Bhoomaiah and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.

.....that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing..........appoint in those places by calling for applications. it is this notification that is challenged. pending disposal of the writ petition however there is a direction not to disturb the petitioners from their possessions. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that abolition of watans is only in respect of watans held by the village officers but not village servants like the petitioners holding the posts as sethsindhies and neeradies. therefore the mandal revenue officer has misconceived being under the impression that watans include even the posts held by the petitioners like sethsindhies and neeradies. i see sufficient foundation for the contention section 2(i) of the andhra pradesh (abolition) act, 1978 defines 'watan' as under:'(i) watan, means a villge-office together with a right to hold the property appertaining thereto held hereditarily but does not include the village-offices of sethsindhies and neeradies.'it is therefore plain from this definition that the abolition of watans is only applicable to watans held by the village officers and not the sethsindhies and neeradies. hence the notification purported to have been issued by the mandal revenue officer is illegal. therefore, the respondents are restrained from acting upon and implementing the said notification by calling for applications for the purpose of appointment for the posts of sethsindhies and neeradies as it is illegal and incompetent and contrary to the statutory provisions. the writ petition is accordingly allowed. no costs. advocate's fee rs. 150/-.