Minimum sugarcane price does not bar a lawful higher agreed rate, and revenue recovery can enforce the difference.

A statutory minimum sugarcane price under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 did not bar a lawful agreement to pay a higher price, and such an agreed rate remained binding on the parties. Because the sugar factories' association and growers agreed to the higher rate within the reserved area framework, the appellant was liable for the differential amount. The agreed difference could also be recovered through the statutory revenue-recovery process as arrears of land revenue, and a separate civil suit was not required. The recovery certificate was therefore valid in law, and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could fix and enforce a sugarcane price higher than the minimum price fixed under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; (ii) Whether the Collector's certificate for recovery of the differential amount as arrears of land revenue was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could fix and enforce a sugarcane price higher than the minimum price fixed under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.

Analysis: Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 fixes only the minimum price payable to cane growers. The scheme of the Order, including Clause 3A and Clause 5A, does not prohibit a factory or growers from agreeing to a higher price. Where the sugar factories' association and the growers, under the State's aegis and within the reserved area under Section 31 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, agreed to a higher rate, that agreement bound the parties. The State action did not contradict the Central minimum price regime because it operated only as a higher agreed price.

Conclusion: The higher price fixed by agreement was valid and binding, and the appellant was liable to pay it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector's certificate for recovery of the differential amount as arrears of land revenue was valid.

Analysis: Once the higher price was agreed and the appellant supplied cane within the reserved area, the amount became recoverable as a statutory liability. The recovery mechanism under the revenue recovery process was the proper mode for enforcing the dues. A separate civil suit by the growers was not necessary, and the certificate covered only the difference between the Central minimum price and the higher agreed price.

Conclusion: The Collector's certificate and the recovery proceedings were valid in law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed. The State's recovery action for the differential cane price was upheld, and the recovery certificate was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Fixation of a statutory minimum price does not bar a lawful agreement to pay a higher price for sugarcane, and the agreed higher price can be recovered through the statutory revenue-recovery mechanism.

---