{"id":58075,"date":"2008-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-26T18:31:18","modified_gmt":"2015-08-26T13:01:18","slug":"agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/9705\/2008\t 10\/ 12\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9705 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nAGRICULTURE\nPRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE - VADODARA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKG VAKHARIA WITH DILIP B RANA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PANDYA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE\nSERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR SN SHELAT WITH CHIRAG B\nPATEL for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.Vakharia, learned Sr. Counsel with Mr.Rana for the petitioner,<br \/>\n\tMr.Pandya, learned AGP for the State and Mr.Shelat, learned Sr.<br \/>\n\tCounsel with Mr.Patel for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>Prima<br \/>\n\tfacie it appears that the legal position can be said as continued<br \/>\n\tuntil the provisions of the Act were not amended by Gujarat Act<br \/>\n\tNo.17 of 2007 and the rights of the parties could be said as<br \/>\n\tgoverned by the decision of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal<br \/>\n\tNo.139 of 2006, which is, of course, the subject matter of SLP<br \/>\n\tpending before the Supreme Court, wherein the leave has been granted<br \/>\n\tby the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,<br \/>\n\tit is an admitted position that the Act has been amended and Section<br \/>\n\t28 has undergone a sea-change.  Section 28 as it existed prior to<br \/>\n\tthe amendment was as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 28.\t\tThe<br \/>\n\tmarket committee shall, subject to the provisions of the rules and<br \/>\n\tthe maxima and minima from time to time proscribed levy and collect<br \/>\n\tfees on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided<br \/>\n\tthat the fees so levied may be collected by the market Committee<br \/>\n\tthrough such agents as it may appoint.\n<\/p>\n<p>Following<br \/>\n\t\t\tis amendment in Section 28 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> Section<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t28<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\n\tthe principle Act, Section 28 shall be renumbered as Sub-section (1)<br \/>\n\tof that Section and after Sub-Section (1) as so renumbered, the<br \/>\n\tfollowing sub-section shall be added, namely;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 2(a)\tThe<br \/>\n\tmarket fees specified in sub-section (1) shall not be levied for the<br \/>\n\tsecond time in any market area from the buyer who is a processor,<br \/>\n\tgrade, value addition centre or exporter of an agriculture produce<br \/>\n\tand market fee has already been paid on that agricultural produce in<br \/>\n\tany market and the information in this context has been furnished,<br \/>\n\tas prescribed, by the person concerned that the payment of market<br \/>\n\tfee has already been made in other market, provided such proof as<br \/>\n\tmay be prescribed is furnished to the Director by the buyer who is<br \/>\n\tdoing processing grading, packing, value addition or export within<br \/>\n\tsuch period as may be prescribed by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)\tOn<br \/>\n\tthe agricultural produce brought in the market are for commercial<br \/>\n\ttransaction or for processing, if the permit issued under clause (e)<br \/>\n\thas not been submitted, the market fees shall be deposited by the<br \/>\n\tbuyer or processor, as the case may be, in the office of the market<br \/>\n\tcommittee, within fourteen days but before sale or resale or<br \/>\n\tprocessing or export outside the market area.  Provided that in case<br \/>\n\tany agricultural produce is found to have been processed, sold or<br \/>\n\tresold or dispatched outside the market area without payment of<br \/>\n\tmarket fee payable on such produce, the market fees shall be levied<br \/>\n\tand recovered on five times the market value of the processed<br \/>\n\tproduced or value of the agriculture produce, as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c)\tThe<br \/>\n\tmarket fees shall be payable by the buyer of the agricultural<br \/>\n\tproduce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the<br \/>\n\tagriculturists seller.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided<br \/>\n\tthat where the buyer of a agricultural produce cannot be identified,<br \/>\n\tall the fees shall be payable by the person who may have sold or<br \/>\n\tbrought the produce for sale in the market area:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided<br \/>\n\tfurther that in case of commercial transactions between traders in<br \/>\n\tthe market area, the market fees shall be collected and paid by the<br \/>\n\tseller.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d)\tThe<br \/>\n\tmarket functionaries, as the market committee may by bye-laws<br \/>\n\tspecify and in the case of market established under chapter IV A of<br \/>\n\tthis Act as the Director may specify, shall maintain accounts<br \/>\n\trelating to sale and purchase or processing or value addition in<br \/>\n\tsuch manner as may be prescribed and submit to the market committee,<br \/>\n\tthe periodical returns, as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e)\tAny<br \/>\n\tagricultural produce shall be removed out of the market area only in<br \/>\n\tthe manner and in accordance with the permit issued in such form, as<br \/>\n\tmay be prescribed.  The vehicle carrying agricultural produce shall<br \/>\n\tbe accompanied by such proofs as may be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided<br \/>\n\tthat the producer of the agricultural produce himself may remove the<br \/>\n\tagriculture produce from once place to another without such permit.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tlight of the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 28, if the<br \/>\n\tScheme of the Rule 48 and more particularly Rule 48(2) is<br \/>\n\tconsidered, it would be required for Rule Making Authority to amend<br \/>\n\tthe Rule.  It is true that this Court while exercising the power may<br \/>\n\tnot direct for amendment of the Rules since it is a legislative<br \/>\n\taction, but it can hardly be disputed that Rule, as may exist,<br \/>\n\tcannot be permitted to travel beyond Section, which in the present<br \/>\n\tcase is amended provisions of Section 28(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section<br \/>\n\t28 as amended prima facie shows levying of market fees once and<br \/>\n\tprohibits levying of market fees second time.  Therefore, it cannot<br \/>\n\tbe said that there will be absolute exemption if a processor has<br \/>\n\timported the agriculture produce in the market area by purchasing<br \/>\n\tthe same from outside the market area no fees whatsoever shall be<br \/>\n\tpayable, but at the same time if he produces the proof showing that<br \/>\n\tthe fees was already paid, he would not be liable to pay the fees<br \/>\n\tsecond time.  It is the case of the market committee that respondent<br \/>\n\tis a processor extracting castor oil from the castor, which is an<br \/>\n\tagriculture produce, whereas the contention of respondent No.2 is<br \/>\n\tthat it is an industrial concern undertaking the manufacturing<br \/>\n\tactivity of castor oil.\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether<br \/>\n\textraction of castor oil from the castor can be said as processing<br \/>\n\tover the castor or the manufacturing activity can be concluded at<br \/>\n\tthe final disposal.  However, as there is amendment in the Act and<br \/>\n\tRule 48(2) does not appear to be running in conformity with the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Section, the matter deserves consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence,<br \/>\n\tRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo<br \/>\n\tfar as the interim relief is concerned, it was contended on behalf<br \/>\n\tof the respondent No.2 that there is a binding decision operating<br \/>\n\tagainst the Market Committee in favour of the respondent No.2,<br \/>\n\twhereby no fee is leviable.  Therefore, the refund was ordered,<br \/>\n\twhich is, of course, the subject matter of the SLP before the<br \/>\n\tSupreme Court.  It was, therefore, submitted that even if it<br \/>\n\tpertains to the calculation of the fees like other taxation or<br \/>\n\trevenue matter, this Court may not direct for deposit of the amount<br \/>\n\tor even furnishing of the security.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhereas,<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the Market Committee, it was submitted that if<br \/>\n\tultimately the petitioner succeeds, the question may arise for<br \/>\n\teffecting the recovery and due to recession in the industry, it may<br \/>\n\tbe difficult for the Market Committee to recover the amount and,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the Court may pass suitable directions for such purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHence,<br \/>\n\tconsidering the facts and circumstances, it appears that if the<br \/>\n\tpayment of the Market Committee, if it is not made by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 of the principal amount under the bonafide belief that the<br \/>\n\tdecision is operating in their favour of this Court, at least it<br \/>\n\twill not be a case for imposition of penalty.  However, so far as<br \/>\n\tthe principal amount of market fee is concerned, suitable measures<br \/>\n\tdeserve to be ordered, so that in the event the petitioner succeeds,<br \/>\n\tit may be in a position to realise the amount and things may not<br \/>\n\tbecome irreversible.  If respondent No.2 succeeds, it may get back<br \/>\n\tthe amount.  But at the same time, as the question of interpretation<br \/>\n\tof Rule 48(2) is to be finalized in light of the amendment under<br \/>\n\tSection 28 unless such Rule is amended by the Rule Making Authority,<br \/>\n\tpending the petition, it would be just and proper to balance the<br \/>\n\trights of both the sides, so as to control the situation at the<br \/>\n\tultimate outcome of the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHence,<br \/>\n\tby interim order, it is directed as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\t\tThe<br \/>\n\toperation of the impugned order   Annexure A passed by the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment shall remain stayed with the further direction as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tThe<br \/>\n\tMarket Committee shall be in a position to enforce the principal<br \/>\n\tamount of market fee from respondent No.2, unless the declaration is<br \/>\n\tgiven by respondent No.2 with the proof of the market fee already<br \/>\n\tpaid of the agriculture produce brought into market area by<br \/>\n\tpurchasing the same from outside the market area.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe<br \/>\n\trecovery of the aforesaid amount of market fee, as may be demanded<br \/>\n\tby the Market Committee after deduction of the market fee already<br \/>\n\tpaid as per the declaration with the proof thereof, remain stayed on<br \/>\n\tthe following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)\tRespondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 deposits 30% of the outstanding market fees with the Market<br \/>\n\tCommittee and furnishes guarantee to the Market Committee, that they<br \/>\n\tshall pay the amount with interest if ultimately it is decided that<br \/>\n\tthe amount of market fees is payable by them to the Market Committee<br \/>\n\tand shall not transfer or alienate the immovable property of plant<br \/>\n\twithout leave of the Market Committee.  The amount as may be<br \/>\n\tdeposited by respondent No.2 with the Market Committee shall be kept<br \/>\n\tby the Market Committee in a separate bank account with the<br \/>\n\tnationalized bank and shall not be utilized without leave of this<br \/>\n\tCourt, but it would be open to the Market Committee to invest the<br \/>\n\tsame in FDR with a nationalized Bank and the details thereof shall<br \/>\n\tbe produced in the record of this Court;  OR<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tRespondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 deposits 50% of the outstanding market fees with this Court and<br \/>\n\tfurnishes an undertaking before this Court for the remaining 50% of<br \/>\n\tthe amount to the effect that they shall pay up the remaining market<br \/>\n\tfees with interest as and when it is so ordered by this Court.  Such<br \/>\n\tamount shall be invested, if deposited, by the Registrar in the FDR<br \/>\n\tinitially for a period of two years, renewable further with the<br \/>\n\tState Bank of India, Gujarat High Court Branch, Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tRespondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 shall be at liberty to comply with either of the conditions<br \/>\n\twithin two months from the date of intimation and calculation of the<br \/>\n\tMarket Fees recoverable by the Market Committee from respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\taforesaid arrangement shall continue on regular basis at the end of<br \/>\n\tevery month for the agriculture produce of castor oil and the<br \/>\n\tintimation shall be in each of next month and compliance thereof<br \/>\n\tshall be within 30 days thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\taforesaid interim order and the amount, if any, deposited or<br \/>\n\tguarantee, if any, furnished or the undertaking shall be subject to<br \/>\n\tfinal order, which may be passed by this Court in the present<br \/>\n\tproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tis also observed and directed that it would be open to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to make representation to the State Government, which is<br \/>\n\tRule Making Authority, for amendment of the Rule 48 in light of the<br \/>\n\tamended provisions of Section 28 of the Agriculture Produce Market<br \/>\n\tCommittee.  If such representation is made, the pendency of this<br \/>\n\tpetition, shall not operate as a bar to the Rule Making Authority<br \/>\n\tfor bringing about amendment, as may be permissible in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\twould be open to either side to move this Court for final hearing if<br \/>\n\tthe rules are amended or the matter before the Apex Court is finally<br \/>\n\tdecided, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n<pre>13.11.2008\t\t\t\t\t(Jayant\nPatel, J.)\n \n\n\nvinod\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9705\/2008 10\/ 12 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9705 of 2008 ========================================================= AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE &#8211; VADODARA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 1 &#8211; [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1857,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008"},"wordCount":1857,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008","name":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T13:01:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-state-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agriculture vs State on 13 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58075","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58075"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58075\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}