Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 651 (RAJ)

Amrit Pal Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-02-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: CWP No. 7307/2018: "A. The respondents be directed to replace the faulty date palms/plants and sampling with the high yielding varieties of plants and to restore the position to situation which it would have been in, had the mistake not occurred in the first place. B. Further in addition, the respondents be directed to compensate the expenses made by the petitioner on the development of the land and maintenance per plant from the date of planting till the position is restored by the respondents, on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition. C. The respondents be directed to grant appropriate compensation for loss of income to the petitioners on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition. D. Further it is prayed that appropriate investigation may be ordered into the matter and the action be ordered to be taken against the erring officers and the company." CWP No. 17042/2018: "A. The respondents be directed to replace the faulty date palms/plants and sampling with high yielding varieties of plants and to restore the position to situation which it would have been in, had the mistake not occurred in the first place. B. Further in addition, the respondents be directed to compensate the expenses made by the petitioner on the development of the land and maintenance per plant from the date of planting till the position is restored by the respondents, on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition. C. The respondents be directed to grant appropriate compensation for loss of income per plant/per year to the petitioners on the basis set out in the main body of this writ petition. D. Further it is prayed that appropriate investigation may be ordered into the erroneous import and supply of date palms/plants to the petitioners, and the action be ordered to be taken against the erring officers and the company. D. Further it is prayed that appropriate investigation may be ordered into the erroneous import and supply of date palms/plants to the petitioners, and the action be ordered to be taken against the erring officers and the company. E. That further it is prayed that investigation may also be ordered into the payments of the subsidies and other payments made by the respondents authorities to the respondent No. 6." 3. For the purpose of brevity, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7307/2018, while treating the same as the lead case. 4. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioners (the agriculturists) are closely related to each other and are the residents of Chak 8NSW, Tehsil Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh; they are carrying on the agricultural activity jointly. 5. In the year 2009-2010, the State of Rajasthan announced a scheme under the National Agriculture Development Scheme, whereby the farmers were encouraged to plant date palm trees of a superior variety, so as to achieve high productivity, keeping in mind the domestic as well as the export market. 5.1. The intent of the scheme was to ensure that the and and semi and lands in the District of Hanumangarh were made to yield high productive crops of dates, thereby putting the land to good use. The said scheme was structured through the agency of the respondent No. 5, which was to arrange high yielding varieties of date palms/trees at subsidized rates, provided the farmers invested in their land, and the farmers prepare the land, including providing drip irrigation, from their own resources. 6. The State Government had contracted with the respondent No. 5 for import and supply of these plants from Saudi Arabia and the same were to be imported and supplied to the agriculturists as per the scheme floated by the State Government. The subsidy amount was to be borne by the State Government and only 10% was to be paid by the concerned agriculturist. An agreement for supply of date plants was also entered into between the respondent No. 4 and 5 on 28.05.2008, wherein it was stipulated that the respondent No. 5 shall act as an agency for supply of date plants to the farmers. 7. Initially, the land was purchased in the name of one Bhan Singh, Amritpal Singh and Balkaran Singh and the plants were accordingly purchased. 7. Initially, the land was purchased in the name of one Bhan Singh, Amritpal Singh and Balkaran Singh and the plants were accordingly purchased. Subsequently however, by way of a family settlement, the petitioners have got partitioned the 25 hectares of the land, and the same has been recorded in the revenue records in their respective names. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the necessary application for making necessary entries in the record of the respondent Department, and the same was also forwarded by the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24.07.2017. 8. As per the pleaded facts, pursuant to the representation made by the State Government in the aforementioned scheme, the petitioners purchased the date plants; the land at the relevant time was owned jointly in the names of Bhan Singh, Amritpal Singh and Balkaran Singh. 9. However thereafter, the petitioners having discovered that the wrong variety of plants not only in their region, but also in various regions, have been supplied to the farmers concerned, approached the State Government with a complaint for appropriate redressal of the grievance therein; whereupon a team was constituted by the respondents to conduct a survey and prepare the report in that regard. As per the petitioners, the report so submitted indicated that about 80% to 90% of the Barhi plants were of poor quality and off-type variety. Thereafter, several committees were constituted, followed by various reports and correspondence between the State authorities, inter se, in regard to the complaints concerned. 10. As narrated in the writ petition, the petitioners thereafter also, made several complaints and representations in regard to the issue in question, but failed to get any redressal thereof. Thereafter, the petitioners served a notice for demand of justice dated 06.02.2017 to the State/respondents for compensation of the loss suffered by them, owing to the negligence of the officials of the State. 11. The petitioners thereafter again approached the respondent by way of submitting a representation for compensating them and for making good the loss caused to them, but upon being unsuccessful in all their endeavours to get their grievance redressed, the present petitions have been preferred before this Hon'ble Court. 12. 11. The petitioners thereafter again approached the respondent by way of submitting a representation for compensating them and for making good the loss caused to them, but upon being unsuccessful in all their endeavours to get their grievance redressed, the present petitions have been preferred before this Hon'ble Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the aforementioned projections and promises made by the respondents, the petitioners have changed their position and have invested a huge sum of money and time for development of the date farm; however, the fruits, as per such promise have not yielded, on account of off variety of the plants having been supplied by the agency of the respondents. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the scheme so floated was a welfare scheme, but despite that, such scheme has caused huge loss of money to the petitioners (farmers), which they have earned out of their agriculture produce. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the species were specifically mentioned with the specific price, and the same was to be provided at subsidized rates to the farmers; there was huge expenditure of public funds into the scheme as 90% was borne by the government. However, as per learned counsel, not only the petitioners and other similarly situated farmers have suffered loss of money, but also such loss has been caused to the public exchequer only on count of negligence on the part of the concerned officials of the State/respondents. 14.1. Learned counsel also submits that the said loss of money was caused as the erring officials of the State/respondents and the respondent No. 5 have supplied species/plants, which are off type, when compared to the specifies supposed to be provided to the farmers. 14.2. Learned counsel also submits that the report of the experts also makes it clear that the off type plants, which were supplied, were morphological different from the BARHI species, and further some plants are of stunt growth. 15. 14.2. Learned counsel also submits that the report of the experts also makes it clear that the off type plants, which were supplied, were morphological different from the BARHI species, and further some plants are of stunt growth. 15. As per the conditions mentioned in the aforementioned agreement entered into by the State Government in relation to the scheme in question, the respondents were required to provide the performance guarantee and to bear the replacement, in case of any inherent risk/variation in genetic make up, and that, the satisfactory performance shall be treated as more than 90% conformity to yield reflection data and more than 95% conformity to the genetic data. 15.1. Learned counsel thus submits that the State/respondents, through their erring officials, have acted against the legitimate expectation of the farmers, like the present petitioners, despite the fact that the scheme so floated, was a welfare scheme. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents submits that though the respondents had encouraged the farmers for plantation of the Date Palm Trees on subsidized rates, but the same did not mean that the agriculturists purchase the lands on a large scale, as averred by the petitioners. 17. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits that as per the scheme, the petitioners had applied for Date Palm plants on 90% subsidized rates and after deposition of the requisite 10% amount, plants were supplied to the petitioners by the respondent No. 5. 18. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits that upon making enquiry, it was found that some Date Palm plants which were planted by the petitioners were having different species and poor quality. However, as per learned counsel, after receiving the complaint in this regard, a Committee was constituted by the office of the Assistant Director, Hanumangarh; the said committee inspected the site in question from time to time and prepared an inspection report, which was later on conveyed to the respondent No. 2. 19. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits that since the respondent No. 5 was liable to provide and supply the plants of Date Palm of actual species and certain quality, therefore, the State respondents ought not to be blamed, for no fault on their part. 20. 19. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits that since the respondent No. 5 was liable to provide and supply the plants of Date Palm of actual species and certain quality, therefore, the State respondents ought not to be blamed, for no fault on their part. 20. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits that the respondent No. 3 had conducted a survey in respect of supply the off type of Date Palm Plants on 29.12.2012 and copy of the said inspection report forwarded to the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, upon making another complaint by the petitioners, a Committee was constituted by the State/respondents, and after conducted due survey, the inspection report was forwarded on 074.11.2016 to the respondent No. 2. 21. Learned counsel for the State/respondents further submits that the respondent No. 2 again constituted a new Committee while including Date Palm Scientist therein, and the said Committee made survey of the Date Palm Plants and forwarded the report dated 01.005.2017 to the said respondent. As per learned counsel, thereafter, the respondent No. 2 itself had made inspection of the farm of Date Palm Plants on 30.04.2017, and a notice dated 02.06.2017 was set to the respondent No. 5 regarding supply of off variety Date Palm plants to the agriculturists concerned. 22. Learned counsel for the State/respondents also submits that prior to preparation of a report which was dated 15.03.2018, another report was prepared by the Committee in presence of a representative of the respondent No. 5-Company, wherein it was found that the Date Palm plants which were supplied by the respondent No. 5 were not in accordance with the quality and some of the Date Palm plants were off type. 23. Learned counsel for the State/respondents thus, submits that in light of the effective steps being taken by the State/respondents, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the State has acted contrary to the projection made by the government in the welfare scheme in question; this is more so when even if someone is to be blamed for the loss caused to the petitioners and the public exchequer, then only and only respondent No. 5 is to be held liable therefore. 24. 24. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that in the given facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners have been supplied the Date Palm plants in question on a quite subsidized rate (90% subsidy), thereby, the petitioners were required to pay the amount only to the extent of 10% for the plants in question. 25. The record clearly shows that the loss in question, pursuant to supply of the off type Date Palm plants, is in fact caused to the State exchequer, and not to the present petitioners or any other agriculturist, in view of the subsidy received by them for supply of the plants in question. 26. Thus, the State/respondents cannot be held liable so as to compensate the loss alleged to have been suffered by the petitioners in the present case. 27. In view of the above, this Court does not find that a case is made out in the these petitions so as to call for any interference under the writ jurisdiction by this Court. 28. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. However, the State/respondents shall be at liberty to take any action against the petitioners after giving them an opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.