United States v. D. K. Arakelian

This is one of the first appellate cases to arise under the Soil Bank Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq. (1958). Appellee sought judicial review of a determination by the California Agricultural and Stabilization Review Committee that by planting grape-cuttings on land which he had agreed to withdraw from cotton production under a 1957 acreage reserve agreement, he had committed a violation of the agreement which warranted its termination. The court below had jurisdiction under sections 103(a) (i) and 107(d) of the Soil Bank Act ( 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1821 (a) (i) and 1831(d)). This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Part IX, B(3) of the Acreage Reserve Agreement, signed by the two parties, reads as follows:

Under the terms of the Act, the person seeking compensation must do three things — (1) reduce his acreage in a specified crop; (2) designate the acreage so set aside; and, (3) must not harvest any crop from acreage set aside. Were it not for his contract, therefore, appellee is prohibited only from “harvesting,” not from planting.

However, under the statute ( 7 U.S.C.A. § 1821 (a)) there is no compensation due under the Act to any producer, irrespective of the…