Anantha Peda Muttaiah v. The State Of Andhra ...

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lena Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

2. The petitioner filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Act on behalf of a family unit consisting of himself and his wife.

3. The Land Reforms Tribunal found that the holding of the family unit consists of land equivalent to 1.1287 standard holdings. On the ground, that the family unit is entitled to retain land equivalent to one standard holding towards the ceiling area, the Land Reforms Tribunal determined that the petitioner is liable to surrender land equivalent to 1,1287 standard holding. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the same.

4. The petitioner raised three points before the Appellate Tribunal, viz., (1) that Ac. 3.38 cents in S. No. 1646 does not belong to the petitioner (2) that the Land Reforms Tribunal went wrong in considering Ac. 0.85 cents in S. No. 1163, Ac. 5.83 cents in S. No. 1619, 25 cents in S. No. 1589, 25 cents in S. No. 1588, Ac. 3.18 cents in S. No. 1169, Ac 0.60 cents in S. No. 1172, Ac 0.63 cents in S. No. 1204 and Ac. 0.33 cents in S. No. 1349 as double crop wet lands instead of single crop wet lands; and (3) that the petitioner took G. Ramanarasayya, his son-in-law, in illatom adoption and that he is entitled to a share in the family properties and his share in the family lands should have been excluded, for determining the holding of the petitioner.

5. On all the three points, the Appellate Tribunal found against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence this C.R.P

6. So far as illatom adoption is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence. Therefore, nothing can be deducted from the lands of the petitioner on the ground that the son-in-law of the petitioner is entitled to a share in the same.

7. So far as the items of lands which were treated by the tribunals as double crop wet lands the Tribunals thoroughly went wrong. According to the verification report, these lands are registered dry lands but localised for irrigation under the Ayacut of Nagarjunasagar Project. Even though they are registered dry lands, as per the definition of ‘wet land’ given under section 3(v) of the Act, they have to be treated as wet lands since they registered under Government, source of irrigation. But to become double crop wet lands, the definition given under Section 3(d) of the Act must be attracted. To attract the definition of the double crop wet land, the lands must be reaistered ‘wet’ in the first instance. When the lands are not registered wet the definition of double crop wet land has no application an all. As a matter of fact, in his report the verification officer has stated that these lands are single crop wet lands. Therefore, it is clear that the items mentioned above are to be treated as single crop wet lands and not as double crop wet lands, in computing the holding.

8. Coming to the land in S. No. 1646, i.e Ac. 3,38 cents, it is the case of the petitioner that land dose not belong to him and he has wrongly shown the same in the declaration. The pahanis filed do not show that the petitioner is in any way connected with that land. It is quite possible that by some mistake, this S. No also happened to be given in the declaration filed by the petitioner. There is no reason why this item of land cannot be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. Therefore Ac. 3.38 cents in S. No. 1646 is liable to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner.

9. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are some extents of potkharab in various extents of lands held by them and they are liable to be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. This Court in K. Rama Reddy v. State of A.P (5) 1978 (1) APLJ 92, has held that the definition of ‘land’ given under section 3(j) of the Act does not attract pot-kharab lands and pot-khareb lands cannot be included in the holdings for the purposes of the Act. Since this Court gave that decision recently, the interests of justice require that the petitioner should be allowed to raise it now. The extents of pot-kharab can easily be ascertained by reference to the recitals in column 4 of the relevant Pahanis.

10. The C.R.P is allowed as mentioned above and the case in remitted back to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Huzurnagor, to compute the holding of the petitioner afresh in the light of the findings given above and then determine the excess land, if any, to be surrendered by the petitioner. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-