[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Chief Agriculture Officer And Others on 23 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2014
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.612 of 2026
23rd March, 2026
Charanjeet Singh and others .........Petitioners
Versus
Chief Agriculture Officer and others ............Respondents
With
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.613 of 2026
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.615 of 2026
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.617 of 2026
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.644 of 2026
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.655 of 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Balvinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPMS
Nos.612 of 2026, 613 of 2026, 615 of 2026 and 617 of 2026, Mr.
Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPMS
No.644 of 2026 and Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the
petitioners in WPMS No.655 of 2026.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Since these writ petitions have the common facts
and law involved, therefore, they are being decided by this
common judgment and order and for the sake of
convenience the facts of WPMS No.612 of 2026 are only
being considered.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners challenging the order dated 04.02.2026, passed
by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the
petitioners have been stopped from sowing summer paddy
in their fields except in those fields which are water logged.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that such an order cannot be passed by the
2026:UHC:2014
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, without there
being any sanction of law and the petitioners cannot be
stopped sowing the crops of their choice.
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners-farmers that they used to grow summer
paddy crop, which takes only two months to harvest, and
that pesticides are used in that crop in a very small
quantity.
5. While granting interim order for not destroying
the nurseries summer paddy sown by the petitioners,
instructions were called from the State counsel in the
matter.
6. Today, on instructions, learned counsel for the
State submits that the impugned letter passed by learned
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, is result of some
deliberation between the Scientists of Pantnagar
Agriculture University, I.C.A.R. and I.I.T. Roorkee which
were unanimous in saying that "summer paddy shall not
be allowed to be grown in the fields which are not water
logged, as they are reducing the ground water level and at
the same time increasing the pH value of the soil of the
area from 7 to 8".
7. He further submits, on instructions, that the
petitioners-farmers are allowed to sow the crops except the
summer paddy crop in those fields which were not water
logged and they have been allowed to sow the summer
paddy in the field which are only water logged.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the record of the case and the
impugned order dated 04.02.2026, this Court is of the
considered view that every action taken by the State must
2026:UHC:2014
have the sanction of law. Since there is no law prohibiting
the petitioner-farmers from sowing a crop of their choice,
this Court holds that such an order could not have been
passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. It is
further clarified that in the absence of any statutory
provision restriction on the cultivation of summer paddy
cannot be imposed. For the aforesaid reasons, the
impugned order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned
District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed.
9. In such view of the matter, petitioners are
permitted to sow the summer paddy in their respective
fields on the basis of their choice irrespective of the fact
that the land is water logged or not.
10. Accordingly all writ petitions stand allowed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.03.2026
SK
