High Court · 2025

6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners is the owner of the land ad- measuring 0.160 hectare and the same was disclosed, however, in the record of the respondent no. 6, the area was found to be recorded as 1.100 hectare, which cannot be attributed as a fault at the instance of the petitioner. He further argues that there was no dispute with regard to the quantum of supplies made by the petitioner on which, there was no dispute on facts. It is stated that in the year 2020- 21, a quantity of 110.29 quintals of sugarcane was supplied in terms of weight to which there was no dispute, however on account of the technicalities as referred above, the payment of sugarcane price of the petitioner has been denied. He further draws my attention to argue that the payment of sugarcane price is regulated by the Rules of 1954 as recorded above. Chapter IX of the said Rules, prescribes the manner in which the payment shall be made. Rule 44 of the said Rules which is quoted herein below prescribes for payment of sugarcane price on the basis of recorded weight. It is also argued that in the said Rule of 1954 there is a provision contained in Rule 57, which are as under:- "44. Payment of the price of cane shall be made on the basis of the recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing centre. The price shall be calculated to the nearest naya paisa. "46. Where a dispute arises regarding the price of cane supplied or the claimants to the price or the 'purchase' under which payments are claimed payment to the claimants may be withheld pending inquiry. All such cases shall be entered in a register and shall be immediately referred to the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer for orders. An appeal against the orders of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer shall lie to the Collector within thirty days: Provided that wherever payment to the claimant is withheld under this rule, the occupier of the factory shall forthwith deposit the amount in dispute in the Court of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer." "57. All arrangements in connection with the sowing, sale and supply of cane by Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies shall be in accordance with such general or special instructions as may be issued by the Cane-Commissioner from time to time." The said Rule 57 confers the powers on the Cane Commissioner to make arrangements for sowing, sale and supply of cane by care growers. Rule 44 and Rule 57 of the Rule of 1954 have been quoted herein above.

7. It is further argued that in terms of the powers conferred by virtue of Rule 57, a policy is framed which is commonly known as 'Satta' policy, which is floated almost every year, in terms of the said policy there are provisions, which prescribes for manner of calculating agricultural holdings of various farmers. It further provides that farmers having small holdings are entitled to payment on the basis of 850 quintals per hectare which can increase up to 1300 quintals per hectare. It bears that the maximum quantity produced would be treated as 850 quintals per hectare in case of small farmers having small holdings, however, the same can go up to 1300 quintals subject to sanction and permission. In any case, the small farmer is entitled to payment for 850 quintals per hectare. The consequences of making wrong disclosure with regard to the agricultural holdings are prescribed under the same policy, which provides that in case, it is found that any wrong disclosure with regard to agricultural holding is made, steps can be taken for terminating the membership of such farmers as is contained in Clause 5(XIII) of the said policy. It is further provided that in the event, any wrong calculations are made, steps shall be taken against the OfÏcer concerned. The entire policy does not provide or prescribe that in the event of wrong disclosure with regard to agricultural holdings, no payment shall be made. In the light of the said provisions, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly as per the respondent no. 6 also as per their inspection, a total area, allegedly owned by the petitioner was recorded as 0.160 hectare as is evident from the document contained in CA-2 at page 78 of the counter afÏdavit and thus, in any case, he should have been paid the amounts based upon the actual holdings as per the respondents, which is 0.160 hectare. He further argues that even in terms of the policy, the petitioner could have claimed the sugarcane at the maximum of 850 quintals per hectare, which works out to approximately 136 quintals, whereas cane supplied by the petitioner was 110 quintals, which is in any case less than the minimum statutory described even in terms of the said policy. He further argues that the policy, on a plain reading prescribes that the restrictions with regard to quantum of payment is imposed against the Cooperative Society and not against the individual farmers, who are liable to be paid in terms of the Rule 44 of the Rule of 1954.

7. A perusal of the two orders reveal that the payment to the petitioner has been denied solely on the ground that in the Satta/receipt, wherein the land holding of the petitioner is recorded, it was recorded as 1.100 hectares whereas, on inspection, the land holdings was found to be

0.160 hectares, which was wrongly disclosed, as such, no payment was to be made. The two orders are premised on the same foundation. Considering the mandate of Rule 44 and even the 'Satta' policy, there is no prescription to deny any payment to the farmers merely on the allegation that a wrong disclosure was made with regard to agricultural holdings. In the present case, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the payments were to be made in terms of the prescription of the 'Satta' policy, there was no material to deny the payment considering the agricultural holding of the petitioner at 0.160 hectare, which is admitted by the respondent no. 6 also. Sugarcane supplied by the petitioner admittedly was 110 quintals, which is less than the prescription contained in the Satta policy also, as such, there is no material/reasoning, based upon which the two orders are founded. In view thereof, both the orders cannot sustained and are quashed. Directions are issued to the concerned SDM, with whom the amounts are deposited to pay the price of the sugarcane supplied by the petitioner calculated at 110.29 quintals. As, the petitioner has been denied the said payment since the year 2021, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% over and above the said amount. The amounts as determined to be paid to the petitioner indicated above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum calculated from the date of supply till the actual payment/realization. It is clarified that 12% of the interest as awarded shall be paid by the respondent no. 6. The liability of interest has been imposed upon the respondent in terms of the prescription contained in Clause 13 of the Control Order of 1966, wherein it is the duty of the Cooperative Society to distribute the amount to the cane growers.

8. The other writ petitions are decided on same reasoning as the main issue has been decided in the main writ petition i.e. Writ C No. 2868 of 2023, the decision shall apply to the other petition also with the amendments that the area and the quantity of sugarcane supplied shall be as under:- (1) Writ C No. 2389 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 1.320 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.251 hectares Total Cane supplied- 100.79 quintals; (2) Writ C No. 2865 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 0.800 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.250 hectares Total Cane supplied- 93.51 quintals; (3) Writ C No. 3181 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 0.840 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.122 hectares Total Cane supplied- 108.16 quintals; To further clarify, all the petitioner shall be paid the monies based upon actual supplies made by them as recorded above alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of supply till actual payment. Interest burden will be borne by the respondent no. 6.

9. The writ petitions are allowed in terms of the above. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners is the owner of the land ad- measuring 0.160 hectare and the same was disclosed, however, in the record of the respondent no. 6, the area was found to be recorded as 1.100 hectare, which cannot be attributed as a fault at the instance of the petitioner. He further argues that there was no dispute with regard to the quantum of supplies made by the petitioner on which, there was no dispute on facts. It is stated that in the year 2020- 21, a quantity of 110.29 quintals of sugarcane was supplied in terms of weight to which there was no dispute, however on account of the technicalities as referred above, the payment of sugarcane price of the petitioner has been denied. He further draws my attention to argue that the payment of sugarcane price is regulated by the Rules of 1954 as recorded above. Chapter IX of the said Rules, prescribes the manner in which the payment shall be made. Rule 44 of the said Rules which is quoted herein below prescribes for payment of sugarcane price on the basis of recorded weight. It is also argued that in the said Rule of 1954 there is a provision contained in Rule 57, which are as under:- "44. Payment of the price of cane shall be made on the basis of the recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing centre. The price shall be calculated to the nearest naya paisa. "46. Where a dispute arises regarding the price of cane supplied or the claimants to the price or the 'purchase' under which payments are claimed payment to the claimants may be withheld pending inquiry. All such cases shall be entered in a register and shall be immediately referred to the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer for orders. An appeal against the orders of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer shall lie to the Collector within thirty days: Provided that wherever payment to the claimant is withheld under this rule, the occupier of the factory shall forthwith deposit the amount in dispute in the Court of the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer." "57. All arrangements in connection with the sowing, sale and supply of cane by Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies shall be in accordance with such general or special instructions as may be issued by the Cane-Commissioner from time to time." The said Rule 57 confers the powers on the Cane Commissioner to make arrangements for sowing, sale and supply of cane by care growers. Rule 44 and Rule 57 of the Rule of 1954 have been quoted herein above.

7. It is further argued that in terms of the powers conferred by virtue of Rule 57, a policy is framed which is commonly known as 'Satta' policy, which is floated almost every year, in terms of the said policy there are provisions, which prescribes for manner of calculating agricultural holdings of various farmers. It further provides that farmers having small holdings are entitled to payment on the basis of 850 quintals per hectare which can increase up to 1300 quintals per hectare. It bears that the maximum quantity produced would be treated as 850 quintals per hectare in case of small farmers having small holdings, however, the same can go up to 1300 quintals subject to sanction and permission. In any case, the small farmer is entitled to payment for 850 quintals per hectare. The consequences of making wrong disclosure with regard to the agricultural holdings are prescribed under the same policy, which provides that in case, it is found that any wrong disclosure with regard to agricultural holding is made, steps can be taken for terminating the membership of such farmers as is contained in Clause 5(XIII) of the said policy. It is further provided that in the event, any wrong calculations are made, steps shall be taken against the OfÏcer concerned. The entire policy does not provide or prescribe that in the event of wrong disclosure with regard to agricultural holdings, no payment shall be made. In the light of the said provisions, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly as per the respondent no. 6 also as per their inspection, a total area, allegedly owned by the petitioner was recorded as 0.160 hectare as is evident from the document contained in CA-2 at page 78 of the counter afÏdavit and thus, in any case, he should have been paid the amounts based upon the actual holdings as per the respondents, which is 0.160 hectare. He further argues that even in terms of the policy, the petitioner could have claimed the sugarcane at the maximum of 850 quintals per hectare, which works out to approximately 136 quintals, whereas cane supplied by the petitioner was 110 quintals, which is in any case less than the minimum statutory described even in terms of the said policy. He further argues that the policy, on a plain reading prescribes that the restrictions with regard to quantum of payment is imposed against the Cooperative Society and not against the individual farmers, who are liable to be paid in terms of the Rule 44 of the Rule of 1954.

7. A perusal of the two orders reveal that the payment to the petitioner has been denied solely on the ground that in the Satta/receipt, wherein the land holding of the petitioner is recorded, it was recorded as 1.100 hectares whereas, on inspection, the land holdings was found to be

0.160 hectares, which was wrongly disclosed, as such, no payment was to be made. The two orders are premised on the same foundation. Considering the mandate of Rule 44 and even the 'Satta' policy, there is no prescription to deny any payment to the farmers merely on the allegation that a wrong disclosure was made with regard to agricultural holdings. In the present case, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the payments were to be made in terms of the prescription of the 'Satta' policy, there was no material to deny the payment considering the agricultural holding of the petitioner at 0.160 hectare, which is admitted by the respondent no. 6 also. Sugarcane supplied by the petitioner admittedly was 110 quintals, which is less than the prescription contained in the Satta policy also, as such, there is no material/reasoning, based upon which the two orders are founded. In view thereof, both the orders cannot sustained and are quashed. Directions are issued to the concerned SDM, with whom the amounts are deposited to pay the price of the sugarcane supplied by the petitioner calculated at 110.29 quintals. As, the petitioner has been denied the said payment since the year 2021, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% over and above the said amount. The amounts as determined to be paid to the petitioner indicated above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum calculated from the date of supply till the actual payment/realization. It is clarified that 12% of the interest as awarded shall be paid by the respondent no. 6. The liability of interest has been imposed upon the respondent in terms of the prescription contained in Clause 13 of the Control Order of 1966, wherein it is the duty of the Cooperative Society to distribute the amount to the cane growers.

8. The other writ petitions are decided on same reasoning as the main issue has been decided in the main writ petition i.e. Writ C No. 2868 of 2023, the decision shall apply to the other petition also with the amendments that the area and the quantity of sugarcane supplied shall be as under:- (1) Writ C No. 2389 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 1.320 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.251 hectares Total Cane supplied- 100.79 quintals; (2) Writ C No. 2865 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 0.800 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.250 hectares Total Cane supplied- 93.51 quintals; (3) Writ C No. 3181 of 2023 Land recorded in Cane Society- 0.840 hectares Land recorded in Revenue Record-0.122 hectares Total Cane supplied- 108.16 quintals; To further clarify, all the petitioner shall be paid the monies based upon actual supplies made by them as recorded above alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of supply till actual payment. Interest burden will be borne by the respondent no. 6.

9. The writ petitions are allowed in terms of the above. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Arun ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench