IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
P. Manimaran & Another – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Nagapattinam & Another – Respondent
WP No. 1224 of 2020
Decided on : 05-03-2024
Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana - Compensation Eligibility - Court upheld the decision of the authorities based on the actual yield and threshold yield data, and dismissed the petition for mandamus.
Fact of the Case:
The farmers of Keezhaputhanur village sought compensation under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana for losses due to Gaja cyclone. They claimed that they were not paid compensation despite neighboring villages receiving it. The dispute arose from the discrepancy in the number of crop cutting experiments conducted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the actual yield data provided by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Department of Revenue, and Insurance company officials determined the eligibility for compensation. The Court concluded that there was no mala fides and upheld the decision of the authorities, dismissing the petition.
Issues: Discrepancy in the number of crop cutting experiments, entitlement to compensation under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the actual yield and threshold yield data provided by the relevant authorities to determine the eligibility for compensation under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana. The absence of mala fides and adherence to the process were crucial in the Court's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 27.09.2019 given on behalf of the farmers of Keezhaputhanur Village and direct the District Collector to follow the procedure contemplated under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana and consequently direct the Insurance company.)
1. We have heard Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, learned State Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondents and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the farmers of Keezhaputhanur village were victims of Gaja cyclone and they sustained a huge loss. However, they were not paid compensation under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana. Agriculturists of neighbouring villages were paid compensation under the said scheme. According to the learned counsel, in the status report filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam, erroneously, it has been mentioned that four crop cutting experiments were conducted. However, only two crop cutting experiments were done. He relies upon Form II annexed with the petition.
3. According to the learned State Government Pleader, four crop cutting experiments were jointly conducted by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Department of Revenue along with Insurance company officials. As the Actual Yield was more than the Threshold Yield, agriculturists of Keezhaputhanur village were not entitled for the benefit of Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.
5. The status report gives details about the threshold yield and the actual yield for various villages. The details are as under:
| S.No. | Name of the Village | Threshold Yield (Kg/Ha) | Actual Yield (Kg/Ha) | Claim Eligible/ Ineligible |
| 1 | Kilabudanur | 1686.58 | 2225 | Ineligible. No shortfall |
| 2 | Kilathanjavur | 1730.54 | 607 | Eligible |
| 3 | Marungur | 1705.76 | 1076 | Eligible |
| 4 | Melabudanur | 1703.1 | 129 | Eligible |
| 5 | Tiruchengathangudi | 1611.54 | 587 | Eligible |
| 6 | Tirumarugal | 1735.86 | 769 | Eligible |
| 7 | Tiruppayathangudi | 1704.22 | 539 | Eligible |
| 8 | Tirupugalur | 1772.4 | 1058 | Eligible |
6. It has been mentioned in the status report about the actual yield arrived on the basis of the four crop cutting experiments conducted jointly by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Department of Revenue along with Insurance company officials. The Department of Economics and Statistics finally provided the yield data to the State Government and the same is submitted to the Insurance company.
7. It is not a case of mala fides so as to disbelieve the status report and/or the statement of the officials. The officials were not to gain by making any erroneous statement. It will not be possible for this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit in appeal over the decision taken. The process, it appears, has been adhered to.
8. In light of that, it would not be possible to come to the aid of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
AI
The rejection of claims by the insurance company was found to be discriminatory, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State Government was held responsible for ....
Banks under PMFBY are accountable for accurate reporting of insured details, with liability for misreporting leading to claim denials.
Farmers cannot be denied insurance claims due to clerical errors by the implementing bank; responsibility lies with the bank to ensure accurate data entry as per scheme guidelines.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.