Gujarat High Court
Chimanbhai P. Trivedi vs B.R. Katara, Director Of Agricultural ... on 22 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)1GLR512, 1996 A I H C 3536, (1996) 1 GUJ LH 314
Author: M.S. Shah
Bench: M.S. Shah
JUDGMENT
R.A. Mehta, Actg. C.J.
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is heard today.
1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Director under Section 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 whereby the Director has been given the authority to decide the question as to whether a person is an 'agriculturist' or not. That decision is appealable to the State Government and the decision under Section 3 is final. The Director held that the petitioner is not an 'agriculturist'. The petitioner has preferred this petition without resorting to the appellate remedy.
2. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that there is an alternative efficacious remedy by way of regular statutory appeal and, therefore, the High Court should refuse to exercise the jurisdiction.
3. This matter has arisen in peculiar facts. The petitioner who has been held to be an 'agriculturist' for all these years and who has been successively elected as a member of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bhiloda and has been its Ex-Chairman, he is now held not to be an 'agriculturist'. He had been elected on the basis of his being an agriculturist and his name having been appearing in the voters' list of agriculturists. He has been elected from the agriculturists' constituency. Inspite of three months having lapsed after holding of the election, the Director was not calling for the first meeting to elect the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman and, therefore, a demand was raised for calling the first meeting. At such a stage, Director was moved for deciding the question as to whether the petitioner was an 'agriculturist' or not. The Director held that the petitioner is in possession of the agricultural land. However, he held that his name is shown in the column of 'occupant' and not in the column of 'owner' and therefore, he is not the owner of the agricultural land. The Market Committee had passed a Resolution dated 12-8-1995 that because the petitioner was not belonging to ruling party in the Government, the ruling party in the Government has delayed the election from the Market Committee and, therefore, the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was not held and the petitioner who has been treated as 'agriculturist' for all these years was being objected.
4. In these circumstances, when this petition had come up earlier for hearing the High Court had granted ad interim relief and stayed the order of the Director whereby he had held that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. If the High Court had not intervened at that stage, the petitioner would have been deprived of the right to contest the election and get elected. Now, he has been elected as the Chariman of the Marketing Committee uncontested.
5. On merits, it is clear that the Director has thoroughly gone wrong in holding that the petitioner has to be an undisputed owner of the land. When the petitioner has been cultivating the land and is in possession of the land when his possession is not shown to be illegal or unauthorised, there is no question of his not being agriculturist. There is no decision of any authority that he is not the owner of the land. The authority has also not come to the conclusion that he is not the owner of the land. The authority has merely proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has "failed" to prove that he is the owner of the land. When the petitioner's name is shown in the revenue record alongwith his brother and when there is dispute amongst the brothers, it cannot be said that he has ceased to be owner of the land. When he is the owner of the land or co-owner of the land and he has been in possession and cultivating the land, he is an agriculturist. Therefore, the decision of the Director on merits is absolutely erroneous in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat University v. N.U. Rajguru, . In that case, the Supreme Court held that where a statute provides for election and forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before that forum and it would not be permissible for the High Court to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute; but there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies.
7. In the present case, the dispute is not an election dispute. In fact, this could have been an election dispute and could have been the subject-matter of proceedings for challenging the election, but those proceedings were not taken by the respondents and the period of limitation for challenge of election is allowed to lapse. The first meeting was also not held for a long time and the respondents chose to move the Director under Section 3 in the peculiar circumstances narrated above having political and extraneous colour. Under the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner that the remedy before the State Government would be illusory is well-founded and, therefore, the High Court is justified, in this exceptional and extraordinary case, in interfering and entertaining this petition.
8. In the result, the petition succeeds and the decision of the Director is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.