SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(AP) 20

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY
Kadiyam Subba Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., represented by Authorised Officer, bhadrachalam Division - Respondent
Decided On : 01-25-78

Lands registered as dry lands and irrigated by private tanks cannot be considered wet lands.

Headnote:

LAND REFORMS - WET LANDS - DEFINITION - LANDS REGISTERED AS DRY - IRRIGATED BY PRIVATE TANKS - NOT WET LANDS - LAND REFORMS ACT, 1973, SEC. 3 (H), (V).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the classification of certain lands as wet lands, arguing that they were registered as dry lands and irrigated by private tanks, not government sources of irrigation. The petitioner also argued that the lands could not be considered wet lands because four faslies had not intervened between the abolition of the estate and the specified date.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the lands could not be considered wet lands because they were registered as dry lands and irrigated by private tanks, not government sources of irrigation. The court also held that the lands could not be considered wet lands because four faslies had not intervened between the abolition of the estate and the specified date.

Issues: Whether the lands were wet lands or dry lands.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lands were dry lands because they were registered as dry lands and irrigated by private tanks, not government sources of irrigation. The court also held that the lands could not be considered wet lands because four faslies had not intervened between the abolition of the estate and the specified date.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the lands should be treated as wet lands.

K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether an extent of Acs. 85-77 cents covered by s. Nos 60, 53, 52, 51,12 and 39 of Nuguru Estate should be treated as wet lands or dry lands in computing the holding of the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that these lands form part of the nugur Estate which was abolished with effect from 26-12-1970 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Telangana Area Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation 1 of 1969. These lands were irrigated by Mogalapalli, Chintakunta and Albaka tanks of Nugur Estate.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioner is threefold. Firstly, these lands are registered as dry lands and merely cecause, an irrigated crop is raised by the use of water from a Government source of irrigation, they cannot be treated as wet lands for they are not entitled to receive water as of right,

( 3 ) SECONDLY, that these tanks were not government tanks and were private tanks. As such, it cannot be said that irrigated crops were raised by the use of water from a government source of irrigation. Hence, these lands cannot be treated as wet lands

( 4 ) THIRDLY, Nugur Estate having been abolished on 26-12-70, no irrigated crop in, at least, four faslies could have been raised before the specified date i. e. , 1-1-1975 for the simple reason that four faslies had not intervened between those two dates.

( 5 ) THE Original Tribunal accepted the petitioners contention and computed these lands as dry lands in recknoing the petitioners holding and determined the excess land to be surrendered by them at 0. 2816 standard holdings.

( 6 ) ON appeal by the State, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, khammam in L. R. A. No. 240/1976 set aside the finding arrived at by the Original Tribunal and these lands were treated as wet lands.

( 7 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that these lands were part of Nugur Estate which was abolished on 26-12-1970 under the a. P. Regulation 1 of 1969. It is also the admitted case of the parties that these lands are registered as dry lands but irrigated crop was raised by the use of water from Mogalapalli, Chintakunta and Albaka tanks which were within the Nugur Estate. It is only by virtue of the abolition of this Estate on and from the notified date, that is from 26-12-1970, that the entire Estate including the rivers, streams, tanks irrigation works, fisheries, ferries and buildings stood transferred to and vested in the Government and became the Government sources of irrigation. Until that date, they being part of the Estate, were either Estate tanks or private tanks. To give effect to the abolition of these Mahals and take over the properties including the rivers, streams, tanks and irrigation works etc. , which stood transferred and vested in the Government, the Government issued a G. O. Ms. No. 831, rev. dt. 26-10-1965 listing the sources of irrigation, both in the government village and the Estate in the Agency tract of Khammam district which includes Nugur Estate,. In the said list, Government tanks are shown as items 48 to 81 and the Estate tanks are listed as items 82 to 93. In these two lists, Mogalapalli, Chintakunta and Albaka tanks do not figure obviously because they were neither Government tanks nor Estate tanks. Presumably, they were private tanks private tanks did not stand transferred to and vest in the Government consequent upon the abolition of the Mahals under the aforesaid Regulation. The lands which are registered as dry, if irrigated by such private tanks even after abolition, could not be treated as irrigated by a Government source of irrigation. Government source of irrigation is defined under Sec. 3 (h) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural holdings) Act, 1973 as follows : -"sec. 3 (h) :_ "government source of irrigation" means a source of irrigation registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as such, including a well constr





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top