HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 3185 of 2021

• Bharat Singh Bisen S/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Singh Aged About 70

Years R/o Village Jhirnapondi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gaurela-Pendra-

Marwahi District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Collector Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi

Chhattisgarh

2. Agriculture Insurance Co. Of India Limited Raipur Through Its Manager,

Address Jivan Prakash, Jivan Bima Marg, Pandary Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its Manager, Tahsil

Marwahi-District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

along with

WPC No. 3202 of 2021

• Ramanuj Shran Singh Banafar S/o Late Shri Satynarayan Singh Aged About

60 Years R/o Village - Jhirna Pondi, Tahsil - Marwahi, District - Gaurela -

Pendra - Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Collector Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi District - Gaurela - Pendra -

Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

2. Agriculture Insurance Co. Of India Ltd. Raipur - Through Its Manager, Address

- Jivan Prakash, Jivan Bima Marg, Pandary Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur

Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Aadim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its Manager Tahsil

Marwahi - District Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District :

Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioners

:

Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate

For Respondent/ State

:

Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L. & Mr. Gagan

Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

09.08.2021

1. Both the petitions are heard together as the common issue is being projected.

2. The claim of the petitioners in the present petitions is that they are covered as

beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. Learned counsel

for the petitioners submits that in the year 2019, due to shortfall in the rain, the

petitioners could not get the adequate crop which was insured and since the

crop was insured, therefore they would be entitled to get the benefit of

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna to be compensated. It is stated that these

are the second round of litigation. On the earlier round of litigation, this Court,

in WPC No. 2377/2020 in the case of Bharat Singh Bisen on 25.11.2020 and

in WPC No. 2317/2020 in the case of Ramanuj Shran Singh Banafar on

09.10.2020, had directed to file a representation before the concerned

Collector which was further directed to be decided. Subsequently, on the

representations having been filed, the same were dismissed on the ground

that the petitioners have procured more than the threshold limit of the crop

meaning thereby the crop procured were more than the minimum limit of

capacity earmarked to get the benefit of insurance. Thereby would be

disentitled to get the benefit under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. He

further submits that the said order is bad in law, inasmuch as the petitioners

are entitled to get the benefit for the reason that they have only procured the

minimum threshold limit of 1664 kg. of crop per hectare at village Jhirnapondi

and 1731 kg. of crop per hectare at village Naraur.

3. The perusal of both the orders dated 25.11.2020 and 09.12.2020 would show

that there is a factual dispute which has come up. Prima facie in the case of

Ramanuj Shran Singh, the procurement was 2223 kg. crop per hectare at

village Jhirnapondi and in the case of Bharat Singh Bisen, the procurement

was 2223 kg. crop per hectare at village Jhirnapondi and 2637 kg. of crop per

hectare at village Naraur was produced. Therefore, since the yield was said to

be more than the minimum threshold crop limit, the petitioners' claims were

dismissed. In any case, the disputed question of facts are required to b