SANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the State Government can validly subject the lands of the petitioners to compulsory aerial sprayings at their cost is the short question involved in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1927, 2013, 1982 and 2008 of 1977, which are almost similarly worded. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE State Government has ordered the impugned action in exercise of powers conferred upon it under section 6--A of the east Punjab Agricultural Pests, Diseases and Noxious Weeds Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act ).

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the impugned action was being taken on the advice of technical experts of the Department of Agriculture. It was denied that the serial spraying would cause any damage to other crops or animal life. It was conceded that no notice was given to the occupiers of land but it was further clarified that notices were required to be given only if the authorities acted under sections 5 and 6 of the Act and not when the Government ordered aerial spraying under section 6--A of the Act. The last mentioned section did not require any notice to be given to the land--owners. Regarding the cost of spraying it was stated that small and marginal farmers shall be charged Rs. 17.00and 22.00per acre and not Rs. 40.00per acre as alleged in the petition. Last of all, it was submitted that all the provisions of the Act were constitutionally valid and a proper order under Section 6--A of the Act had been passed by the State Government.