Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Table-2 Composition analysis of different fertilizer Type of Fertilizer Nitrogen in % Phosphorous in % Potassium in % Table-3 Component analysis of the applied fertiliser Type of Total Amount of Amount of Amount of Fertilizer Applied Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium in g. in g. in g. g.

Table-4 Detail analysis of the fertilizer application SL Name of the Applied Recommended Excess Remarks No. Fertiliser/Nutrient Fertiliser/Plant or by Farmer in Less gm 1 Nitrogen 280 112.5 gm Excess Prolonged 2 Phosphorous 248 20-40gm Excess vegetative 3 Potassium 378 100 gm Excess growth No soil testing is being done prior to plantation. The soil seems to be clay loom, as such rich in nitrogen. Banana requires 150 gm of nitrogen during vegetative phase (ICAR) including the organic manure which should be 25% of the requirement ie.37.5 gm which has been added by the cultivator in the form of F.Y.M. leaving balance of 112.5 g. for soil fertility and inorganic fertilizer application. Besides these, Polyfeed (19N:19N:19N), 40g. in 15 lit of water have been sprayed. And bio fertilizer has been added 70-80g. par plant. Due to indiscriminate use of fertilizer without soil testing, vegetative phase has been increased dramatically.

17. From the aforesaid report, it appears that after taking into the account of entire cultivation and application of the manures by the team, it has given the aforesaid observation. They have found that due to indiscriminate use of fertilizer without soil testing, vegetative phase has been increased. They have also found the petitioner has not applied proper chemicals for healthy grown. On the whole, they found the petitioner has made cultivation as per his estimate without taking any advice of any Horticulturist as the report does not disclose that he has claimed before them about any advice or suggestion received from any expert. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further submitted that when the petitioner has raised the crop on his own interest, without taking aid of the Horticulturist and under NHM Programme, the Horticulturist has no role except sending the farmer to the opposite party No.4 to purchase the plantlets on subsidized rate, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for the loss to the plantlets.

19. From the foregoing discussion, it appears that the petitioner has purchased the plantlets on his own interest with subsidized rate under the NHM Programme. It is also revealed from the material as discussed above that due to sole negligence of the petitioner about proper cultivation, soil testing and application of the pesticides etc. the crop has failed. It is needless to say that crop was raised for three years but after 9 to 10 months, the petitioner has alleged about failure of the crops. On the other hand, it is a premature complaint. At the same time, it is not urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to under what provision of law the opposite parties are duty bound to extend necessary cooperation to the petitioner except selling the plantlets in subsidized rate under beneficial scheme to attract the liability for the loss to the petitioner. NHM Programme is a beneficial programme for the farmers and under such programme there is nothing mentioned about any right accrued to the farmer for claiming compensation from the Horticulture Department or Research Plant Centre. When there is no Act or Rule or Regulation imposing duty on the stake holder to do certain act or not to do certain act, the breach of same cannot bring any liability to the concerned Officer or the State with vicarious liability. Be that as it may, when on facts the petitioner has failed to prove the responsibility and there is no statutory duty to show the liability of the opposite parties for the loss sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner is yet to prove his entitlement to get compensation.