DEVENDER PAL SINGH vs CHIEF AGRICULTURE OFFICER, HARIDWAR & ORS

Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Arguments heard.

Shri Davender Pal Singh, the complainant is a farmer. He purchased seeds of Urad and sowed the said seeds in 50 bighas of land. It is pertinent to note that he did not mention how much seed, did he purchase. Again, he did not mention how much money he paid for the said deeds. The said seeds did not yield crop, therefore, the case was filed before the District Forum.

On the other hand, the case of the Chief Agriculture Officer/OP is that the complainant alongwith four other people purchased 20 kgs. of Urad seeds for a sum of Rs.790/-, out of which, the share of the complaint was Rs.316.20 paise. Again, the complainant did not adhere to the required norms and did not adopt the required procedure for germination. The seed of 20 kgs. of Urad was sufficient for 15 bighas of land only but the complainant used 20 kgs. seed for 50 bighas.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor man. He has invited our attention towards the report dated 29.5.2011 of Shri G. S. Negi, Assistant Agriculture Officer, Division I, Vikas Khand, Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

However, all these arguments do not go to impress us. The Project Officer, Haridwar has submitted his report dated 3.10.2011 to the Joint Chief Seeds Production Officer, Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Limited (Paper No. 39 on the record of first appeal No. 225 of 2013) to the effect that on inspection of the field, it transpired that the field was ploughed but the complainant did not produce the receipt of the seeds purchased by him. He also did not produce the bag of seeds and tag and the claim made by the complainant is false. Jai Prakash Tiwari Son of late Shri Dataram Tiwari, Chief Agriculture Officer, Haridwar has given an affidavit that on inspection of the field, no abnormality, short-coming was found. The petitioner has tried to suppress the material facts. He should have mentioned in the complaint how much was the land, how much seed was sown and whether those seeds were sufficient for the whole land or not. He has produced no evidence at all. His claim cannot be granted.

We are in full agreement with the order passed by the State Commission, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.