Amrit Pal Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2924 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7307/2018

1. Amrit Pal Singh Son Of Kulwant Singh,

2. Balkaran Singh Son Of Jora Singh,

3. Randhir Singh Son Of Jora Singh,

4. Ajaypal Singh, Son Of Randhir Singh,

5. Vivekpal Singh, Son Of Randhir, All By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Chak 8 N.s.w., Tehsil Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Chief Minister Office, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 Raj..

2. The Director Horticluture, Directorate Of Horticulture Ministry Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur Raj..

3. The Assistant Director Horticulture, Hanumangarh Raj..

4. Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society, Through Its Member Secretary, Directorate Of Horticulture Ministry Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur Raj..

5. Atul Limited P.o. Atul, Valsad, Valsad- 396020, Gujarat.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17042/2018

1. Virendra Kumar S/o Sh. Haquiqat Rai, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Chak 1 Bsm, Anupagarh, District- Sri Ganganagar.

2. Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Bhagu Ram,, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chak 77 Lnp, Padampur, District- Sri Ganganagar.

3. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Balveer, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Chak 3 Mlk, Gharansana, District - Sri Ganganagar.

4. Balveer Singh S/o Sh. Karnail,, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Chak 9 Gdb, Gharsana, District- Sri Ganganagar.

5. Kamla W/o Sh. Rati Ram,, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Chak 10 Rjd, Gharsana, District- Sri-Ganganagar.

6. Nakshtra Singh S/o Sh. Tara Singh,, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Chak 5 Blm, Vijay Nagar, District- Sri-Ganganagar.

7. Santosh W/o Sh. Dilip Kumar,, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Chak 13 Ss, Vijay Nagar, District- Sri Ganganagar.

8. Sawaidan Singh S/o Sh. Kaishavdan Singh,, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chak 8 Ptd B, Raisinghnagar, District- Sri Ganganagar.

9. Surendra Kumar S/o Sh. Santlal,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Chak 23 Ptd, Anupgarh, District - Sri Ganganagar.

10. Kailash Devi W/o Sh. Vedprakash,, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Chak 4 Udm, Anupgarh, District- Sri Ganganagar.

(2 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

11. Kapoor Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Singh,, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Chak 7 Bkm, Sukhchainpura, Suratgarh, District- Sri Ganganagar.

12. Rakesh Singh S/o Sh. Sh. Hardeep Singh,, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Chak 5 Lnp, Tehsil Sadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar.

13. Mohar Chand S/o Sh. Hari Ram,, Aged About 45 Years, R/ o Chak 42 Ssw, Village Behol Nagar, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

14. Mani Ram S/o Sh. Lekh Ram,, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Chak 28 Ndr, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Chief Minister Office, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005 (Raj.).

2. The Director Horticulture, Directorate Of Horticulture Ministry Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Assistant Director Horticulture, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. The Assistant Director Horticulture, Sri-Ganganagar (Raj.).

5. Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society, Through Its Member Secretary, Directorate Of Horticulture Ministry Of Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).

6. Atul Limited, P.o. Atul, Valsad, Valsad- 396020, Gujarat.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate
                                assisted by Ms.Kamini Joshi.
                                Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, Govt.Counsel

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

23/02/2022

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:

                                        (3 of 11)              [CW-7307/2018]


CWP No.7307/2018:

"A. The respondents be directed to replace the faulty date palms/plants and sampling with the high yielding varieties of plants and to restore the position to situation which it would have been in, had the mistake not occurred in the first place.

B. Further in addition, the respondents be directed to compensate the expenses made by the petitioner on the development of the land and maintenance per plant from the date of planting till the position is restored by the respondents, on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition.

C. The respondents be directed to grant appropriate compensation for loss of income to the petitioners on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition. D. Further it is prayed that appropriate investigation may be ordered into the matter and the action be ordered to be taken against the erring officers and the company."

CWP No.17042/2018:

"A. The respondents be directed to replace the faulty date palms/plants and sampling with high yielding varieties of plants and to restore the position to situation which it would have been in, had the mistake not occurred in the first place.

B. Further in addition, the respondents be directed to compensate the expenses made by the petitioner on the development of the land and maintenance per plant from the date of planting till the position is restored by the respondents, on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition.

C. The respondents be directed to grant appropriate compensation for loss of income per plant/per year to

(4 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

the petitioners on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition.

D. Further it is prayed that appropriate investigation may be ordered into the erroneous import and supply of date palms/plants to the petitioners, and the action be ordered to be taken against the erring officers and the company.

E. That further it is prayed that investigation may also be ordered into the payments of the subsidies and other payments made by the respondents authorities to the respondent No.6."

2. For the purpose of brevity, the facts are being taken from

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7307/2018, while treating the same as

the lead case.

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioners (the

agriculturists) are closely related to each other and are the

residents of Chak 8NSW, Tehsil Pilibangan, District

Hanumangarh; they are carrying on the agricultural activity

jointly.

4. In the year 2009-2010, the State of Rajasthan announced a

scheme under the National Agriculture Development Scheme,

whereby the farmers were encouraged to plant date palm trees

of a superior variety, so as to achieve high productivity, keeping

in mind the domestic as well as the export market.

4.1 The intent of the scheme was to ensure that the arid and

semi arid lands in the District of Hanumangarh were made to

yield high productive crops of dates, thereby putting the land to

good use. The said scheme was structured through the agency of

the respondent No.5, which was to arrange high yielding

varieties of date palms/trees at subsidized rates, provided the

(5 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

farmers invested in their land, and the farmers prepare the land,

including providing drip irrigation, from their own resources.

5. The State Government had contracted with the respondent

no.5 for import and supply of these plants from Saudi Arabia and

the same were to be imported and supplied to the agriculturists

as per the scheme floated by the State Government. The subsidy

amount was to be borne by the State Government and only 10%

was to be paid by the concerned agriculturist. An agreement for

supply of date plants was also entered into between the

respondent No.4 and 5 on 28.05.2008, wherein it was stipulated

that the respondent No.5 shall act as an agency for supply of

date plants to the farmers.

6. Initially, the land was purchased in the name of one Bhan

Singh, Amritpal Singh and Balkaran Singh and the plants were

accordingly purchased. Subsequently however, by way of a

family settlement, the petitioners have got partitioned the 25

hectares of the land, and the same has been recorded in the

revenue records in their respective names. Thereafter, the

petitioners have filed the necessary application for making

necessary entries in the record of the respondent Department,

and the same was also forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the

respondent No.2 vide letter dated 24.07.2017.

7. As per the pleaded facts, pursuant to the representation

made by the State Government in the aforementioned scheme,

the petitioners purchased the date plants; the land at the

relevant time was owned jointly in the names of Bhan Singh,

Amritpal Singh and Balkaran Singh.

8. However thereafter, the petitioners having discovered that

(6 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

the wrong variety of plants not only in their region, but also in

various regions, have been supplied to the farmers concerned,

approached the State Government with a complaint for

appropriate redressal of the grievance therein; whereupon a

team was constituted by the respondents to conduct a survey

and prepare the report in that regard. As per the petitioners, the

report so submitted indicated that about 80% to 90% of the

Barhi plants were of poor quality and off-type variety. Thereafter,

several committees were constituted, followed by various reports

and correspondence between the State authorities, inter se, in

regard to the complaints concerned.

9. As narrated in the writ petition, the petitioners thereafter

also, made several complaints and representations in regard to

the issue in question, but failed to get any redressal thereof.

Thereafter, the petitioners served a notice for demand of justice

dated 06.02.2017 to the State/respondents for compensation of

the loss suffered by them, owing to the negligence of the officials

of the State.

10. The petitioners thereafter again approached the respondent

by way of submitting a representation for compensating them

and for making good the loss caused to them, but upon being

unsuccessful in all their endeavours to get their grievance

redressed, the present petitions have been preferred before this

Hon'ble Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the

aforementioned projections and promises made by the

respondents, the petitioners have changed their position and

have invested a huge sum of money and time for development of

(7 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

the date farm; however, the fruits, as per such promise have not

yielded, on account of off variety of the plants having been

supplied by the agency of the respondents.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

scheme so floated was a welfare scheme, but despite that, such

scheme has caused huge loss of money to the petitioners

(farmers), which they have earned out of their agriculture

produce.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

species were specifically mentioned with the specific price, and

the same was to be provided at subsidized rates to the farmers;

there was huge expenditure of public funds into the scheme as

90% was borne by the government. However, as per learned

counsel, not only the petitioners and other similarly situated

farmers have suffered loss of money, but also such loss has been

caused to the public exchequer only on count of negligence on

the part of the concerned officials of the State/respondents.

13.1 Learned counsel also submits that the said loss of money

was caused as the erring officials of the State/respondents and

the respondent No.5 have supplied species/plants, which are off

type, when compared to the specifies supposed to be provided to

the farmers.

13.2 Learned counsel also submits that the report of the experts

also makes it clear that the off type plants, which were supplied,

were morphological different from the BARHI species, and

further some plants are of stunt growth.

14. As per the conditions mentioned in the aforementioned

agreement entered into by the State Government in relation to

(8 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

the scheme in question, the respondents were required to

provide the performance guarantee and to bear the replacement,

in case of any inherent risk/variation in genetic make up, and

that, the satisfactory performance shall be treated as more than

90% conformity to yield reflection data and more than 95%

conformity to the genetic data.

14.1 Learned counsel thus submits that the State/respondents,

through their erring officials, have acted against the legitimate

expectation of the farmers, like the present petitioners, despite

the fact that the scheme so floated, was a welfare scheme.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

State/respondents submits that though the respondents had

encouraged the farmers for plantation of the Date Palm Trees on

subsidized rates, but the same did not mean that the

agriculturists purchase the lands on a large scale, as averred by

the petitioners.

16. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits

that as per the scheme, the petitioners had applied for Date Palm

plants on 90% subsidized rates and after deposition of the

requisite 10% amount, plants were supplied to the petitioners by

the respondent No.5.

17. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits

that upon making enquiry, it was found that some Date Palm

plants which were planted by the petitioners were having

different species and poor quality. However, as per learned

counsel, after receiving the complaint in this regard, a

Committee was constituted by the office of the Assistant Director,

Hanumangarh; the said committee inspected the site in question

(9 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

from time to time and prepared an inspection report, which was

later on conveyed to the respondent No.2.

18. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits

that since the respondent No.5 was liable to provide and supply

the plants of Date Palm of actual species and certain quality,

therefore, the State respondents ought not to be blamed, for no

fault on their part.

19. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits

that the respondent No.3 had conducted a survey in respect of

supply the off type of Date Palm Plants on 29.12.2012 and copy

of the said inspection report forwarded to the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, upon making

another complaint by the petitioners, a Committee was

constituted by the State/respondents, and after conducted due

survey, the inspection report was forwarded on 074.11.2016 to

the respondent No.2.

20. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits

that the respondent No.2 again constituted a new Committee

while including Date Palm Scientist therein, and the said

Committee made survey of the Date Palm Plants and forwarded

the report dated 01.005.2017 to the said respondent. As per

learned counsel, thereafter, the respondent No.2 itself had made

inspection of the farm of Date Palm Plants on 30.04.2017, and a

notice dated 02.06.2017 was set to the respondent No.5

regarding supply of off variety Date Palm plants to the

agriculturists concerned.

21. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits

that prior to preparation of a report which was dated

(10 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

15.03.02018, another report was prepared by the Committee in

presence of a representative of the respondent No.5-Company ,

wherein it was found that the Date Palm plants which were

supplied by the respondent No.5 were not in accordance with the

quality and some of the Date Palm plants were off type.

22. Learned counsel for the State/respondents thus, submits

that in light of the effective steps being taken by the

State/respondents, the contention raised on behalf of the

petitioners to the effect that the State has acted contrary to the

projection made by the government in the welfare scheme in

question; this is more so when even if someone is to be blamed

for the loss caused to the petitioners and the public exchequer,

then only and only respondent No.5 is to be held liable therefor.

23. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that in the given

facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners have been

supplied the Date Palm plants in question on a quite subsidized

rate (90% subsidy), thereby, the petitioners were required to pay

the amount only to the extent of 10% for the plants in question.

24. The record clearly shows that the loss in question, pursuant

to supply of the off type Date Palm plants, is in fact caused to

the State exchequer, and not to the present petitioners or any

other agriculturist, in view of the subsidy received by them for

supply of the plants in question.

25. Thus, the State/respondents cannot be held liable so as to

compensate the loss alleged to have been suffered by the

petitioners in the present case.

(11 of 11) [CW-7307/2018]

26. In view of the above, this Court does not find that a case is

made out in the these petitions so as to call for any interference

under the writ jurisdiction by this Court.

27. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed.

However, the State /respondents shall be at liberty to take any

action against the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of

hearing strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications

stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

142-143-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)