JOSEPH CHACKO Vs. FOOD MINISTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a cultivator of Kayal paddy land in ambalapuzha Taluk. In 1125, he cultivated 200 acres of paddy land and secured yield to the extent of 14330 paras of paddy out of which he had measured out to government 5900 paras inclusive of the paddy he had to pay as Pattom to the owners of the fields. He had therefore a balance of 8430 paras. He stated that for the cultivation of 1126 he had 267 acres of paddy land out of which 50 acres were in the very same block he cultivated in 1125 and 217 acres were an area he took on lease in substitution of his former block of 150 acres. Of this 48 acres constitute Kara Nilam and 169 acres Kayal Nilam. According to him he was entitled to stock 8066 paras of paddy towards seed and cultivation expenses for the current year's cultivation in respect of the said 267 acres of fields. On 3. 6. 1950 the Additional Tahsildar, Ambalapuzha served him with a notice to the effect that out of the said 8430 paras of paddy he was to measure out to government 4580 paras leaving a balance of only 3850 paras for domestic use and for cultivation of 217 acres. THE said figure was arrived at by a calculation of the Tahsildar so as to allow him 1350 paras for cultivating 50 acres he had cultivated the previous year, 2170 paras for seed alone for cultivating the new 217 acres and 330 paras for domestic consumption. According to him he was to get seed and cultivation expenses for cultivating the 217 acres at the rate of 27 paras per acre of Kara Nilam and 30 paras per acre of Kayal Nilam under the rules in existence at the time when he had taken the said 217 acres for purpose of cultivation. THE notice of 3. 6. 1950 was said to have been served by him pursuant to an order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. He wanted time to file an appeal to the Civil Supplies Commissioner and for stay of the acquisition in the interim. But the Tahsildar refused to accept his petition and opened his bin by force and took away 1982 paras of paddy in his absence. THE said procedure was said to be high-handed and illegal. He appealed against the action of the Tahsildar before the Civil Supplies Commissioner who rejected the appeal on 10. 7. 50, but modified the order of the Tahsildar by allowing him full quota for an additional 25 acres. THEn he moved this Court for a writ to quash the said order of the Civil Supplies Commissioner. It was O. P. 22 of 1950. This application was disallowed as he had a remedy by way of appeal to government under R. 16 of the Paddy Control Order. He accordingly preferred an appeal before the Government on 22-9-1950. But the Government summarily rejected his appeal without hearing him or giving him notice regarding the posting of the appeal. This order of the Government was filed along with his petition. He stated that the said order of the Government was illegal and was in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Part III, that the order, if passed by virtue of the powers of Government vested in them under the Public Safety Measures Act, was ultra vires to that extent and that the Government went wrong in not disposing of his appeal on the merits and without giving him an opportunity to be heard. He had also stated that against the decision of the single Bench in O. P. 22 of 1950 he had preferred A. S. 632 of 1950 before this Court and the appeal was pending disposal. He therefore prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Government order dismissing his appeal and for delivering back to him 1616 paras of paddy taken by force by the Tahsildar.

(2.) NOTICE of this petition was taken by the Advocate general when it came up first before this Court. The State took time to file a counter-affidavit which was put into court after several adjournments for the same. On behalf of the State Sri Anantharama Iyer who was the Grain Purchase tahsildar, Ambalapuzha, at the relevant time had filed an affidavit. He stated that since the petitioner was pursing a remedy in A. S. 632 of 1950, another petition for the same remedy in a Single Bench should not have been sought for, for he was agitating the same matter before two Benches of the same Court. He would say that the petition was not sustainable in law. He admitted that the petitioner had obtained 14330 paras of paddy from Kumbhom crop of 1125 out of which 8430 paras had been left with the petitioner. For the year 1126 the petitioner had for cultivation only about 50 acres of land which was cultivated by him in 1125. The remaining area of 217 acres referred to by the petitioner was taken up for cultivation afresh for the year 1126 independent of the Punja cultivation Special Officer. He was therefore entitled to get only the seed at the rate of 10 paras per acre for cultivating 217 acres. Since the stock with him was because of the yield from 150 acres the cultivation of which was given up by him, he issued an order calling upon the petitioner to measure out to government 4580 paras of paddy left with him as seed and cultivation expenses due to this area. It was just to defeat the Government and to make wrongful gain to himself that the petitioner had taken 217 acres of new land for fresh cultivation from independent sources. He was not entitled to get any quantity of paddy towards expenses for cultivating the said 217 acres. The quantity for seed and expenses for the cultivation in kind was fixed by the Grain Purchase tahsildar subject to the limitation that the same should not exceed the maximum rate that might be prescribed by the Government from time to time.

(3.) IT is now to be considered what remedy the petitioner is entitled to get under the provisions of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement)Control Order of 1950. This order came into force from the date on which it was published. Though it bears the date 12th April 1950, it was published in the gazette only on 9th May 1950. IT is the date of the publication in the gazette that can be considered as a valid order passed by the Government. Cl. XIII of s. 2 of the Public Safety Measures Act defines "notified order" to mean an order notified in the Gazette. The petitioner was in possession of some paddy and it was paddy that he was allowed to stock under the provisions of the paddy Acquisition and Movement Order of 1125 which contained the rules governing the cases of this nature. This order of 1125 was repealed by the order of 1950. The paddy with the petitioner was required for the cultivation of the Kumbham crop of 1126 so that the order passed in May 1950, i. e. Medom 1125 was the order that had to govern the present case. The petitioner comes under the definition of "stock-holder" as one cultivating the paddy land situate in the State of Travancore-Cochin whether in his own right or in any representative capacity. He was allowed to stock the quantity of paddy for seed and expenses of cultivation in kind as might be fixed by the Grain purchase Officer subject to such maximum rate as might be prescribed by government from time to time. The quantity of paddy for seed and cultivation expenses was fixed at 20 paras an acre per crop irrespective of the nature of the land. This was the maximum allowance fixed by the Government in a notification published at page 1250 of the Gazette dated 3. 10. 1950. That would also show that in the Travancore area the paddy allowance ranged from 21 paras to 30 paras per acre. But a uniform rate was now fixed for the Travancore area as well as the Cochin area. There was no case on the part of the State that the grain Purchase Officer or the Commissioner of Civil Supplies had further reduced this rate below 20 paras per acre. So the cultivator, irrespective of the nature of the land cultivated was entitled to retain 20 paras of paddy per acre for seed and cultivation expenses. The argument of the petitioner's learned advocate that he was to get the rate which was prevailing when he stocked the paddy could not be accepted. He was only a stock-holder without any right to spend a grain out of the paddy stocked without the sanction of the authority concerned. The question of spending paddy for cultivation would arise only when cultivation operations began and not before. The paddy with the petitioner was for raising the crop to be harvested in Kumbhom 1126. The actual cultivation will begin only in the beginning of 1126, so that the rate prevalent then could alone be allowed to the petitioner. He is entitled to get twenty paras of paddy per acre of paddy land cultivated by him.