SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit … vs Directorate Of Farmer Welfare And … on 21 June, 2019

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

1

W.P.No.11086/2019
(Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.kl Buldana Vs. State of M.P., and others)

Indore: 21/06/2019
Shri A.K.Sethi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Arpit Oswal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vinay Gandhi and Ms. Sadhana Pathak, Government
Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 3, on advance copy.
Shri Ashok Airen, Advocate for the respondent No.3, on
advance copy.
ORDER

Petitioner, a cooperative credit society has approached this
Court under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of India challenging
the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Khategaon, District
Dewas dated 08/05/2019 [(Annexure P/12) copy not filed
alongwith the original writ petition)] against the firm, M/s Saket
Kumar Mahendra Kumar Jain (for short, ‘the trader’) registered
with the Market Committee, Krishi Upaj Mandi Khategaon,
District Dewas under sections 146 and 147 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

2. Before adverting to facts adumbrated in the writ petition
and contentions advance by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, it is expedient to reiterate the back ground factual
matrix of the case in hand leading to file the instant writ petition.

The trader was granted licence for doing business of sale
and purchase of food grains at Market Committee of Krishi Upaj
Mandi Khategaon, District Dewas since the year 2002. It
appears that number of complaints were received by the Mandi
Samiti from about 237 agriculturists in relation to non-payment of
outstanding dues of agricultural produce purchased by the trader
from them. Based on which, on 08/03/2019, the Mandi Samit
restrained the trader from selling and purchasing the food grains
and also a direction was issued to the Secretary of the Mandi
Samiti to ensure payment of 2,12,66,961/- to the list of
agriculturists attached thereto.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

2

W.P.No.11086/2019
(Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.kl Buldana Vs. State of M.P., and others)

It further appears that on the basis of complaints of the
agriculturists, FIR was lodged against the trader for the offence
punishable under Sectionsections 406 IPC and sections 6, 31 and 37(2)
of the Adhiniuyam. The trader was arrested and his bail
application was also rejected. As such, it is a case of multi-crore
fraud done by the trader and his relatives. Under the
circumstances, on 15/03/2019, the Mandi Samiti seized the food
grains and suspended the licence of the trader on 22/03/2019.

On 27/03/2019, a legal notice was also issued to the trader
and the present petitioner restraining them from alienating or
selling or transferring the agricultural produce stored in the
godown as described in paragraph 2 of the said notice allegedly
as the security of the premium/loan advanced by the petitioner to
the trader and the stock was attached under section 17(2)(xiii)(a)
of the Adhiniyam,
Mandi Samiti has also filed an application before the
Tehsildar to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue to the
tune of Rs.2,12,66,961/- from the trader under section 61 of the
Adhiniyam.

The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated by the
Tehsildar with due notice to the trader filed as Annexure /12 and
the same reveals that the trader participated in the said
proceedings. After long hearing as evident from the compilation
of order sheets culminated into issuance of RRC under sections
146 and 147 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, auction of attached agricultural
produce had also taken place.

Learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Upaj Mandi
passed on Board certified copy of order passed by coordinate
Bench in W.P.No.8973/22019 filed at the instance of the trader
and the same is taken on record.

The learned single Judge by a self-contained speaking
order dated 10/05/2019 opined that there is an effective
High Court of Madhya Pradesh

3

W.P.No.11086/2019
(Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.kl Buldana Vs. State of M.P., and others)

alternate remedy available to file an appeal to the petitioner
therein under sub-section (3) of section 61 of the Adhiniyam
before the Managing Director. Hence, same may be availed in
accordance with law. Accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

3. Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is cooperative credit society. It has
advanced substantial amount of loan to the trader. As a security,
the entire agricultural produce allegedly purchased by the trader
from the agriculturists in the market area has been pledged and
stored in the warehouse of the petitioner. Under the
circumstances, the Mandi Samiti had no authority or jurisdiction
to initiate the process of attachment and auction the agricultural
produce for sale or recovery to make good the default of non-
payment of outstanding dues, unless the petitioner was noticed.
That was not done. Moreover, as the agricultural produce
(commodities) in question were pledged against the loan
advanced to the trader, the petitioner hold the first charge in
preference to the agriculturists and, therefore, the same could
not be put to attachment and auction sale for recovery of
outstanding dues of the agriculturists as arrears of land revenue.
In any case, the gate passes issued to the trader by the Mandi
Samiti annexed with the writ petition do suggests that the
agricultural produce were brought out of the market area after
payment of outstanding dues to the agriculturists. Hence, the
proceedings even otherwise initiated by the Market Committee or
by the Tehsildar for recovery as arrears of land revenue in a high
handed manner are vitiated.

4. Before adverting to the contentions so advanced, it is
expedient to to state that the petitioner intends to agitate the
same proceedings initiated against the trader with the same
cause of action for which the trader has been relegated to avail
High Court of Madhya Pradesh

4

W.P.No.11086/2019
(Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.kl Buldana Vs. State of M.P., and others)

the remedy of appeal under section 61(3) of the Adhiniyam, by
the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.8973/2019 (supra) before the
Managing Director. As such, the contentions so advanced on
merit touching the aforesaid proceedings cannot be
countenanced.

It appears from the record (Annexure P/13) that the
petitioner has also approached the civil Court but, there is
nothing on record suggesting the stage of proceedings in the
suit. Howe
It needs no mention that under section 61(3) of the
Adhiniyam, the petitioner can also avail the remedy of an appeal
based on the contentions available on facts and in law as Sectionsection
61(3) provides that “any person aggrieved by the
proceedings under sub-sections (1) and (2); may prefer an
appeal to the Managing Director.” within fifteen days from
today. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner may file an
application seeking interim relief. The Managing Director while
adjudicating the appeal may first consider and decide the
application seeking interim relief in terms of sub-section (4) of
section 61 of the Adhiniyam.

(Emphasis supplied)

5. This Court though intended to deal with the contentions
advanced by Shri Sethi on merit in the context of pledged
produced alleged debt vis-a-vis legal attributes and
significance attached to the recovery of debt as arrears of land
revenue under a statute; in the back ground of law related to
concept and meaning of ‘sovereign debts’ and also regard being
had to the aims and objects of the Adhiniyam, powers and
functions of the Market Committee thereunder but, as the entire
matter is since left open for consideration to the appellate
authority in the event an appeal is filed by the petitioner within
fifteen days from today, this Court refrains from commenting
High Court of Madhya Pradesh

5

W.P.No.11086/2019
(Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.kl Buldana Vs. State of M.P., and others)

thereupon. The appeal so filed shall be entertained and decided
on merits after affording opportunity to all parties without insisting
on the question of limitation by the appellate authority.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the case.

(Rohit Arya)
Judge
sh/- + b/-

Digitally signed by M
V R BALAJI SARMA
Date: 2019.06.24
17:57:21 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation