1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of a declaration; filed by the respondent; under section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh and Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (herein after 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. These are registered as dry lands in the revenue accounts of the Government, but they have been included in Schedule B of the localisation Government Order. The Land Reforms Tribunal treated these lands as crop double 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 the term ‘wet land’ given under secti n 3(v) of the Act, but, at the same time, 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.
3. 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 Andhra Pradesh . 1978 2 A.P.L.J 235..
4. 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:
“(d) double crop wet land means any wet land registered as double crop 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 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”.
5. It is also relevant here to extract the definition given for ‘wet land’ under section 3(v) of the Act to the extent it is necessary.
“(v) ‘Wet land’ means land registered as wet, single crop wet, double crop wet, compounded double crop wet or special rate wet land, in the land revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such; and includes any land not registered as wet which has been
(i) included in the ayacut of any Government source of irrigation……”
6. ‘Dry land’ is defined under section 3(e) of the Act as meaning land registered as dry, manavari, asmantari baghat or garden land, or special rate dry land, in the land revenue accounts of the Government or assessed as such; and includes any other land, excluding wet land.
7. Under the Act, the term ‘land’ is defined as land which is used or is capable of being used for purposes of agriculture or for purposes ancillary thereto. As seen above it is classified under three categories as dry land, wet land and double crop wet land, as per the definitions mentioned above. Prima facie, the lands take their class as dry land, wet land or double crop wet land, as per their registration in the Government revenue accounts. Apart from that, under the inclusive definition given to the term ‘wet land’ a registered dry land will also to be treated as wet if it is included under a Government source of irrigation; similarly a registered wet land will also be treated as double crop wet land under its inclusive definition, if it is included in ‘B’ Schedule. ‘In both the cases, because of the extra facilities given to the lands, in one case by including the dry land under Government source of irrigation, and in the other case by including the wet land in B’ Schedule, for the purposes of the Act, the lands are placed one step higher in the classification than the classification according to their registration in the Government accounts, namely dry land in the class of wet lands and wet land in the class of double crop wet lands. In the definition of ‘double crop wet land’ under section 3(d) when the term ‘wet land’ is mentioned in the context it necessarily means wet land as per the registration in the revenue accounts. The Legislature would not have intended by that expression ‘wet land’ used in the definition as meaning also dry land which is made wet land by reason of the inclusive provision made under section 3(v) of the Act in the definition of ‘wet land’. As otherwise it will amount to placing the dry land two steps higher, that its registration which would not have been the intention of the Legislature. If that was the intention, the Legisature could have easily said in the definition ‘any land’ linstead of ‘wet land’ as they have said in the definition given to ‘wet, land’. Therefore, the lands mentioned above, which are registered as dry lands in the revenue accounts of the Government do not come under the definition of ‘double crop wet land’ though they are included in ‘B’ Schedule. Though registered as dry lands, since they are included under a Government source of irrigation, they have to be treated as single crop wet lands as per the definition given to the wet land.
8. The other set of lands with which we ‘are concerned in this revision petition are those in survey Nos. 555/2, 555/3, 470, 10/5 and 314/8 of Voolapalli village. These lands are admittedly registered as wet lands and they are also included in ‘B’ Schedule. Therefore, prima facie they are double crop wet lands as per the definition given under section 3(d) of the Act. They cannot be treated as double crop wet lands only when it can be shown as provided in the proviso (a) in the definition that no dufassal crop could be raised in at least four Fasli years out of the six Faslis immediately prior to 1st January, 1975, the specified date under the Act and the non-raising of dufassal crop was due to non-supply of water from the Government source of irrigation. In the present case, admittedly, no dufassal crop was raised on the lands in all this six faslis. If that is so, the next question that would arise is whether the non-raising of dufassal crop was due to non-supply of water from the Government source of irrigation. With regard to this, there is no evidence adduced by the petitioner. However, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal treated the land in Survey No. 470 as single crop wet land on the ground that the remarks in the adangal extract show that in all the six years only water from a bore-well, which is a private source of irrigation, was used for the land during the second crop season. Even with regard to the lands which are included in the ‘B’ Schedule, if no dufassal crop is raised, second crop can be raised during rotation years though not every year. The fact that in all the six years no water from a Government source of irrigation was used implies that there was no supply of water from the Government source of irrigation during the second crop season in any year. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly treated the land in Survey No. 470 as single crop wet land. With regard to the land in the other survey numbers, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly remanded the case for giving an opportunity both for the petitioner and the Government to adduce evidence as to why dufassal crop was not raised whether it was due to non-supply of water or even if there was supply of water no dufassal crop was raised. The Government cannot complain if for that purpose the case is remanded to Land Reforms Tribunal.
9. There are no merits in the civil revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs, Advocate's fee Rs. 100.
10. G.S.M
11. Revision dismissed.