The interpretation of the definition of "double crop wet land" under Section 3(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and the application of the relevant provisos in determining the classification of disputed lands.

RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE civil revision arises out of the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The petitioner is a declarant, who filed a declaration as provided under section 8 of the Act. The revision is filed questioning the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunals with regard to Acre 0-10 cents of land comprised in S. No. 427 on which, according to the claimant, there is a cattleshed and Acre 14-30 cents of land comprised in S. Nos. 73 and 72/4 and Acre 18-03 cents of land comprised in S. Nos. 75/2, 75/1-B and 75/3-A which have been alienated and with regard to the lands comprised in s. Nos. 264/2, 262/10, 263/3, 260, 257/4, 261/1-A and 258/1, which lands the Tribunals treated as double crop wet lands.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the declarant the ten cents of land comprised in survey No. 427 should have been excluded from the holding of the petitioner on the ground that there is a permanent cattleshed with compound walls on it. But there is no evidence to show that there is any permanent cattleshed with compound walls on the land. The Verification officer also did not note the same in his report. Now, the petitioner wants to adduce some evidence relating to it and filed a petition in C. M. P. No. 12772 of 1976 for that purpose. We do not think that the petitioner should be permitted to adduce evidence, for the first time, at this stage. Accordingly there are no merits in the civil revision petition with regard to this item of land.

( 3 ) THE extents of Acres 14-30 cents and acres 18-03 cents mentioned above admittedly are pasture lands. The petitioner purchased them on 12th September, 1969. Subsequently under two registered sale-deeds, exhibits A-1 and A-2. dated 20th October, 1971 he sold away those lands. According to the petitioner he sold away those lands on the ground that they are in a different village. Admittedly they are in a different village. Whereas the petitioner resides in biccavole village, the lands are in Balabhadrapuram village. The explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that if that was the reason for alienating the lands he would not have purchased the same in the year 1969. The purchasers were examined. They spoke to the fact that since their purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands paying land revenue to the Government. They have also filed receipts in token of payment of land revenue. The Land reforms Tribunal refused to exclude this land from the holding of the petitioner by merely observing that the Authorised officer said that the lands were sold with a view to avoid ceiling laws.

( 4 ) NEITHER the Land Reforms Tribunal nor the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal mentioned any circumstances which are suspicious in nature to think that the transactions were not genuine. Even though the declarant purchased the lands in the year 1969, subsequently he could have felt it inconvenient as the lands were in a different village and therefore he might have sold the lands on that ground and not necessarily in anticipation or with a view to avoiding or defeating the objects of any law relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings. When the explanation given by the petitioner is a plausible one, in the absence of any other suspicious cfrcumstances, it should have been accepted by the Tribunals. This Court in P. Sambasiva Rao v. Revenue Divisional Officer (Land reforms), Rajahmundry, delivered by one of us (Ramachandra Raju, J.) has observed thus:"the burden as provided in section 7 of the Act is on the declarant to show that he did not make the alienation with a view to avoid the law relating to ceiling on agricultural holdings. But that is a proof which is negative in nature. With what view he made the transfers and what worked in his mind in making those transfers, the declarant alone would be knowing. If he comes forward and says that he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document