MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2005 passed by Additional District judge/E.C. Act, Buduan in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1998, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.05.1998 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Budaun in Original suit No. 88 of 1981, Mahesh Chandra v. Union of India and Ors.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that the plaintiff-appellant filed original suit No. 88 of 1991, contending therein that he was permanent resident of Kasba Wajirganj, Tehsil Bisauli, Paragan Satasi, District Buduan and had got agricultural land situated in the said area, and for the first time in the year 1975 for the purposes of cultivation of opium licence was granted to him and he was also appointed as Lambardar. In the year 1978-79, his brother Harish Chandra was appointed as Lambardar of Kasba Wajirganj, and in the year 1980-81, Harish Chandra was given licence for cultivation of opium in 50 Hectares of land. The plaintiff has mentioned that the then Opium Officer on 24.10.1980 after appending his signatures made recommendations for extra cultivation of opium and it was conveyed that permission would be accorded to Harish Chandra for carrying out cultivation of extra opium and further for regularising cultivation of opium details were given. Thereafter survey was conducted and it was found that the opium had been cultivated in excess than the prescribed limit and in this regard complaint had been made and proceedings were undertaken for cancellation of the licence. The plaintiff-appellant has mentioned that the entire proceedings were collusive and the excess opium which had been received, was from the house of his brother, for which had been given permission, and in this background his licence could not have been cancelled, as such injunction was prayed for.

(3.) The claim set up by the plaintiff-appellant was contested and it was contended that excess amount of opium which had been recovered, was illegally cultivated, and further the documents were manipulated and at no point of time permission was accorded for cultivating extra opium than the prescribed limit. It has been stated that the raiding party took 171 Kg. opium from the plaintiff and 70 Kg. from his brother. As the opium had been illegally cultivated over and above the prescribed limit, decision was taken to cancel the licence. It was also found that the quality of opium produced by the plaintiff was of inferior quality.