/1, 477/4, 478/1, 486/4 and 478/3 were not cultivated with two irrigated crops per fasli year or a duffassal crop in any of the Four Fasli years during the six fasli years, 1378 to 1383 and if they were not so cultivated, whether it was on account of want of supply of water from Government source of irrigations?
No Order as to costs. Advocate''s fees Rs. 100.