# PAGADALA RAMIREDDY & Ors. v. $ COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,A.P., HYDERABAD & Ors.

The petitioner is President of Jakkepalli (Paleru Ayacut) Ryots Association in Khammam District. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing an order of distraint under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to the petitioner as well as other ryots demanding specified sum towards penalty for non-cultivation of sugarcane crop. The action is challenged on the ground that such levy is without jurisdiction in contravention of law. A sugar factory was established at Paleru in the name and style of ‘Paleru Cooperative Sugar Factory’ in the year 1978. At that time, the petitioner and others were cultivating various crops. However, after the factory was established during the 1978-79, they raised sugarcane crop and supplied the same to sugar factory. According to the petitioners, in subsequent years, sugarcane was refused by the factory and therefore they stopped growing sugarcane crop and started growing paddy crop.

During the year 1986-87, the Revenue Divisional Officer purporting to act on the instructions of the Joint Collector directed to collect penalty at the rate of ten times over and above the water levy alleging that the petitioners resorted to growing other crops in contravention of the orders permitting Ayacut under Paleru Reservoir. Assailing the action, the writ petition is filed. In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it is stated that initially they approached the first respondent, who by proceedings dated 05.07.1993 stayed the collection of penalty. But, subsequently the fourth respondent visited the village and informed the petitioner and others that in view of the vacation of the interim order passed by the first respondent, they have to pay the amounts of penalty. The petitioners contend that the respondents have no jurisdiction either under Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 or under the A.P. Water Tax Act, 1988 to impose penalty much less ten times against any sugarcane grower.

They also contend that no notice was issued to the petitioner and others before levying penalty and that the sugarcane factory in Paleru refused to accept the sugarcane supplied by the petitioner and others, they resorted to growing other wet crops. The Assistant Secretary in the Office of the first respondent has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that Paleru Reservoir is a medium irrigation project designed for the irrigation of sixteen thousand acres. During 1975, water from Nagarjunasagar left canal was released in the Reservoir so as to take water for the Ayacut in the erstwhile Taluks Madira and Khammam through left canal excavated from Paleru project. Paleru Reservoir has thus become a balancing reservoir. In view of the irrigation potential, a cooperative sugar factory was constructed at Rajeswarapuram, in which all the ryots having lands under Paleru project are the shareholders.

After establishment of the sugar factory, the use of water from Paleru Reservoir was restricted only to sugarcane cultivation. As the petitioner and others did not cultivate sugercane, the Jamabandi Officer imposed penalty for irregular irrigation by invoking the provisions of Section 67 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357-Fasli and the Rules issued vide notification G.O.Ms.1131 dated 20.11.1967. The writ petition is also opposed on the ground that the petitioners have any effective alternative remedy by way of Appeal under Section 158 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317-Fasli. It is also stated that the lands were notified in the District Gazette dated 30.12.1977 for sugarcane cultivation and any unauthorized use of water for irrigation has to be penalised. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.Lakshma Reddy has reiterated the submissions raised in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) Sri Srinivas has placed before me the District Gazette Notification in support of the contention that the lands in Khammam Taluk were notified under sugarcane cultivation and therefore any cultivation of other crops has to be penalised. He placed reliance of Sections 25 and 34 of A.P.Irrigation Utilisation And Command Area Development Act, 1984 (for brevity, the Act). He would submit that when irrigation facilities are provided by the State for raising such kind of crops, any contravention would attract Section 24 and it is competent for the respondents to impose penalties. The only point that arises for consideration having regard to the rival submissions is whether the respondents do not have power to impose penalty on the petitioner and others for not raising sugercane under Paleru Reservoir Ayakat? The A.P. Irrigation Utilisation And Command Area Development Act, 1984 is in pith and substance.

The enactment to provide for accelerated increase in agriculture and allied production through a programme of comprehensive and systematic development on scientific and modern lines of the State command areas, comprising measures for optimum use of lands and water, to prevent land erosion and water logging. The Act also intends to take steps for improvement of soil fertility and regulation of cropping pattern and for proper utilization of water to ensure maximum benefit to the cultivators under command area. As per Subsection (2) of Section 1, the Act extends to whole of Andhra Pradesh but as per Subsection (3) of Section 1, all the provisions of the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 14.01.1984 in respect of four major projects, namely, Nagarjunasagar Project Left Canal, Nagarjunasagar Project Right Canal, Sriramsagar Project and Tungabhadra Project. In respect of other cases, the provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification appoint.

No material is placed before this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to show that the Act has any application to the Ayacut under Paleru Reservoir, which is admittedly, (as stated in the counter affidavit) is a medium irrigation project. The mere fact that it is being used as a balancing reservoir to Nagarjunasagar Project Ayacut is of no significance because Paleru Reservoir is treated as an independent medium irrigation system. In the absence of notification under Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Act, the Act cannot be said to have any application to the Ayacut Area under Paleru Reservoir. The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that Sections 25 and 26 of the Act prohibit cultivation of wet crops other than the sugercane, and therefore, penalties can be imposed under Section 34 is also misconceived. Sections 25 and 26 read us under:

Classification of lands for raising different crops according to availability of water:- Subject to such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Government, the District Collector, may in any year, having regard to the quantity of water available in any irrigation system within his jurisdiction, classify, by an order, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, lands under the said irrigation system for the purpose of raising such kind of crops on each class of land as may be specified in the order, and regulate the supply of water for irrigation accordingly.

Power to prohibit growing of certain kinds of crops and to regulate the period of sowing and duration, of crops:- (1) Whenever the Government are satisfied that for the better cultivation of land and the optimum utilization of water resources of an irrigation system or for accelerated land development or for any other reasons, it is expedient in public interest to regulate the cropping pattern the period of sowing and the duration of crop, they may, by notification, make a declaration to that effect: Provided that such person may grow any crop other than the crop prohibited under this section with the utilization of water from his own source subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. (2) On the making of a declaration under sub-section (1), the Director of Agriculture may specify by notification published in such manner as may be prescribed, the kinds of crops that shall not be grown on any land under such irrigation system and the periods of sowing and duration in respect of non-prohibited crops thereof.

22.06.2004. Note:LR copy be marked (B/O) That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Tuesday the twenty second day of Two thousand and four. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // To SECTION OFFICER 1 Commissioner of Land Revenue A.P, Hyderabad. 2 Dist Collector, Khammam. 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kusumanchi Mandal Khammam Dist. 5 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 2CD copies.