ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in A.T.A.No.01 of 2017, dated 09.08.2017 wherein and whereby learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the rejection orders passed by learned trial Judge in unnumbered A.T.C filed by the petitioner. The revision petitioner has filed petition before Special Officer under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act read with Rule 5(1) and Rule 6(1) of Tenancy Rules, 1980 against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent, for delivery of possession of petition schedule property and for costs. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the statutory tenant in respect of the petition schedule property, which he has taken on lease from one Mr.Borra Koteswararao on 05.09.2008 for a period of ten years under lease agreement. She submits that she dug fish pond by spending Rs.30,00,000/-and she alleged that said Borra Koteswararao obtained lease agreement from ten other farmers and along with other farmers, Borra Koteswararao has also got land in the petition schedule property. The petitioner submits that she was given right to sub-lease the schedule property to third parties and she has been paying rents regularly to Borra Koteswararao. The contention of the petitioner is that on 18.10.2012, she sub-let the petition schedule property to the respondent for a period of three years and ten months, but the respondent failed to pay balance rent of i.e.,Rs.80,000/-for the 3rd year and he has to pay the fourth year’s ten months rent i.e.,Rs.8,33,333/-in total respondent has to pay Rs.9,13,333/-as per sub lease agreement, which he failed to pay and then she issued notice demanding arrears of rent and advance amount from the respondent. The petitioner submits that the respondent got returned the said registered notice, but filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.235 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada and aggrieved by the orders in OS.No.235 of 2015, she preferred appeal before XI Additional District Court, Gudivada and she also filed O.S.No.123 of 2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudivada wherein she filed petition in I.A.No.478 of 2016, which was dismissed and then she preferred revision petition before this Court. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent falsely claiming that he had paid rents to Borra Koteswararao and he alleged that he spent Rs.2,00,000/-for repairs and paid some balance amount to her. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent colluded with Borra Koteswararao and tried to disposes her from the petition schedule property due to which she filed A.T.C.No.05 of 2015, which dismissed by the Court and also petitions filed therein and then she preferred appeal against the said Orders. The petitioner also alleged that she handed over a boat, residential house to the workers and godown, bamboos, nylon ropes, which all are mentioned in the lease agreement and the material which has to be returned to her. Hence, she filed petition for recovery of arrears of rent and delivery of possession of petition schedule property. 3. Learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada before registering A.T.C. rejected the same by passing orders on the ground that the petition schedule property is a fish tank due to that A.T.C. is not maintainable for fish tanks under the Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Special Officer, the petitioner preferred civil miscellaneous appeal, which is also dismissed by learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam by observing that fish pond/aqua-culture does not come under the purview of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 because the transaction in between the petitioner and the respondent is not a transaction relating to agriculture and confirmed the rejection orders passed by learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 4. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by appellate Judge, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition stating that Orders passed by trial Court as well as appellate Court not legal. 4. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by appellate Judge, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition stating that Orders passed by trial Court as well as appellate Court not legal. She submits that appellate Court ought to have seen that same Presiding Officer registered A.T.C.No.05 of 2015 in respect of the same schedule property and rejected when another ATC filed against the respondent, which is not tenable. It is the contention of the petitioner that finding of the appellate Court that fish pond/aqua-culture does not come under the purview of Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is in correct and not in accordance with law. She prays to allow the revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel Mr.Krishna Murthy appearing for the revision petitioner. Notice sent to the respondent said to be refused vide Order dated 21.06.2022. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that observation of trial Judge as well as appellate Judge that fish pond-aqua culture not comes under agriculture land is erroneous, which is against to the definition of agriculture lands as per Section 3(d) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He submits that NABARD also issued circular including the Aqua Culture and fish tanks and poultry farming, dairy farming is an activity of agriculture due to that dismissing the petition that the petition schedule land is not an agriculture land is erroneous. He argued that though there is Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, which is State Act due to that provisions of central Act i.e., Act amending land acquisition act is prevails which defines agricultural land included aqua culture, poultry forum which has to be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner. He further submits that same Court registered the petition previously filed by the petitioner in respect of same land, but refused to register another petition filed for recovery of arrears of rent and possession, which has to be set aside. He prays to allow the revision petition. 6. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?” POINT:- 7. He prays to allow the revision petition. 6. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?” POINT:- 7. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote statement and objects and reasons of the preamble of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956, which reads as under :- “An Act to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and for regulating the relations of landlords and cultivating tenants of agricultural lands and for matters connected therewith in the Andhra Area of the State of Andhra Pradesh” 8. As per Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act cultivating tenant" means a person who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other member of his family or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, but does not include a mere intermediary. 9. ... 10. So, it is only a cultivating tenant can invoke provisions of the Act as the act is mainly designed to give protection to the agricultural land tenants, which Act is made mainly for the benefit of cultivating tenants. 11. It would also beneficial to extract definition of agricultural land as per Section 3(d) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which reads as under:- “agricultural land” means land used for the purpose of-(i)agriculture or horticulture; (ii).dairy farming, poultry farming, piscicul-ture, sericulture, seed farming breeding of livestock or nursery growing medicinal herbs; (iii).raising of crops, trees, grass or garden produce; and (iv).land used for the grazing of cattle. 12. 12. Preamble of Act No.30 of 2013 is that: An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitutions, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialization, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 13. On perusal of above provisions, which makes it clear that preamble of the Act 30 of 2013 shows that purpose of amendment of the Act to provide fair compensation of the affected family due to land acquisition whereas Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 is for the purpose of protecting the cultivating tenant i.e., person who cultivating the agricultural land by his own labour with the help of his family members or with his labours. It is nowhere defined in Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act cultivating tenant includes the person sublet the land. Even otherwise both the above referred acts are with different objects and definition as contained in Act 30 of 2013 cannot be read while considering the petition filed under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Act, 1956. The learned appellate Judge also relied on ratio laid down by this Court in M.Venkata Ratnam Vs.District Judge, 2000 ALT (Revenue) 108(D.B.) wherein it is held that a tenant who is running a poultry farm on the land taken on lease is not a cultivating tenant within the meaning of that term under Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act. Similarly fish pond/aqua-culture not come under the purview of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, which rightly observed by the learned appellate Judge. Even otherwise the alleged lease by the petitioner from landlord is for a period of ten years from 05.09.2008 and his own pleading shows that A.T.C.No.05 of 2015 filed by him dismissed and other litigations pertaining to the same land pending before Civil Court. Even otherwise the alleged lease by the petitioner from landlord is for a period of ten years from 05.09.2008 and his own pleading shows that A.T.C.No.05 of 2015 filed by him dismissed and other litigations pertaining to the same land pending before Civil Court. When her pleadings itself discloses that it will not attract the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, invoking the provisions of the Act is not permissible under law, which rightly held by the Special Officer and also appellate Judge. This Court did not find any illegality or irregularly in the findings arrived by the learned appellate Judge confirming the rejection of petition orders passed by Special Officer-cum-Senior Civil Judge. Therefore, orders passed by the learned appellate Judge does not warrants any interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 14. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.