Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 24 (ORI)

Meghanada Sahoo v. Union of India

2006-01-17

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — In all these Writ Petitions the petition¬ers pray to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to release the paddy seized from them respectively by the Tahsildar, Lakhanpur, opposite party No.3, vide seizure-list dated 21.12.2005, Annexure-2 in the respective Writ Petitions. As the facts and points of law involved are same, all the Writ Peti¬tions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners assert that they are farmers and they possess their own lands. In support of such statement they rely upon the identity cards issued by the Tahsildar, vide Annexure-1. With much difficulty they had grown paddy in their lands and after harvesting for selling the same at the best price petition¬er Nos.2 to 7 had been to their nearby village Signgharpur, which is the village of petitioner No.1. While all the petitioners were negotiating to sell their paddy, opposite party No.3 Tahsildar conducted a raid and seized their entire paddy, vide the seizure-lists respectively Annexure-2 to the Writ Petitions.According to the petitioners the Tahsildar never disclosed the reason for such seizure nor the provision under which he was exercising the power to make the seizure. In the seizure-list Annexure-2 the ground of seizure was stated to be “Sale of paddy through middle¬man suspected”. It is further asserted by the petitioners that on the basis of applications filed by them before the concerned authority, the latter released their vehicles, but then did not release the seized paddy. The petitioners assail the said seizure mainly on the ground that the entire exercise culminating in seizure of their paddy bad been made on the basis of mere sur¬mises and conjectures of the Tahsildar and not in consonance with any Act or Rules and the opposite parties having no authority to make such seizure under the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956, had exceeded their jurisdiction. Relying on Annexure-1, respectively the identity cards issued in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority, they assert that they are cultivators and have every right to cultivate and grow paddy and other crops on their lands and noth¬ing prohibits them from doing that. 3. Relying on Annexure-1, respectively the identity cards issued in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority, they assert that they are cultivators and have every right to cultivate and grow paddy and other crops on their lands and noth¬ing prohibits them from doing that. 3. After receiving the Rule of this Court, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 stating that the Tahsildar opposite party No.3 had effected the alleged seizure of paddy as per instructions of the Sub-Collector exercising jurisdiction over the place in question and in the capacity of Chairman of the Regional Marketing Committee of Jharsuguda. In para-6 of the said counter affidavit the ground of alleged seizure is stated to be “sale of paddy through middleman at a price lower than the minimum support price, thus leading to distress sale”. It has further been stated in the counter affida¬vit that there was no mala fide, ex facie, behind the seizure and the paddy in question was seized from village Singharpur where the same had been gathered although the market yard was located at Lakhanpur village. It has been further stated that the vil¬lages of the petitioners (Nos. 2 to 7) were nearer to village Lakhanpur, and their stacking the paddy at Singharpur created suspicion. It is also stated that the seized paddy has already been sold and the price thereof has been deposited in Government treasury. According to these opposite parties as the petitioners were middlemen and the negotiation by them amounted to distress sale, the authorities had the right to seize the paddy in ques¬tion. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners countenancing the averments made in the counter-affidavit. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of aforesaid opposite parties 2 and 3 asserting therein that pro¬ceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act have been initiated against the petitioners and it is open to the petitioners to make their submission in the said proceedings. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the materials on record. The identity card as per respective Annexure-1 to the Writ Petitions reveals that the petitioners were farmers. No material has been produced before this Court by the opposite parties to show that in fact the petitioners were acting as middlemen in selling the paddy in question. The identity card as per respective Annexure-1 to the Writ Petitions reveals that the petitioners were farmers. No material has been produced before this Court by the opposite parties to show that in fact the petitioners were acting as middlemen in selling the paddy in question. There is also no material on record which would reveal that the paddy seized belonged to anybody else other than the petitioners. That apart, no third party has put forth his claim with regard to the paddy seized. In absence of such materials, it cannot be said that the petitioners were acting as middlemen and the paddy was kept for distress sale. As cultivators the peti¬tioners had the right to sell their own paddy at the best rate that could fetch. No authority can prohibit them from selling their produce at a price they agree. In the present case there is also no material to show that the seized paddy was being negoti¬ated to be sold at a price lower than the price fixed by the State Government. 6. After going through the entire materials on record and perusing the averments/pleadings of the respective parties, this Court is satisfied that the seizures as per Annexure-2 respec¬tively suspecting that the petitioners were middlemen were not done in consonance with law, but on the basis of surmises and conjectures. This Court has therefore no hesitation to quash the seizures in question as well as the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Essential Commodities Act. The oppo¬site parties are directed to pay the price of the quantity of paddy seized to the respective Writ petitioners as per the sale proceeds. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Petitions disposed of.