Joseph Chacko v. Food Minister — 1950 DIGILAW 96 (KER)

Judgment :- 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 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. 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. In the present case the excess stock available with the petitioner was 4580 paras of paddy after allowing the petitioner a quantity of 3850 paras for seed, expenses of cultivation and domestic consumption. 3. In the present case the excess stock available with the petitioner was 4580 paras of paddy after allowing the petitioner a quantity of 3850 paras for seed, expenses of cultivation and domestic consumption. In fixing this allowance to the petitioner the quantity allowable to the petitioner according to the rates prescribed by the Government and the provisions of the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order 1950 had been taken into consideration. The amount due to the petitioner was calculated as stated by him in his affidavit. The petitioner appealed against the order passed by him and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies allowed him cultivation expenses for 25 acres more and dismissed the remaining portion of the appeal. After the notice of 3.6.1950 was served on the petitioner he had not asked for time to file any appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and so a portion of the paddy had been removed by him. The next day the petitioner appeared and undertook to execute a Kychit to keep the remaining paddy stock safe after being sealed pending orders of the Commissioner. The same paddy was still with the petitioner. The Government had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner only after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. He was not entitled to any more concession and he pressed for the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner filed an answer to this yesterday. It resembled more an argument note in a case than a statement of bare facts. It is therefore necessary to refer in detail to this affidavit. 4. One of the main complaints of the petitioner was that the Government had not heard his argument while disposing of the appeal filed by him against the order of the Civil Supplies Commissioner. Even in the elaborate counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar this statement was not denied. The order passed by the Government would also show that no arguments were heard. That order had been produced in this case and it indicated that the Government perused only the petition dated 22.7.1950 presented on behalf of the petitioner and that the same was rejected. This is a most unsatisfactory way of disposing of an appeal even though the deciding authority was the Government. That order had been produced in this case and it indicated that the Government perused only the petition dated 22.7.1950 presented on behalf of the petitioner and that the same was rejected. This is a most unsatisfactory way of disposing of an appeal even though the deciding authority was the Government. It was by virtue of S. 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act V of 1950 that the Government had been enabled to issue the order called the (Paddy Acquisition and Movement) Control Order 1950. This had made provision for stocking paddy and utilising the same in the manner prescribed by the order. R.15 stated that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies would be competent to revise or cancel any order passed by any officer authorised to administer the provisions of the said control order. R.16 provided that any person aggrieved by any order of the Commissioner may appeal to the Government within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against by the person concerned and the orders passed by the Government there on shall be final. Necessarily therefore it was a right that was conferred on the subject by the Government and being so the Government were injustice, equity and good conscience bound to conform to the provisions of natural justice in hearing and disposing of the appeal. No man is to be condemned before giving him an opportunity to present his case. That elementary rule of natural justice had been violated in this case and this court in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Constitution of India is competent to quash such proceedings. The decision passed in appeal by the Government is quashed. 5. 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. 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 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. 6. An argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader was that the stock with the petitioner was on account of crop raised by him in 200 acres of land of which he had now in possession only 50 acres. So the petitioner was to surrender the quantity he was allowed to stock towards seed and cultivation expenses as regards this 150 acres. To the extent it goes, the argument is good. But it was admitted by the State that besides 50 acres cultivated by the petitioner in 1125 he had 217 acres for cultivation, though the said 217 acres did not come within the 150 acres left out by him. But the Grain Purchase Officer had allowed him 2170 paras of paddy to cultivate the said 217 acres out of crops raised in the said 150 or 200 acres. Thus the fact that the petitioner was cultivating 217 acres was a concluded one. This 217 acres were cultivated by some one else in 1125 and when they gave up cultivation the purchasing officer was to get the seed and cultivation expenses for the said 218 acres from the persons who surrendered this land and to hand over the same to the petitioner. Instead of asking the petitioner to surrender the seed and cultivation expenses as regards 150 acres and take in return that required for 217 acres, mere mathematical calculation was sufficient to settle the accounts. 7. Another argument was that since the petitioner took up 217 acres for new cultivation he was to get only 2170 paras of paddy, i.e. the paddy required for the seed alone. In support of this Ext. 7. Another argument was that since the petitioner took up 217 acres for new cultivation he was to get only 2170 paras of paddy, i.e. the paddy required for the seed alone. In support of this Ext. II an order without date said to have been passed by the Government had been produced in the case. The Government were said to have accepted a proposal of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies that a person who expressed his intention to begin cultivation for the first time could not have a claim similar to that of a person who had produced paddy and that the first named person was therefore to be given only paddy for seed. This is not a notified order and no weight could be attached to this. The idea conveyed is against all accepted principles of justice. A bonafide cultivator was entitled to seed and cultivation expenses in kind. The cultivation expenses are expenses which go with the land. Whoever cultivates the land will have to spend certain amount in kind as expenses so that there is no question of a new cultivator and an old cultivator in respect of the cultivation of the same paddy land. If the persons who cultivated the 217 acres in 1125 cultivated the same paddy land in 1126 also they would have got paddy for seed and cultivation expenses to the extent prescribed by the Government from time to time. There is therefore no meaning in this argument that a new cultivator is entitled to get only an allowance for the seed and not for the cultivation expenses. The petitioner has cultivated 267 acres of paddy land and he is to get 5340 paras of paddy towards seed and cultivation expenses. He is also to be allowed 330 paras of paddy for domestic consumption. In all, he is to get 5670 paras of paddy and the authorities are bound to allow him the same. 8. The decision of Government and the Civil Supplies Commissioner are modified and it is declared that the petitioner is to get 5670 (Five thousand and six hundred and seventy) paras of paddy. The petition is allowed to the above extent. Copies of this order would be sent to the counter-petitioners to implement the decision passed above. The parties will bear their costs of these proceedings.