Bombay High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:24354-DB
1 WP-11973-2022+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11973 OF 2022
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
having its Registered Office at :
Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune - 411 006
Through its Authorized Representative
1. Suresh Vikram Nade,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
ABC Complex, 3rd Floor, Near Prozone Mall,
Aurangabad - 431 001 .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary, Agriculture,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Commissionerate of Agriculture,
Maharashtra State, Pune 411 001
3] The District Collector,
Collector Ofice, Osmanabad
4] Union of India,
through the Ministry of Agriculture
& Farmers Welfare,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
5] The Chief Executive Officer,
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna,
Government of India, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi
6] District Superintendent,
Agriculture Officer, Osmanabad
7] Assistant Manager,
CITI Bank, Onyx Towers,
Near Westin Hotel, Koregaon Park,
Pune .. Respondents
2 WP-11973-2022+
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2222 of 2024 IN WP/11973/2022
(The State of Maharashtra and others
Vs.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others)
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 38 OF 2023
1] Rajesaheb S/o Sahebrao Patil,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Agriculture / Social Worker,
R/o At Post. Darfal,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad
2] Prashant S/o Achyutrao Lomate,
Age : 35 years, Occu. : Agriculture / Social Worker,
R/o Near Mahadev Mandir,
Baba Nagar, Kalamb, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad
Versus
1] The Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Boma Yojana
Government of India,
Krushi Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 001
2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Agriculture Department,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032
3] The Commissioner for Agriculture,
Agriculture Commissionerate,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 1.
4] District Collector,
Collector Office, Osmanabad
5] District Agriculture Officer,
Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad
3 WP-11973-2022+
6] M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Havng its Registered Office at,
Bajaj Alliance House,
Air Port Road, Yerwada,
Pune - 411 006
Through its Divisional Manager .. Respondents
...
WP/11973/2022
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bomi Patel, Advocate,
Mr. Naval Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Saket Satapathy, Advocate, Ms. Shraddha
Achaliya, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Bahira, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Tyagi,
Advocate i/b. Tuli & comp. i/b. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
petitioner
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for the
respondent - State and for applicants in CA / 2222 / 2024
Mr. A.G. Talhar, DSGI for the respondent - UOI
PIL / 38 / 2023
Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. Yogesh K. Bobade, Advocate for
petitioners
Mr. Ravi R. Bangar, Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 - UOI
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bomi Patel, Advocate,
Mr. Naval Sharma, Advocaet, Mr. Saket Satapathy, Advocate, Ms. Shraddha
Achaliya, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Bahira, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Tyagi,
Advocate i/b. Tuli & comp. i/b. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent
no. 6
...
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 31 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (PER - MANISH PITALE, J.) :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
4 WP-11973-2022+
2. This Writ Petition and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
call upon this Court, to decide the questions that arise from a
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU), executed between the
petitioner - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and the
respondent - State of Maharashtra, in the backdrop of Government
resolution dated 29.06.2020 (GR), issued by the State for crop
insurance of farmers in the State of Maharashtra against all non-
preventable natural risks or calamities from pre-sowing to post-
harvesting stage, as contemplated as per the pan India policy of the
Government of India under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna
(hereinafter referred to as 'PM Yojna').
3. It is the case of the petitioner - insurance company that,
having paid an amount of Rs.374,61,93,634/- to the farmers in respect
of localized calamity that occurred in September / October - 2021, it
had satisfied the dues payable as per the Revamped Operational
Guidelines (ROG), issued under the PM Yojna. But, the respondent -
State, which is representing the interests of the farmers under the
aforesaid MOU and GR, insists that a further payment equivalent to the
aforesaid amount, is due and payable to the farmers under the ROG.
In other words, according to the respondent - State, the petitioner -
insurance company has paid only 50% of the amount due and payable.
The petitioners in the PIL, who are farmers, are essentially supporting
5 WP-11973-2022+
the stand of the State and they have prayed for a direction to the
petitioner - insurance company, to pay the aforesaid balance amount
with interest.
4. In fact, the trigger for the insurance company, to file the
writ petition, were notices issued by the respondent - officers of the
State, purportedly exercising the powers under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter 'the MLR Code"),
seeking to recover the aforesaid amount towards arrears of land
revenue and in the process, issuing directions for even freezing the
bank account of the petitioner - insurance company.
5. One of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner -
insurance company, pertains to lack of jurisdiction in the Officers of the
respondent - State, in issuing the impugned communications and
orders, on the basis that the alleged amount due cannot be recovered
as arrears of the land revenue under the MLR Code. It is contended
that the said amount is not covered under the definition of 'land
revenue' under section 2(19) of the MLR Code and, hence, the
impugned communications / orders are rendered without jurisdiction. It
is this ground that impressed the Division Bench of this Court, to grant
stay to the impugned order of the Collector dated 18.11.2022, by order
dated 30.11.2022, while issuing notice in the writ petition.
6 WP-11973-2022+
6. The learned counsel for the rival parties have made
elaborate submissions pertaining to the applicability of the MLR Code,
as also interpretation of the ROG issued under the PM Yojna, in the
backdrop of the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 and the
MOU dated 27.07.2020, executed between the petitioner - insurance
company and the respondent - State. But, before adverting to the rival
submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the chronology of events
in the present case.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS :-
7. Respondent no. 4 - Union of India, through its Department
of Agriculture and Farmer's Welfare under the Ministry of Agriculture,
introduced the aforesaid PM Yojna, effective from Kharif season of
2016, in order to provide crop insurance to the farmers in India against
non-preventable natural risks or calamities from pre-sowing to post-
harvesting stage. In order to effectively implement the PM Yojna,
operational guidelines were issued. Based on the experiences of
implementing the PM Yojna between 2016 and 2018 and upon
receiving feedback from all the stakeholders, the aforesaid Revamped
Operational Guidelines (ROG) were issued effective from Kharif -
2020. It is undisputed that the controversy in the present case, is
covered under the aforesaid ROG, issued under the PM Yojna.
7 WP-11973-2022+
8. In the light of the aforesaid, respondent - State of
Maharashtra issued Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020, under
the PM Yojna for a period of three years from Kharif 2020 and Rabi
2020-2021. The said Government Resolution specified the manner in
which the PM Yojna, in the light of the ROG, would be implemented in
the State of Maharashtra. In this backdrop, in June - 2020, the
respondent - State floated tenders for appointing insurance companies
for implementation of the crop insurance schemes, commencing from
Kharif - 2020. The petitioner - insurance company submitted its bid
alongwith other insurance companies and its bid was accepted for
District - Osmanabad (now Dharashiv) for three years from Kharif -
2020.
9. On 27.07.2020, the aforesaid MOU was executed between
respondent - State and the petitioner - insurance company, under the
PM Yojna, for insuring farmers for the notified crops in the notified area
for three years beginning from Kharif - 2020. It is undisputed that the
notified crop in the present case, was soyabean crop and the notified
area covered was Cluster no. 10 for the District of Osmanabad. As per
the PM Yojna, read with the aforesaid GR dated 29.06.2020, the
farmers paid a small share of the premium towards the insurance
cover, while the State Government alongwith the Central Government
8 WP-11973-2022+
paid the maximum share to the petitioner - insurance company. The
present case concerns Kharif season - 2021 and for the same, from
time to time, amounts were paid towards premium to the insurance
company, about which there is no dispute.
10. On 06.08.2021, respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner of
Agriculture for the State of Maharashtra issued district-wise calender
for the season of Kharif - 2021, as per the PM Yojna. The said crop
calender, is a significant document as the interpretation of the ROG
under the PM Yojna for deciding the claims of farmers depends upon
the data specified in such a crop calender. The crop calender issued
by the Commissioner of Agriculture, specified the notified dates for
crops such as Soyabean crop for various districts, including District -
Osmanabad, with which we are concerned in the present case. The
notified dates specified the period of sowing and harvesting.
Considering the controversy in the present case, the notified dates /
period for soyabean crop in the District of Osmanabad are relevant.
The crop calender shows that the notified period for harvesting in the
present case, was between 15.10.2021 and 15.11.2021.
11. It is relevant to note here that the ROG under the PM
Yojna, specifically refers to Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs), that
were required to be conducted by the concerned Officials of the State
9 WP-11973-2022+
in the presence of and with active participation of the Officials of the
insurance company, to prepare database regarding yield of crops
during the relevant season. The ROG specified the use of latest and
modern technology, including using drones, satellite imaging etc.
alongwith ground level CCEs, to ensure reliable data being available
for ascertaining the extent of loss, if at all, for payment of dues to the
farmers as per the insurance cover. The CCEs were undertaken upon
beginning of the harvesting season in connection with respective crops,
which in this case, was the crop of Soyabean.
12. The petitioner - insurance company asserts that on
17.09.2021, the actual harvesting season of Soyabean crop started in
District - Osmanabad and it continued till 11.11.2021. The petitioner -
insurance company specifically relies upon documents on record to
show that the first CCE was conducted on 17.09.2021, emphasizing
that the relevant document on record shows the signatures of the
concerned State Government Officials, demonstrating that the
harvesting had actually begun. The documents on record show that
between 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, there were unseasonal rains in
District - Osmanabad and in this backdrop, the farmers submitted their
claims / intimations regarding damage to the Soyabean crop. The
claims / intimations were received by the petitioner as regards the
localized calamity and there is no dispute about the same. The
10 WP-11973-2022+
expression 'localized calamity' is specified in the ROG, to which
detailed reference will be made in this judgment at the time when the
rival submissions are referred to and considered.
13. In this backdrop, on 01.10.2021, a meeting was held in the
office of the respondent - Commissioner of Agriculture, to take action
for payment of the amounts. In the light of claims made by the farmers,
various aspects were discussed, including determination of the input
costs of the farmers. It was also observed that sample survey should
be conducted as per the ROG, for determination of compensation and
if the crops had been harvested by the farmers, the compensation
would be determined accordingly, as per the relevant clause of the
ROG.
14. On 24.10.2021, a review meeting was held by respondent
- Collector and in the light of the lack of staff in certain talukas of
District - Osmanabad, it was recommended that the survey should be
conducted on sample basis instead of individual basis. On 25.10.2021,
the respondent - Collector sent a letter to the petitioner - insurance
company, to conduct sample survey for assessing losses due to
localized calamity that occurred from 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021.
Accordingly, a joint sample survey was conducted and the report was
signed on 27.10.2021, by the representative of the petitioner -
11 WP-11973-2022+
insurance company as well as the Officers of the respondent - State.
In November / December - 2021, the petitioner - insurance company
disbursed an amount of Rs.374.61 Crores to the farmers. This amount
was calculated and disbursed by applying clause 25.5.10 of the ROG.
It is the applicability of the said clause, that goes to the root of the
controversy in the present case.
15. The respondent - State received number of complaints
from farmers that the petitioner - insurance company did not satisfy the
entire insurance claims. The District Level Grievance Committee,
constituted under the aforesaid Government Resolution, dated
29.06.2020, considered the complaints received from the farmers. It
was opined that the petitioner - insurance company had paid only 50%
of the amount due towards the claims of the farmers and that the
remaining 50% amount ought to be paid within 8 days. The respondent
- State and the District Level Grievance Committee proceeded on the
basis that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire claims
of the farmers ought to have been paid on the basis of the sample
survey and, therefore, the remaining amount was immediately due and
payable.
16. On the other hand, the petitioner - insurance company
proceeded on the basis that the claims of the farmers were to be paid
12 WP-11973-2022+
under clause 25.5.10 of the ROG, by treating the losses, as having
occurred due to localized calamity which was within 15 days of the
normal harvesting and hence, it was to be paid on the sample survey
and the CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage. According to the insurance
company, since the CCE yield data shared by respondent no. 2 on
16.12.2021, with regard to Soyabean crop of Osmanabad District for
Kharif season - 2021, showed that the farmers had not suffered any
actual loss in yield, no further amount was payable. The aforesaid
assertion of the petitioner - insurance company was based on CCE
data showing that the actual yield of Soyabean in District -
Osmanabad for Kharif season - 2021, was more than the threshold
yield, thereby showing absence of actual loss. The threshold yield is
notified in the tender document.
17. At this stage, on 20.12.2021, the respondent - Collector
issued notice to the petitioner - insurance company, to show cause as
to why the compensation was paid to the farmers only to the extent of
50% of their claims. On 17.01.2022, the petitioner - insurance
company sent its reply, explaining why only 50% payment was made,
by placing reliance on clause 21.5.10 of the ROG. The petitioner -
insurance company stated that since the localized calamity had
occurred during the harvesting period, the aforesaid clause was clearly
applicable, particularly, when the normal harvest had begun on
13 WP-11973-2022+
17.09.2021, even as per the CCE record supplied by the respondent -
State itself.
18. In this backdrop, on 11.02.2022, a meeting of the District
Level Co-ordination Committee was held and the petitioner - insurance
company was specifically directed to pay the remaining 50% amount to
the farmers immediately.
19. On 31.05.2022, a meeting of the District Level Grievance
Committee was held, wherein the representative of the petitioner -
insurance company was also present. In this meeting, the assertion of
the insurance company, by placing reliance on clause 21.5.10 of the
ROG, was rejected and it was directed to pay the remaining amount
within 8 days directly to the farmers, failing which the matter would be
placed before the Divisional Grievance Redressal Committee.
20. On 22.08.2022, the Divisional Grievance Redressal
Committee, directed that the claims of the farmers were to be
considered only as per dates mentioned in the crop calender and,
therefore, the balance 50% amount of Rs.374.34 Crore, should be
disbursed to the farmers.
21. In this backdrop, on 20.09.2022, respondent - Collector
issued a letter to the petitioner - insurance company, to immediately
14 WP-11973-2022+
deposit the said remaining amount, failing which legal action would be
taken against the insurance company.
22. On 12.10.2022, the respondent - Collector issued another
letter to the petitioner - insurance company, reiterating the direction for
payment of the remaining 50% amount, threatening that if the amount
was not paid, action would be initiated under section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code.
23. On 26.10.2022, respondent - Collector issued legal notice
to the petitioner - insurance company, for making balance payment of
50% amount. On 01.11.2022, the petitioner - insurance company
approached the Chief Executive Officer of the PM Yojna, asking for an
opinion and seeking intervention in the matter, particularly, with regard
to its assertion about applying clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
24. On 02.11.2022, the respondent - Collector again issued
notice to the petitioner - insurance company, reiterating direction to
deposit 50% balance amount for payment to farmers, failing which
action would be taken under the MLR Code.
25. On 16.11.2022, respondent no. 2 - Commissioner of
Agriculture as well as respondent no. 3 - Collector sent a
15 WP-11973-2022+
communication to the petitioner - insurance company, threatening
action under sections 183 to 186 of the MLR Code, for recovering the
amount of Rs.374.34 Crores, as arrears of land revenue.
26. On 18.11.2022, the respondent - Collector issued warrant
of attachment and directed CITI bank (banker of the petitioner -
insurance company), to freeze the bank account of the petitioner, to the
extent of Rs.374.34 Crores under section 180 of the MLR Code read
with Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules,
1967 (Rules).
27. On 24.11.2022, the respondent - Union Of India, in
response to the letter dated 01.11.2022, sent by the petitioner -
insurance company, to the Chief Executive Officer of the PM Yojna,
sent a letter, directing the petitioner - insurance company, to approach
the State Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) under the ROG for
issues relating to computation of the monetary claims.
28. It is in this backdrop, that on 28.11.2022, the petitioner -
insurance company filed the writ petition, challenging the impugned
notices / communications sent by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 dated
31.05.2022, 20.09.2022, 12.10.2022, 26.10.2022, 02.11.2022 and
16.11.2022. The petitioner - insurance company prayed for urgent
stay of the said communications, particularly, the communication dated
16 WP-11973-2022+
18.11.2022, whereby the respondent no. 3 - Collector sought to freeze
the bank account of the petitioner - insurance company for the said
amount of Rs.374.30 Crores under section 180 of the MLR Code read
with the aforesaid rules.
29. On 30.11.2022, a Division Bench of this Court, considered
the rival submissions and while issuing notice, found a prima facie case
in favour of the petitioner, to the effect that the direction issued by
respondent no. 3 - Collector to the banker of the petitioner - insurance
company, to freeze the account, could be said to be without jurisdiction.
It was found that a prima facie case was made out for the reason that
unless the respondent - State was able to demonstrate that the MOU,
which was a contract of insurance, provided for and vested power in
the respondent - Collector to invoke the provisions of the MLR Code,
the impugned communications appeared to be without jurisdiction.
Hence, while issuing notices to the respondents, as per the said order
dated 30.11.2022, the direction issued by respondent no. 3 - Collector
for freezing the bank account of the petitioner, was stayed. The said
interim order continued to operate during the pendency of the present
proceedings.
30. Subsequently, the aforesaid PIL was filed by certain
farmers, praying for direction to the petitioner - insurance company, to
17 WP-11973-2022+
pay the said amount of Rs.374.34 Crores. The PIL petitioners have
supported the stand of the respondent - State, in the present
proceedings.
31. The respondent - State filed an application for vacating the
interim order and at one stage, it was submitted that such unconditional
interim order could not have been granted. Considering the said
application, the writ petition and the PIL were taken up for hearing and
disposal. In this backdrop, all the submissions of the rival parties were
taken up for consideration.
SUBMISSIONS :
A) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner - Insurance
Company :
32. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner - insurance company made elaborate submissions on
the aforesaid ROG framed by the respondent - Union of India, under
the PM Yojna, emphasizing on the clauses pertaining to CCEs, cover of
risks and exclusions, particularly those pertaining to add-on cover
focused on localized calamities. Much emphasis was placed on clause
21.5.10 of the ROG, on which the petitioner - insurance company has
relied, from the beginning of the controversy. Submissions were also
made on the provisions of the MLR Code and an endeavour was made
18 WP-11973-2022+
to convince this Court about the fallacy in the stand taken by the
respondent - State.
33. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurance
company that the ROG framed under the PM Yojna, was a
comprehensive and complete code, providing a framework on pan
India basis for disbursement of amounts payable to insure the farmers
as per the scheme contemplated under the PM Yojna. Reference was
made to clauses of the ROG, providing for the manner in which the
CCEs were to be conducted by the Officers of the respondent - State
with active involvement of the representatives of the insurance
company. It was indicated that CCEs formed an integral part of the
entire scheme, for the reason that the data obtained upon such CCEs
being conducted provided the basis for correct calculation of amounts
due and payable to the insured farmers. Attention of this Court was
invited to clauses pertaining to basic cover and add on cover for the
insured farmers, with particular emphasis on localized calamities.
34. It was submitted that the principle of area approach was
adopted in the ROG and that threshold yield was noted in the tender
document itself of the particular season, which was to be used for
calculation of claims for that particular season. It was brought to the
notice of this Court that average yield of an individual crop in an
19 WP-11973-2022+
insured unit was the average yield on the basis of 5 years out of the
last 7 years and that threshold yield was equal to the average yield
multiplied by the indemnity level. It was emphasised that the threshold
yield, which was calculated on the historical yield on the basis of 5
years out of the last 7 years, once notified by the respondent - State,
would not change under any circumstances. Thereupon, reference was
made to two stage yield estimation procedure and the time of
occurrence of calamities or unforeseen events like cyclone, flood,
unseasonal rains etc. After referring to the clauses pertaining to the
risks at the time of sowing, mid-season adversity and post harvest
losses, special emphasis was placed on the clauses pertaining to
localized calamities and the loss estimation procedure concerning the
same.
35. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner -
insurance company submitted that even the State did not dispute the
fact that in the present case the localized calamity in the form of
unseasonal rain occurred between 23.09.2021 and 10.10.2021. It was
submitted that the documents and material on record, which were not
disputed by the respondent - State, showed that the harvesting of
Soyabean crop in District - Osmanabad commenced on 17.09.2021
and that it continued till 11.11.2021.
20 WP-11973-2022+
36. Reference was made to the documents pertaining to CCE
data. It was emphasized that once this position is established, clause
21.5.10 of the ROG applied to the facts of the present case. The said
clause was read in detail and it was submitted that the table in clause
21.5.10 at serial no.1 consists of two parts. The first part pertains to
the date up to which intimation about occurrence of localized calamity
was to be given, supported by specific documents and that the second
part clearly specified the circumstances in which the estimation of
losses due to occurrence of the localized calamity would be assessed,
based on the components of sample surveys and CCEs with 50 : 50
weightage. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the aforesaid
first part of the clause referred to the harvesting date as notified in the
State notification, while the second part referred to 'normal harvest'.
37. It was submitted that the date specified in the crop
calender by the respondent - State, regarding harvesting, was from
15.10.2021 up to 15.11.2021, but the expression 'normal harvest' was
nowhere defined in the ROG. It was submitted that, therefore, 'normal
harvest', would mean the actual harvesting of the notified crop in the
relevant season.
21 WP-11973-2022+
38. In this context, much emphasis was placed on document
at Exhibit - H, being the document dated 17.09.2021 signed by the
Talathi, showing that CCE was undertaken from 17.09.2021 onwards.
It was submitted that the aforesaid document issued by the Official of
the respondent - State itself demonstrated that the actual harvesting in
District Osmanabad began at least from 17.09.2021 for Soyabean crop
and that this signified the 'normal harvest'.
39. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the Officials of
the respondent - State in various communications on record admitted
that the localized calamity of unseasonal rains occurred between
23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, thereby showing that the losses due to
occurrence of such localized calamity were within 15 days of 'normal
harvest', which commenced on 17.09.2021 and, therefore, the second
part of clause 21.5.10 applied with full force. On this behalf, it was
submitted that the estimation of losses had to be based on combination
of sample survey and CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage. It was submitted
that the petitioner - insurance company had admittedly paid 50%
amount towards the claims of the farmers based on the sample survey
amounting to Rs.374,63,93,634/- and that the remaining 50% amount
was required to be paid, based on the CCEs showing actual loss to the
farmers.
22 WP-11973-2022+
40. At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
insurance - company invited attention of this Court to Exhibit - L filed
with the petition. The said Exhibit is a communication dated 16.12.2021
sent by the Chief Statistician, Commissionerate of Agriculture to the
Regional Manager of the insurance company, giving the data of
threshold yield and the actual yield pertaining to the notified crop of
Soyabean for the entire 42 circles of District - Osmanabad. It was
submitted that the actual yield was higher than the threshold yield in all
the circles, thereby demonstrating that the farmers had not suffered
any actual loss as per the CCE data. On this basis, it was submitted
that by operation of clause 21.5.10.1, (for the sake of convenience, the
first clause in the table is shown as a further sub-clause to clause
21.5.10) no further amount was payable by the petitioner - insurance
company. It was emphasised that this stand was taken by the
petitioner - insurance company right from the beginning before the
respondent authorities and the District Level Grievance Committee as
well as the Divisional Level Grievance Committee completely failed to
appreciate the same.
41. It was submitted that the respondent - State was not
justified in ignoring the CCE data by claiming that the expression
'normal harvest' used in the second part of clause 21.5.10.1 was
23 WP-11973-2022+
nothing but the notified date as per the crop calender for harvesting i.e.
15.10.2021. It was submitted that the crop calender, being a document
issued by the respondent - State, could not be the basis to interpret
the expression 'normal harvest', as the said expression formed part of
the ROG, which was issued by respondent - Union of India under the
PM Yojna. It was submitted that the use of expression " loZlk/kkj.k
dki.kh dkyko/kh" in the crop calender issued by the respondent - State
specified the notified harvest dates beginning from 15.10.2021 and that
even if the word 'loZlk/kkj.k' was used, it would not denote 'normal
harvest', as contemplated in the second part of clause 21.5.10.1 of the
ROG. It was submitted that the contention raised on behalf of the
respondent - State was anomalous, for the reason that the first part of
the said clause used the distinct expression 'harvest date' as notified in
the State notification, as opposed to the expression 'normal harvest',
used in the second part. On this basis, it was submitted that no fault
can be found with the stand taken by the petitioner - insurance
company, right from the beginning on the basis of the ROG framed
under the PM Yojna.
42. As regards the significance of the CCE, it was submitted
that the respondent - State itself had taken a stand that estimation of
loss based on CCE was a foolproof system, which was time tested and
24 WP-11973-2022+
well established, as recorded in the judgments of this Court in the case
of Libaraj V. State of Maharashtra; 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3349;
and Ter Large Size Multipurpose Co-opeartive Society Ltd. Vs.
Union of India - order dated 02.12.2010 passed in writ petition no. 973
of 2004 with connected writ petitions.
43. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner -
insurance company referred to the clauses pertaining to the other
stages i.e. stage of 'sowing', and 'mid-season adversity', only with a
view to explain the manner in which clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, was
to be interpreted by applying the same to the facts of the present case.
It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent -
Union of India, in its reply affidavit, had categorically stated that if the
harvest of the crop had already begun when localized calamity
occurred, clause 21.5.10.1 would indeed apply.
44. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurance
company that the District Grievance Redressal Committee had no
jurisdiction, for the reason that the relevant clause of the ROG
specified that such committee would have jurisdiction only up to
Rs.25,00,000/-. As the said Committee did not have pecuniary
jurisdiction, the directions issued by the Committee were rendered
unsustainable. It was submitted that the ROG did not provide for any
25 WP-11973-2022+
Divisional Level Grievance Redressal Committee and it was only
Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 that provided for the same,
which further demonstrated anomaly in the implementation of the PM
Yojna by inclusion of such a Committee in the afore-mentioned
Government Resolution.
45. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned actions
of the District Committee deserved to be set aside. It was also
submitted that the respondent - Union of India, through the CEO of the
PM Yojna misunderstood the grievance of the petitioner - insurance
company, directing it to approach the STAC, for the reason that the
petitioner - insurance company had not disputed the yield data, but the
question was with regard to the applicability of clause 21.5.10.1, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
46. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - insurance
company also referred to the relevant clauses of the ROG, pertaining
to the input costs, as a factor for determining the amount payable to the
farmers. It was submitted that the respondent - State was not justified
in relying upon certain communications and documents on record to
claim that the petitioner had conceded to total loss of the crop as the
crop had reached full grown stage when the localized calamity
occurred. In the facts of the present case, it was submitted that the
26 WP-11973-2022+
harvesting activity had already begun when the localized calamity
struck and, therefore, the CCE data assumed significance.
47. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurance
company that in any case, the impugned communications and orders
passed by the respondent - authorities, by invoking the provisions of
the MLR Code were wholly without jurisdiction. Attention of this Court
was invited to the provisions of the MLR Code, particularly, section
2(19), and Chapter XI thereof, starting with section 168 pertaining to
liability for land revenue.
48. It was submitted that the amount claimed in the present
case, cannot be covered under the definition of 'land revenue', as per
section 2(19) of the MLR Code, as it was not an amount legally
claimable by the respondent - State, that the claim was clearly not on
account of any interest in the land and it was not a sum or payment
under a contract or deed on account of any land. It was emphasized
that the amount in the present case forms part of an insurance
contract, wherein the claimants and the beneficiaries are the farmers.
49. It was further submitted that Chapter XI of the MLR Code
pertaining to realization of land revenue and other revenue demands
would also not apply, considering the specific stipulation in section 168
27 WP-11973-2022+
of the MLR Code, pertaining to the liability for land revenue. On this
basis, it was submitted that there was no way in which the respondent
- State, could take recourse to section 180 of the MLR Code for
issuing the impugned communication or attachment order for freezing
the bank account of the petitioner - insurance company. It was
emphasized that none of the relevant documents i.e. ROG issued
under PM Yojna, Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 and the
MOU dated 27.07.2020, stipulated that amount due under the said
insurance contract, would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
50. On this basis, it was submitted that the respondent -
authorities including the respondent - Collector, could not have taken
recourse to the MLR Code, for issuing the impugned communications
and hence, the entire actions are rendered without jurisdiction, thereby
justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction on the part of petitioner -
insurance company.
51. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgments of this
Court in the cases of Maharashtra Rajya Macchimar Sahakari
Sangh Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2005 (2) Mh.L.J.
1142; IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. V. District Collector and
others; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 929.
28 WP-11973-2022+
52. Since a specific query was put by this Court that even if
the contention regarding the impugned action of the respondent being
without jurisdiction, was to be accepted, whether the respondent -
State could institute other proceedings like filing a suit before the civil
Court, as disputed questions of facts could be said to be involved,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner - insurance
company submitted that there is no disputed question involved in the
present case. In this regard, emphasis was placed on the fact that the
CCE data, upon which the petitioner - insurance company heavily
relies for applicability of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, has been
provided by the respondent - State itself and, therefore, there is no
question of any dispute in that regard.
53. Even the assertion of the petitioner - insurance company
that harvesting began at least from 17.09.2021, is not disputed, as the
document issued by the respondent - State itself shows that CCEs
commenced on 17.09.2021 with regard to the notified Soyabean crop
in District - Osmanabad. The communication sent by the Official of the
respondent - State, also categorically stated that the localized calamity
occurred between 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021 and, hence on this score,
there is no disputed question of fact. On this basis, it was submitted
that the controversy in the present case, was limited to the applicability
29 WP-11973-2022+
of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG and this Court, exercising writ
jurisdiction, is the proper forum where such a controversy can be put to
rest. In this regard, reliance was placed on judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation V.
Tahsildar and others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447.
54. In this backdrop, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner - insurance company submitted that since everything turned
on the applicability of the said clause, and interpretation of the
provisions of the MLR Code, the writ petition is clearly maintainable. It
was submitted that reliance placed on behalf of the respondent - State
on section 2(16) of the MLR Code, which defines 'land', is also
misplaced as the settled position of law with regard to use of the words
'means' and 'includes', has been overlooked by the respondent -
State. In this context, reliance was placed on judgments in the cases of
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner and
others; (2007) 5 SCC 281, Shabina Abraham and others V.
Collector of Central Excise and Customs; (2015) 10 SCC 770 and
P. Kasilingam and others V. P.S.G. College; 1995 Supp(2) SCC 348.
55. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner -
insurance company also referred to and relied upon a letter dated
25.07.2025 sent by the Additional Commissioner (Crop Insurance) of
30 WP-11973-2022+
the Ministry of Agriculture in the respondent - Union of India, to the
Additional Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare
Department of the Government of Haryana, wherein in an identical
controversy, the said officer of the Union of India, specifically directed
that if the harvest had already begun in a district before occurrence of a
localized calamity, clause 21.5.10 of the ROG would be applicable.
On the basis of the said communication, it was submitted that the said
interpretation and policy of the respondent - Union of India ought to
apply pan India and, therefore, this further bolsters the contentions
raised on behalf of the petitioner.
56. As regards the PIL, it was submitted on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company, that the contentions raised are identical
to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent - State and,
therefore, the PIL also does not deserve any consideration. As regards
reliance placed on judgment of this Court in PIL no. 91 of 2021
(Prashant S/o Achyutrao Lomate and another Vs. Union of India
and others with connected writ petition, dated 06.05.2022), it was
submitted that the same was misplaced, simply for the reason that the
controversy therein pertained to the alleged failure of the farmers in
individually intimating losses within 72 hours of the date of the incident.
It was submitted that the nature of the controversy in the said PIL, was
31 WP-11973-2022+
completely different and merely because the petitioner - insurance
company happened to be a respondent in the said PIL, it cannot lead
to any adverse inference in the present case.
57. On the basis of the aforesaid elaborate submissions,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition
deserved to be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein and that
the PIL deserved to be dismissed.
B) Submissions on behalf of the respondent - State :
58. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent - State vehemently opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner - insurance company, contending that they were
based on a complete misinterpretation of the scheme framed under the
PM Yojna for crop insurance. It was submitted that the petitioner -
insurance company had received entire premium and when the time
came for honouring its part of the insurance contract, it illegally refuted
the just claims of the farmers. It was submitted that after the claims
were lodged by the farmers, and the same were being processed, the
petitioner - insurance company itself had conceded that the notified
crop had reached the level of maturity and harvesting when the
localized calamity struck and it even agreed for the claims to be
32 WP-11973-2022+
processed on the basis of 85% input costs. In fact, 100% input costs
should have been applied.
59. Occurrence of the localized calamity in the present case,
had to be appreciated and applied by treating the harvest date as
specified in the crop calender, which was nothing but the harvest date
as notified in the said notification contemplated under clause 21.5.10.1
of the ROG. Once this is understood, the fallacy in the contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner - insurance company becomes clear.
By referring to the entire scheme as per the ROG issued under the PM
Yojna, it was submitted that there was no scope for denying the
farmers of their just claims for payment of the balance 50% amount.
Since the localized calamity had admittedly occurred between
23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, and the normal harvest as per the crop
calender issued by the respondent - State was 15.10.2021, the losses
suffered by the farmers had to be assessed by the sample survey and
not on a combination of sample survey and CCE with 50 : 50
weightage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, CCE
had no role to play and, therefore, the data on which the petitioner -
insurance company is harping, cannot even be looked at.
60. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent -
State was at pains to point out that the present case was a case of total
33 WP-11973-2022+
loss of the crops and hence 100% amount of claims on sample survey
basis, were required to be paid by the petitioner - insurance company.
By referring to the contents of clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, it was
submitted that the whole procedure of processing the claims and
making payments, was to be completed as per schedule and in any
case, within the outer limit of 39 days. The petitioner - insurance
company clearly violated the mandate under the said clause of the
ROG, by withholding 50% amount of the claims of farmers and the said
amount ought to be paid with penal interest to the farmers.
61. It was emphasized that the petitioner - insurance company
never disputed the crop calender and fixing of the date of 15.10.2021,
as the date of beginning of the harvesting season. Since no dispute
was raised, the fact that the localized calamity occurred on 23.09.2021,
had to be taken to its logical end, thereby demonstrating that the
balance 50% amount was clearly payable and that too within the
schedule specified as per clause 21.5.10 of the ROG. Reference was
made to the random sample survey jointly carried out and the effect of
the same upon the quantum of amount payable as per the insurance
contract.
62. It was further emphasized that the ROG, read with
Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020, provided for a complete
34 WP-11973-2022+
code, including a Grievance Redressal Mechanism. It was submitted
that the petitioner - insurance company clearly had an alternative
remedy of approaching the State Level Grievance Redressal
Committee, to challenge the impugned communications and yet, it
failed to do so, directly invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. It was
submitted that the constitution of the Divisional Level Grievance
Committee in the Government Resolution could not be said to be
anomalous, simply for the reason that it does not violate the PM Yojna.
63. In any case, the contention regarding the impugned
communication / order passed by the District Level Grievance
Committee being without jurisdiction, was clearly misplaced, for the
reason that pecuniary jurisdiction would have to be analyzed by
considering each individual claim of the farmer. Upon such
interpretation, the individual claims of the farmers being less than
Rs.25 Lakhs, there was no question of lack of any pecuniary
jurisdiction with the District Level Grievance Committee. It was
submitted that the District Committee had formed an opinion and the
same was placed before the Divisional Level Grievance Committee,
which issued the impugned order strictly in accordance with law. On
this basis, it was submitted that the petitioner ought not have filed the
35 WP-11973-2022+
writ petition directly before this Court, without first exhausting the
alternative remedies provided in the ROG under the PM Yojna.
64. It was further submitted that the petitioner - insurance
company itself had approached the respondent - Union of India through
the CEO under the PM Yojna. The said authority directed the petitioner
- insurance company to approach the STAC. Instead of doing so, the
petitioner - insurance company directly filed the present writ petition
and on this ground also, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
By referring to clauses 21.5.8.6 and 21.5.8.7, it was emphasized that
the petitioner - insurance company was required to disburse the claim
within 15 days of the receipt of the loss assessment report. The
aforesaid timeline was violated by the petitioner - insurance company
and, therefore, this Court ought not to grant any relief in the Writ
Petition.
65. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent - State then
referred to documents placed on record in the PIL, by way of an
additional affidavit. These documents pertain to the proceedings
before the State Level Grievance Redressal Committee and the STAC
concerning identical issue with regard to the applicability of clause
21.5.10 of the ROG. It was submitted that in identical circumstances,
36 WP-11973-2022+
the said State Level Committees had categorically rejected the
contention pertaining to the expression 'normal harvest' in the said
clause and it was emphatically held that the date specified in the crop
calender was the only date for reference while applying the said clause
21.5.10, for assessing the claims of farmers in the context of localized
calamity. Hence, it was submitted that the contention now sought to be
raised on behalf of the petitioner seeking to make a distinction between
date of harvesting specified in the crop calender from 'normal harvest',
cannot be entertained and that such a contention is raised by the
petitioner - insurance company in a dishonest manner, only with the
intention to wriggle out of its liability under the insurance contract.
66. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
- State referred to the contents of the MOU dated 27.08.2020 and
emphasized upon the fact that the same was executed between the
State in the name of the Honourable Governor and the petitioner -
insurance company. The MOU specifically authorized the department
of Agriculture of the respondent - State, to perform its role on behalf of
the insured farmers, so that their interests were appropriately
protected. It was submitted that the interpretation of the provisions of
the MLR Code would have to be considered in that backdrop,
37 WP-11973-2022+
particularly when the interest of the farmers is to be protected to further
the object of the PM Yojna in terms of the ROG framed thereunder.
67. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
- State further submitted that the definition of 'land revenue' under
section 2(19) of the MLR Code had to be appreciated alongwith the
definition of 'land' in section 2(16) thereof. Much emphasis was placed
on the words 'land includes benefits to arise out of land and things
attached to the earth, ........'.
68. A conjoint reading of the definition of 'land' with 'land
revenue', according to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent - State, sufficiently demonstrates that the amount claimed
in the present case was clearly payable under the contract i.e. the
MOU on account of the benefits arising from the land. It was submitted
that since the MOU itself specified that the respondent - State would
partly pay the premium towards the insurance contract and it would
also take all necessary steps for payment of the claims of the farmers,
the invocation of the provisions of the MLR Code was justified for
issuing impugned communications and directions.
69. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent - State relied on the judgment of
38 WP-11973-2022+
the Supreme Court in M/s. R.S. Rekchand Mohota Spinning and
Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1997 SC 2591, to
particularly emphasize the rule of interpretation, that words should be
given their ordinary and grammatical meaning. Reliance was also
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Bombay
Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha; AIR 1960 SC 610, to contend that
where the Court is dealing with an inclusive definition, it would not be
appropriate to put a restrictive interpretation upon the terms of wider
denotation. If two or more words, which are susceptible of analogous
meaning, are coupled together they are understood to be used in their
cognate sense.
70. By placing reliance on the said judgments, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent - State submitted that a conjoint
reading of the definition of 'land' under section 2(16) and 'land revenue'
under section 2(19) of the MLR Code, clearly demonstrated that the
amount payable by the petitioner - insurance company could be
recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of the MLR Code. It
was submitted that once this is established, it cannot be said that the
impugned communications / orders passed by the authorities of the
respondent - State are without jurisdiction and this further
demonstrates why the writ petition filed by the insurance company, is
39 WP-11973-2022+
not maintainable. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was
submitted that this Court may dismiss the writ petition and consider
directing the petitioner - insurance company to immediately pay the
balance amount as aforesaid alongwith interest at least @ 12% per
annum.
(C) Submissions on behalf of PIL Petitioners :
71. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in the PIL, supported the contentions raised on behalf of the
respondent - State. He submitted that the documents on record
sufficiently demonstrated that the balance amount is clearly payable to
the farmers. It was submitted that the entire premium was duly paid to
the petitioner - insurance company and when the time came for
honouring the commitment under the MOU, the petitioner - insurance
company has deliberately raised technical objections based on
misinterpretation of the clauses of the ROG.
72. In the past also, the petitioner - insurance company had
indulged in such a conduct, due to which a PIL had to be filed. In the
said petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed payment of the
balance amount due and the Special Leave Petition filed against the
said order, was dismissed. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ
40 WP-11973-2022+
petition ought to be dismissed and the PIL deserved to be allowed in
terms of the prayers made therein.
CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS :
73. In the light of detailed submissions of the rival parties
recorded herein-above, various issues arise for consideration in these
proceedings. The issues will have to be dealt with in detail and it would
be appropriate to first refer to the issues and then render findings upon
the same. It is necessary to first examine the basic contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner - insurance company, that the impugned
communications / orders issued by the respondent - authorities,
including the Collector, under the provisions of the MLR code, can be
said to be without jurisdiction. This is based on interpretation of the
provisions of the MLR code. If this Court accepts the contention raised
on behalf of the petitioner - insurance company, which, in fact, had led
to the interim order being passed in these proceedings, the writ petition
will have to be allowed on this ground alone.
74. It would not be appropriate for this Court to stop at that, for
the reason that if the respondent - State is able to make out a case on
merits with regard to further recovery of amount from the petitioner -
41 WP-11973-2022+
insurance company, liberty will have to be reserved for the respondent
- State, to institute appropriate proceedings.
75. In this backdrop, this Court had put a pointed query to the
learned counsel for the parties, as to whether disputed questions of
facts are involved and if not, the merits of the matter could also be
looked into and decided in writ jurisdiction itself. It is to satisfy the
conscience of the Court with regard to the rival submissions made on
the merits of the matter, that even if the findings on the first issue about
the impugned orders or communications being without jurisdiction is
held in favour of the petitioner - insurance company, this Court is
inclined to render findings on the merits of the rival claims, essentially
based on interpretation of the ROG under the PM Yojna. In the
process, this Court would be considering the position of law and
judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the rival parties.
76. In any case, the PIL specifically seeks a positive direction
against the petitioner - insurance company, to pay balance 50%
amount and, therefore, this Court would be considering and rendering
findings on all the issues, upon which submissions have been made by
the learned counsel for the parties. It would be appropriate to first
consider the issue regarding the impugned orders / communications
being without jurisdiction.
42 WP-11973-2022+
(i) Whether the respondent - State authorities could have
invoked the provisions of the MLR Code in this case ?
77. A perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition shows
that the petitioner - insurance company is seeking quashing and setting
aside of impugned orders / communications issued by the respondent -
State authorities, whereby balance 50% amount is sought to be
recovered from the petitioner - insurance company. The basis of the
said impugned orders / communications, is that such alleged amount
due from the petitioner - insurance company, is liable to be treated as
arrears of land revenue. In this regard, it would be necessary to refer
to the definition of 'land' and 'land revenue' under the MLR Code.
Section 2(16) and 2(19) of the MLR Code read as follows :-
2(16) "land" includes benefits to arise out of the land, and things
attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth, and also shares in, or charges on, the
revenue or rent of villages, or other defined portions of territory;
2(19) "land revenue" means all sums and payments, in money
received or legally claimable by or on behalf of the State
Government from any person on account of any land or interest
in or right exercisable over land held by or vested, in him, under
whatever designation such sum may be payable and any cess
or rate authorised by the State Government under the
provisions of any law for the time being in force ; and includes,
premium, rent, lease money, quit rent, judi payable by a
inamdar or any other payment provided under any Act, rule,
contract or deed on account of any land;
78. According to the respondent - State, the amount claimed
from the petitioner - insurance company, is covered under the definition
43 WP-11973-2022+
of 'land revenue', particularly, in the light of the definition of 'land' under
the MLR Code.
79. On the other hand, the petitioner - insurance company
claims that such alleged amount due, can never be claimed as arrears
of land revenue, for the reason that this is a pure and simple case of an
insurance contract and even if the amount is sought to be claimed by
the respondent - State, which is a party to the insurance contract, it can
never be covered under the definition of 'land revenue'.
80. In order to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary
to peruse the definition of 'land' and 'land revenue' under the MLR
Code, quoted herein-above. If the definition of 'land revenue' is broken
down into simple terms, it consists of payments in money that can be
legally claimed by or on behalf of the State government; such amount
of money is claimed from a person on account of any rent or interest in
land or right exercisable over land held by such person; such an
amount can be cess, rate, premium, rent, lease money, quit, rent, judi
payable under any Act, rule or contract or deed on account of any land.
81. Since, the word 'land' is used at various places in the said
definition of 'land revenue', it would be appropriate to refer to the
definition of 'land' under section 2(16) of the MLR Code. It is defined
44 WP-11973-2022+
as land itself and it includes benefits arising out of the land, things
attached to earth or permanently fastened to the earth and also shares
in or charges on, the revenue or rent of villages, or other defined
portions of territory. Upon reading the definition of 'land' and 'land
revenue', as defined in the MLR Code, for the respondent - State
authorities, to successfully claim that they are entitled to resort to the
same, and other provisions of the MLR Code, it will have to be
demonstrated that the amount being claimed from the petitioner -
insurance company falls within the four-corners of 'land revenue' read
with definition of 'land'.
82. The components of the definition of 'land revenue' broken
down and noted herein-above, clearly show that such an amount must
be legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government. In the
present case, even if the amount is found to be payable, under the
MOU dated 27.07.2020 i.e. the insurance contract, it is payable to the
individual farmers.
83. In fact, it is an admitted position that all payments under
the said MOU, are made directly into the accounts of the individual
farmers. It is a different matter that under the PM Yojna, the State
Government and the Central government together do pay the majority
share of the premium towards the MOU i.e. the insurance contract, the
45 WP-11973-2022+
beneficiaries are the farmers and not the State Government.
Therefore, the said amount of money sought to be recovered by the
respondent - State authorities, is not legally claimable by or on behalf
of the State. On this score itself, the respondent - State, cannot claim
that the alleged amount due from the petitioner - insurance company,
can be said to be towards recovery of land revenue.
84. The next component of the definition necessarily requires
that such an amount is legally claimable by the State Government from
a person on account of any rent or interest in or right exercisable over
land held by or vested in such a person. In the present case, the
respondent - State authorities are claiming recovery of the amount from
the petitioner - insurance company, essentially under the MOU, which
is an insurance contract, read with ROG under the PM Yojna, but it
certainly is not claimed from the petitioner - insurance company on
account of any land held or vested in the insurance company.
85. In fact, it is not even based on any interest in land or right
exercisable over such land by the petitioner - insurance company. On
this score also, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent -
State must fail. The third component of the definition of 'land revenue'
pertains to amount towards cess, rate, premium, rent, lease money etc.
payable under any Act or rule, contract or deed on account of any land.
46 WP-11973-2022+
86. This Court finds that the aforesaid third component of the
definition, cannot be divested from the first two components referred to
herein-above. Therefore, on this basis itself, the contention raised on
behalf of the respondent - State authorities, cannot be accepted. Even
otherwise, in the facts of the present case, the respondent - State
authorities can refer to only the MOU i.e. the insurance contract. But,
the said MOU also does not concern land. It concerns insurance of
crops under the PM Yojna. In any case, the MOU dated 27.07.2020
does not contain any clause that amount recoverable under the same,
shall be treated as arrears of land revenue. In fact, neither the ROG
under the PM Yojna nor the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020
issued by the respondent - State Government under the PM Yojna
anywhere provide for treating the amount due being recoverable as
arrears of land revenue. Thus, even on this third and last score also,
the contention on behalf of the respondent - State must fail.
87. An attempt was made on behalf of the respondent - State
to claim that since definition of land under section 2(16) of the MLR
Code includes benefits arising out of the land and crops could be said
to be benefits arising out of lands, the MOU i.e. the insurance contract
could be connected to the same and, therefore, the State authorities
could resort to the provisions of the MLR Code. This Court finds such
47 WP-11973-2022+
contention not only stretching the definition of 'land' and 'land revenue',
as found in the MLR Code, but also unsupportable by logic and basic
principles of interpretation.
88. In this context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent - State, sought to rely upon judgments of the Supreme
Court in the cases of :
i) M/s. R.S. Rekchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra (supra);
ii) The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (supra) and
89. On a reading of the said judgments, we are unable to
agree that the ratio of the said judgments, can enure to the benefit of
the respondent - State. On the other hand, we find that the
observations made in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases
of Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories (supra), Shabina Abraham (supra)
and P. Kasilingam (supra) militate against the contention raised on
behalf of the respondent - State. It is reiterated in the said judgments
that use of the word 'means' shows that the definition is a hard and fast
definition and no other meaning can be assigned other than is shown in
the definition, further indicating that it is exhaustive in nature.
90. Applying the same to the definition of expression of 'land
revenue', under section 2(19) of the MLR Code, it becomes clear that
48 WP-11973-2022+
the use of the word 'means', at the very beginning of the definition,
demonstrates that unless the respondent - State is able to satisfy this
Court that the amount being claimed from the petitioner - insurance
company is covered under the specific hard and fast definition of 'land
revenue', it cannot proceed to treat the same as arrears of land
revenue. In the light of the findings given herein-above, it is clear that
the respondent - State has completely failed to satisfy the individual
components of the definition of 'land revenue' and the same being put
together, thereby demonstrating the fallacy in the approach of the
respondent - State.
91. As regards judgments in the case of M/s. R.S. Rekchand
Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra
(supra) and The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
(supra), it is laid down therein that words should be given their ordinary,
natural and grammatical meaning, with broad consideration and that
where two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning are
coupled together, they are to be understood to be used in their cognate
sense. Perhaps the respondent - State has relied on the aforesaid
judgments, to claim that the definition of 'land' under section 2(16) of
the MLR Code needs to be understood in a broad sense, for the
reason that the word 'includes' is used at the outset of the said
49 WP-11973-2022+
definition. But, even if the said position of law is to be applied, we find
that the same cannot enure to the benefit of the respondent - State, to
justify its recovery of the alleged amount due from the petitioner -
insurance company, by resorting to the provisions of the MLR Code.
92. It is also relevant to note here that the respondent - State
authorities have resorted to the provisions of Chapter XI of the MLR
Code pertaining to realization of land revenue and other revenue
demands. In fact, one of the impugned orders / communications for
freezing the bank account of the petitioner - insurance company, was
issued under section 180 of the MLR Code. A perusal of section 168 of
the MLR Code, which is the first provision under Chapter XI thereof,
shows that it pertains to liability for land revenue. The said provision
reads as follows :
168. Liability for land revenue.--
(1) In the case of--
(a) unalienated land, the occupant or the lessee of the State
Government ;
(b) alienated land, the superior holder ; and
(c) land in the possession of tenant, such tenant if he is liable
to pay land revenue therefor under the relevant tenancy law,
shall be primarily liable to the State Government for the
payment of the land revenue, including all arrears of land
revenue, due in respect of the land. Joint occupants and joint
holders who are primarily liable under this section shall be
jointly and severally liable.
(2) In case of default by any person who is primarily liable
under this section the land revenue, including arrears as
aforesaid, shall be recoverable from any person in possession
of the land :
50 WP-11973-2022+
Provided that, where such person is a tenant, the amount
recoverable from him shall not exceed the demands of the year
in which the recovery is made:
Provided further that, when land revenue is recovered under
this section from any person who is not primarily liable for the
same, such person shall be allowed credit for any payments
which he may have duly made to the person who is primarily
liable, and shall be entitled to credit, for the amount recovered
from him, in account with the person who is primarily liable.
93. A bare perusal of the above quoted provision shows that in
the facts of the present case, the amount allegedly payable by the
petitioner - insurance company, is clearly not covered under sub-
section (1) of section 168 of the MLR Code. The amount allegedly due
is not at all relatable to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) to
section 168 of the MLR Code. Therefore, resorting to the said Chapter
XI and the provisions contained therein, was not an option available to
the respondent - State authorities, in the facts of the present case.
94. Section 169 of the MLR Code reads as follows :
169. Claims of State Government to have precedence over all
others.--
(1) The arrears of land revenue due on account of land shall be a
paramount charge on the land and on every part thereof and
shall have precedence over any other debt, demand or claim
whatsoever, whether in respect of mortgage, judgment-decree,
execution or attachment, or otherwise howsoever, against any
land or the holder thereof.
(2) The claim of the State Government to any monies other than
arrears of land revenue, but recoverable as a revenue demand
under the provisions of this Chapter, shall have priority over all
unsecured claims against any land or holder thereof.
51 WP-11973-2022+
95. The respondent - State authorities were unable to
demonstrate before this Court as to how the alleged amount due from
the petitioner - insurance could even be covered under monies other
than arrears of land revenue, but recoverable as revenue demand
under the provisions of Chapter XI of the MLR Code. Once this
becomes clear, it is evident that respondent - State authorities could
not have resorted to the provisions of the said Chapter, including
section 180 thereof.
96. In this context, observations made by Division Bench of
this Court, after quoting section 169 of the MLR Code, in the case of
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited (supra) are of relevance and the
same read as follows :
"23. The aforesaid Section makes a clear distinction between actual
arrears of land revenue due on account of land, and amounts other
than arrears of land revenue which are recoverable as arrears of land
revenue under the MLRC. In the former case, the arrears of land
revenue due on account of land, amount to a paramount charge on the
land in question, which shall have precedence over all other debts.
However, in the latter case, the claim of the State Government to
monies recoverable as other than arrears of land revenue but in the
same fashion, have priority only over unsecured claims and not over
secured debts. Land revenue has been defined in Section 2(19) of the
MLRC to mean, "all sums and payments, in money received or legally
claimable by or on behalf of the State Government from any person on
account of any land or interest in or right exercisable over land held by
or vested in him, under whatever designation such sum may be
payable and any cess or rate authorised by the State Government
under the provisions of any law for the time being in force; and
includes premium, rent, lease money, quit, rent, judi payable by a
inamdar or any other payment provided under any Act, rule, contract
or deed on account of any land;" Therefore, it is clear that land
revenue means amounts payable to the State Government on account
52 WP-11973-2022+
of land. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the amounts of
compensation and interest which have been awarded by Respondent
No. 9 against Respondent No. 4 and in favour of Respondent Nos.10
to 15 cannot be said to be actual arrears of land revenue. They are not
dues payable to the State Government which arise out of any
particular land. They are not even claims of the State Government.
They are dues payable by a promoter of a real estate project to the flat
purchasers under orders passed under the provisions of RERA. The
mode of recovery of such amounts is the same as if they were arrears
of land revenue under the MLRC. Hence these amounts clearly cannot
be governed by Section 169(1) of the MLRC. Therefore, the claims of
Respondent Nos. 10 to 15 as awarded by Respondent No. 9 cannot
have priority over the properties of Respondent No. 4 in derogation of
the Petitioner's secured interest therein. Having held that the Petitioner
is a secured creditor of Respondent No. 4 and a Mortgagee in respect
of the said Property under the Debenture Trust Deed, we find that the
Petitioner has priority in respect of the said Property over the claims of
Respondent Nos. 10 to 15. In other words, the Petitioner is entitled to
have its debts satisfied out of the said Property in priority over
Respondent Nos. 10 to 15.
24. The above finding is fortified by a similar finding of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of Indore vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for
the Petitioner. In that case, a mortgage deed was executed by a
company, mortgaging its entire immovable property in favour of a
bank. That company failed and neglected to pay the employer's
contribution due from it under the Employees' Provident Funds Act,
1958. The State, pursuant to a provision in the Employees' Provident
Funds Act, 1958 sought to recover the contribution as an arrear of land
revenue under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Despite the bank informing the State of its prior registered mortgage
over the property of the company, the State sold the property to
recover the company's provident fund contribution as arrears of land
revenue. The following observations were made by the Court while
holding the sale to be bad in law:
"5. In our judgment, the contentions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner must be given effect to. Section 8 of the Act provides,
inter alia, that any amount due from the employer in relation to
an establishment to which a Scheme under the Act applies,
may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered by the appropriate
Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
It does not say that the amount may be recovered as an
arrear of land revenue. It merely provides the manner of the
recovery of the amount mentioned in Section 8. The
manner prescribed for the recovery of the amount as an
arrear of land revenue does not convert the amount into an
53 WP-11973-2022+
arrear of land revenue; nor does it create any charge on
any property of the employer for the payment of the amount
or give a priority in the manner of payment of the amount.
There is no provision in the Act in regard to the creation of
any such charge or priority for the payment of the
employer's contribution." (emphasis supplied).
97. We also find that the petitioner - insurance company is
justified in relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Machhimar Sahakari Sangh
Ltd. (supra). In the said case, this Court rejected the claim of the State
Government that certain outstanding amounts were recoverable as
land revenue even when the amounts were said to be due to a
company whose share capital was owned by the Government. It was
held that since the company was clearly an independent corporate
personality, the amounts recoverable by it could not be said to be
amounts legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government.
98. The petitioner - insurance company is also justified in
relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in
the case of Paras Nath Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others; 2020 SCC OnLine All 190, wherein it was found that when the
relevant statute did not contain any provision that contractual amount
could be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, the State could not
justify the recovery. In the present case, as noted herein-above,
neither does the ROG under the PM Yojna nor does the Government
54 WP-11973-2022+
Resolution dated 29.06.2020 and not even the MOU i.e. the insurance
contract dated 27.07.2020, provide that the amounts due from the
petitioner - insurance company are to be treated as arrears of land
revenue. Hence, the petitioner - insurance company is clearly justified
in contending that the impugned orders / communications issued by the
respondent - State authorities are wholly without jurisdiction and on this
ground itself, they deserve to be quashed and set aside.
99. We accept the said contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed on this ground itself. But, as noted herein-above, we have
decided to examine the merits of the matter also, to satisfy our
conscience, as also to examine the question as to whether the
respondent - State authorities could resort to any other means for
recovering the amount, so long as there is merit in the claim of the
recovery made against the petitioner - insurance company.
(ii) Disputed questions of facts / entertaining this writ petition :
100. In this context, the issue regarding existence of the
disputed questions of facts arises and it needs to be dealt with, before
entering into the merits of the detailed contentions raised by the rival
55 WP-11973-2022+
parties on the interpretation of ROG under the PM Yojna, the aforesaid
MOU as also the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020.
101. In this regard, much emphasis was placed on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of A.P. Electrical (supra). In the said judgment, the
Supreme Court observed as follows :
"48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not
investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercising
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the
mere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, does
not take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting
appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court is
satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by the
State merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writ
petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the duty
of the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate the
disputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of the
case, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.
49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to
indicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one on
hand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The proposition
that a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on the
ground that it cannot be decided without determining the
disputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions of
law nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of such
proposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule of
law or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article
226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section
10(5) and 10(6)of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the High
Court must avoid such consequences."
102. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court also referred to
earlier judgments in the cases of i) State of Orissa V. Dr. (Miss)
Binapani Dei; AIR 1967 SC 1269 and ii) Gunwant Kaur Vs. Bhatinda
56 WP-11973-2022+
Municipality; AIR 1970 SC 602, to throw light on the manner in which
a writ Court ought to approach such a situation. Thus, it is clear that
merely claiming that disputed questions of facts are involved, cannot
be used as a 'mantra' or 'incantation' on the basis of which the writ
Court would automatically desist from exercising its jurisdiction.
103. In any case, upon examining the material on record, and
considering the rival submissions, we find that there are no disputed
questions of facts involved in the present case at all. The petitioner -
insurance company is relying upon the data pertaining to actual yield of
Soyabean crop on the basis of figures provided by the respondent -
State itself at Exhibit - L to the writ petition. This is a communication
dated 16.12.2021, whereby the Chief Statistician, Commissionerate of
Agriculture of the respondent - State forwarded crop yield data
pertaining to Soyabean for the relevant period on the basis of crop
cutting experiments admittedly starting on 17.09.2021, which is evident
from Exhibit - H to the writ petition. All these documents are issued by
the respondent - State authorities themselves and, therefore, there is
no question of disputing the said material. Indeed, the respondent -
State did not dispute the said material / data at all. Even the petitioner
- insurance company has not disputed the application of the sample
surveys, to arrive at amounts payable to the farmers on the basis of
formula supplied by respondent - State authorities. Therefore, on this
57 WP-11973-2022+
score also, there are no disputed questions of facts involved in the
present case.
104. Thus, it becomes evident that the present case, for its
decision on merits, depends upon interpretation of the documents on
record, particularly the clauses of ROG under the PM Yojna,
Government resolution dated 29.06.2020 and the MOU dated
27.07.2020. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court can certainly enter into the arena of interpretation of
the aforesaid documents and other material on record, particularly,
when there are indeed no disputed questions of facts involved in the
present case. Therefore, this Court is proceeding to consider the rival
contentions on merits.
(iii) Revamped Operational Guidelines (ROG) under the PM Yojna
105. Respondent - State authorities as well as the PIL
petitioners claim that the petitioner - insurance company has paid only
50% of the total amount due and that only the data pertaining to
sample survey can be used by proceeding on the basis that the
farmers suffered complete loss of Soyabean crop. The petitioner -
insurance company, on the other hand, harps upon applicability of
clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG under the PM Yojna. On this basis, it is
claimed that a proper application of the said clause would show that
58 WP-11973-2022+
data from CCEs is to be given equal weightage as the data from
sample survey and if at all, the CCE data shows actual loss suffered by
the farmers that further amount would be due and payable to them.
106. In order to deliberate upon the rival submissions and to
render findings thereon, it is necessary to refer to the scheme under
the ROG as per PM Yojna and interpretation of its various clauses.
107. Although, this case is admittedly concerned with 'localized
calamity', covered under clause 21.5 of the ROG, it would be
necessary to refer to other clauses, in order to examine the entire
scheme and specific expressions used in clause 21.5.
108. The ROG provides for coverage of risks, which include
basic cover and add on coverage. Clause 5.2 pertains to add on
coverage, which includes germination risk under clause 5.2.10, mid-
seasonal adversity, under clause 5.2.2, post harvest losses under
clause 5.2.3 and 'localized calamities' under clause 5.2.4. Clause 7.3.1
of ROG refers to threshold yield, which is based on average yield of
notified crop after considering the yield data of the past seven years.
109. The clauses of the ROG provide for dealing with such add-
on coverage system and in that context a detailed mechanism is
provided for calculating the amount payable to the farmers and also
59 WP-11973-2022+
timelines to be observed regarding the same. The ROG also provides
for grievance redressal mechanism, which includes committees at the
district level, state level and at the level of the Central Government.
Roles of the agencies of the State Government and the Central
Government are also specified with the intention of implementing the
scheme under the PM Yojna as efficiently as possible and after taking
into consideration variables that necessarily affect agricultural
operations. Emphasis is placed on the utilization of scientific methods,
so that steps contemplated under the PM Yojna through ROG are
practical, reliable and predictable.
110. Considering the emphasis placed on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company on the CCE data relevant for the
present case, it would be necessary to examine the role of CCEs and
the manner in which various clauses of the ROG prescribe the role and
importance of CCEs.
(iv) Role and Significance of CCEs :
111. Crop Cutting Experiments or CCEs are found to be an
integral part of the scheme contemplated under the PM Yojna as
implemented through the ROG. Clauses 6.1.2 to 6.2.3 of the ROG
provide for conducting requisite number of CCEs by adoption of
innovative technologies, including handheld devices, smartphones etc.
60 WP-11973-2022+
and uploading of CCE based data on the National Crop Insurance
Portal (NCIP).
112. The insurance companies are also required to deploy
sufficient number of manpower to co-observe CCEs, which are carried
out by officers of the Agriculture department of the respondent - State.
113. Clauses 7.2.1.3 to 7.2.1.6, again highlight the importance
of CCEs and the data generated therefrom. In fact, threshold yield
itself is calculated on the basis of such data pertaining to past seven
years.
114. Clause 16.10 of the ROG stipulates that if CCE data
submitted through CCE Agri App is not approved within the stipulated
timelines, it shall stand approved automatically and it shall be used for
claim calculation. This is crucial as it indicates that under the ROG,
CCE data does form the bedrock of claim calculation. Clause 18 of the
ROG pertains to assessment of loss / shortfall in yield and the sub-
clauses thereof give the details as to the manner in which CCEs shall
be considered and that CCEs shall be undertaken per crop per unit
area of insurance for notified crop. A reference is made to two step
yield assessment and the manner in which approved CCEs shall be
conducted by the Officers of the Agriculture department, in the
presence of the Officers of the insurance company. Clause 18.4.5
61 WP-11973-2022+
states that the State Government shall compulsorily constitute a
steering committee in each district to plan, conduct and supervise the
CCEs for yield assessment and to provide reports of yield data to the
State Nodal Department. There are specific instructions available in the
clauses for the modalities of conducting the CCEs in respect of various
crops.
115. It is also provided that in case there is a dispute with
regard to data, the STAC shall resolve the dispute. Clause 19.7.3 of
ROG stipulates that all CCE data of contested area shall be available
in digital format along with other collateral data and further instructions
have been given concerning CCEs data yield. Clause 20 provides for
various instructions for using innovative technology for conducting
CCEs for yield assessment including CCE for the crops to be covered,
smart sampling for CCE optimization, two steps yield assessment i.e.
identification of insurance units affected by crop risks and time of
occurrence of crop risks. Such risks include unseasonal rains, which is
relevant for the facts of the present case. Clause 20.2.4 is significant
in the context of time of occurrence of crop risks and it reads as
follows:
"20.2.4 Time of occurrence of crop risks : Timely
identification of risk-affected insurance units is very critical
to ensure the preparedness by the field functionaries for
timely execution of CCEs. It is recommended that the
affected insurance units be identified by at least 20-30
62 WP-11973-2022+
days before crop harvesting. That means, crop risks
occurring from sowing till 30 days before harvest are only
accounted. Abnormal events like cyclones/floods or
unseasonal rains that occur a few days/weeks before
harvest are to be included in the CCE plan. Identification
and notification of insurance units in such a small time
window would be a challenge. Hence, there should be
some back-up plan with all the States to deal with
calamities/risks that occur just before crop harvest.
Considering the nature and time of occurrence of crop
risks, a quick decision has to be taken by the States on
CCE plan, whether to go for requisite number of planned
CCEs at IU level or group of homogenous IUs /pooled
areas for conducting less number of CCEs."
116. The contents of the above quoted clause further
demonstrate the importance of CCE data for calculating amounts
payable under the add-on cover as per ROG, including situations of
localized calamities.
117. The subsequent clauses of ROG, particularly clause 21
pertaining to assessment and claim settlement refer to and rely upon
CCE data. In respect of claims due to mid-season adversity, the
insurance companies are required to make an immediate upfront
payment to the extent of likely claim and clause 21.4.2.7 of the ROG
provides that such amount of 25% of the likely claims payable, shall be
subject to adjustments against final claims based on yield assessment
data arrived through the CCEs. Thus, finalization of the claims in
various add-on covers specifically depends upon CCE data. Even
clause 21.5 of the ROG pertaining to 'localized calamity', with which we
are concerned in the facts of the present case, indeed refers to and
63 WP-11973-2022+
relies upon CCE data for calculation, finalization and payment of claims
to the farmers.
118. Even the post harvest claims covered under clause 21.6
refer to the CCE data in the context of initial payment and then
finalization of the claims of the farmers. Thus, this Court is of the
opinion that CCE data is one of the most significant aspects of ROG
under the PM Yojna, as it forms the bedrock of calculation and
finalization of the claims in the event any of the contingencies occur,
which pertain to add on coverage as per various clauses of the ROG.
There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner -
insurance company that CCE data cannot be simply ignored even in
the facts of the present case. We are unable to accept the contention
raised on behalf of the respondent - State that the localized calamity
that occurred in the present case requires calculation and payments of
the claims of the farmers by ignoring the CCE data, although it is
admittedly available and provided by the respondent - State itself to the
petitioner - insurance company.
119. It is not as if CCE and its significance has not been
considered and deliberated upon by this Court on earlier occasions. In
certain proceedings before this Court, respondent - State authorities
have themselves relied upon and claimed that CCEs are the basis of
64 WP-11973-2022+
calculating and disbursing amounts payable under such crop insurance
schemes. In the case of Ter Large (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court recorded as follows :-
"8. An affidavit in reply is presented by one Ashok
Pandurang Kadam, Deputy Director of Agriculture, on behalf of
the State Government. It is contended in the affidavit presented
on behalf of the State Government that the Agriculture
Department plans the required number of Crop Cutting
Experiments in notified areas to estimate per hectare yield rates
of different crops. It is also stated that the current year's
average yield, based on crop cutting experiments, planned
under crop estimation survey, is compared with threshold yield
and claims are sanctioned in the proportion of shortfall in
threshold yield. The settlement of claim is done by AIC as per
the prescribed procedure and that the compensation is not
decided on the basis of `paisewari'. It has also been stated on
behalf of the State Government that the threshold yield of each
crop in the notified area is fixed separately. The method of
underwriting crop insurance is not similar to other classes of
non life insurance where coverage is on individual basis. As per
the provisions of the scheme, if there is a loss due to insured
perils and such losses are reflected in the yield arrived at by
conducting CCEs, the farmers become eligible for
compensation. The claims are settled for the crop where
shortfall in the yield is recorded. It is stated that there is no
room for any discrimination or for any fraud and the claim
settlement scheme is a full proof system.
9. ........
10. Thus, the argument of the petitioners, based on scaling
down of annewari by the State, which according to the
petitioners, is less than 50 paise, for consideration of claim
towards recovery of insurance claim, cannot be accepted. As
stated above, the scheme prescribes different modes of
assessing shortfall in the yield. The shortfall in the yield is
equivalent to threshold yield and actual yield during relevant
period. The Respondents, on the basis of crop cutting
experiments, did not find that there is any shortfall in the yield.
Thus, the contention raised by the petitioners that they are
entitled to be indemnified, as there is scaling down of annewari
by the State Government, which itself is indicative of the
shortfall of yield, cannot be accepted."
65 WP-11973-2022+
120. In the case of Libaraj (supra), another Division Bench of
this Court held as follows :-
"21. As has been submitted by respondent nos. 3 and 4, the
Crop Cutting Experiments are conducted by the State
Government machinery and average yield data is furnished by
them and the claims are settled on the basis of shortfall in the
yield recorded on the Area Approach basis in the notified areas
for the notified crops. As stated by respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 and
7 the system of assessing loss on the basis of Crop Cutting
Experiment, is in vogue in Maharashtra since 1944-1945. It is
developed by National Sample Survey Organization, New
Delhi. As submitted by these respondents, the said
methodology of crop estimation is time tested and well
established. According to the said method, minimum ten
samples are considered per circle and 16 per Taluka. The
number of crop cutting experiments are planned in proportion of
the area under crop and the number may be higher where
substantial area under crop is available and where area under
crop is minimal, only six samples are being taken. The
selection of the villages, survey number and the composition of
the plot in the field is decided by using random tables to obtain
unbiased estimates of average yield. As further stated by these
respondents in their affidavit in reply, the plot selected is
harvested in presence of village committee comprising of
Agricultural Extension Officer, Revenue Circle Inspector or
Gram Sewak, Sarpanch and Police Patil of the village
concerned and the representatives of the farmers are also
included so as to maintain transparency. In addition to the
above, supervision of two villages each at the harvesting stage
is allotted to the responsible officers like Deputy Collector,
Tehsildar, Agricultural Development Officer, Block Development
Officer, etc. and based on this, the average yield is being
assessed and if it is found to be less than the threshold yield,
the compensation is being awarded to the farmers in the said
area. The respondents have clarified that the method of
awarding the crop insurance claim cannot be equated with
other classes of non life insurance where individual is the basis.
The respondents have stated that the National Agricultural
Insurance Scheme is aimed at protecting interests of large
Section of the notified area where the losses occur due to
natural perils and such losses are reflected in the yield arrived
at by conducting crop cutting experiments. The respondents
have further clarified that if an individual farmer has suffered
crop loss but the circle insurance unit as a whole does not
reveal such losses and such losses are not reflected in the yield
66 WP-11973-2022+
data then such farmer cannot be said to be entitled to the crop
insurance claim whereas if any such farmer harvests a good
crop but the circle as a whole in which he is situated suffers a
loss and such losses are reflected in the yield data, such farmer
also gets compensation and/or insurance claim even though he
has not actually suffered loss. In nutshell, the claims are
settled for the crop on area approach basis where shortfall in
the yield is recorded on the basis of crop cutting experiment
method."
121. In the context of such crop insurance scheme, another
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of The Osmanabad District
Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors.; 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 409, referred to contents of the affidavit
in reply filed on behalf of the respondent - State authorities and
recorded as follows:-
"16. The respondents in their affidavits have pointedly stated
that the insurance claims of the farmers were settled on the
basis of the Crop Cutting Experiments. In fact, settlement of the
claims is to be made on the basis of Crop Cutting Experiments
and this is the only method which is contemplated under the
scheme. Merely because either the report is not available or
that a representative of the petitioner bank was not associated
would not mean that no Crop Cutting Experiment was carried
out. In any event, this is highly disputed question of fact which
cannot be gone into and decided while exercising writ
jurisdiction. Settlement of the claims under the Comprehensive
Crop Insurance Scheme cannot be directed to be made on the
basis of annewari-paisewari. The respondents have pointed out
the basic difference between the Crop Cutting Experiment and
the declaration of annewari and paisewari. The scheme
contemplates settlement of claims only on the basis of Crop
Cutting Experiments. It would be wholly impermissible for us to
go behind the scheme and direct the respondents to settle the
insurance claims on a procedure which is completely alien to
the scheme. Respondent No. 3 has settled various claims of
the farmers based on the Crop Cutting Experiments or to direct
respondent No. 3 to settle the insurance claims on the premise
that in 1991 there was a general drought as a result of which
there was overall shortfall in the yield of various crops. To do so
would be substituting our opinion to that of the Experts and
67 WP-11973-2022+
completely deviating from the various provisions of the scheme.
In our opinion therefore no case has been made out by the
petitioners for interfering and granting the reliefs, which are
prayed for in this petition. Though we have held that the petition
is maintainable, according to us, on merits no case is made out
for interference."
122. In an appeal arising from orders passed by the Consumer
fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Supreme Court in
the case of Ajitsinh Malubhai Ghummad etc. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. (Order dated 11.08.2021 in Civil Appeal no. 6040-6041 of 2011),
held that if the actual yield of the crop is more than the threshold yield
in question, it can be said that the insured i.e. the farmers have failed
to prove any loss covered under such scheme of insurance. Thus, it is
evident that CCEs, even as per the respondent - authorities, are the
basis for calculating actual loss that may be suffered by farmers in the
context of crop insurance schemes like the PM Yojna being
implemented under the ROG.
123. This is not a case where CCEs could not be conducted or
that there was any dispute raised with regard to the CCE data available
for the relevant period, pertaining to the crop of Soyabean, in respect of
which the insurance claim arises in the facts of the present case. As to
whether the CCE data can be looked at and utilized, is a different
matter and that aspect takes us to the next issue regarding the manner
68 WP-11973-2022+
in which loss suffered and amount payable to the farmers, is to be
calculated in the facts of the present case.
(v) 'Localised Calamity' and applicability of clause 21.5.10 of the
ROG:
124. There is no dispute between the parties about the fact that
the insurance claim in the present case arises out of a localized
calamity. The localized calamity in the present case was in the form of
unseasonal rain that occurred between 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021 in
District - Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). The fact that the said localized
calamity took place between the aforesaid period, is not a disputed
question, for the reason that in various documents issued by the
respondent - State authorities, including letter dated 25.10.2021 at
Exhibit 'K' issued by the respondent - District Collector to the petitioner
- insurance company it is specifically recorded that unseasonal rains
and hence the 'localized calamity' indeed took place between
23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021.
125. Rival contentions have been raised before this Court in the
context of the said localized calamity, by referring to various sub-
clauses of clause 21.5 of the ROG pertaining to localized calamity.
Respondent - State claims that since the localized calamity did not take
place within 15 days of the harvest, the loss suffered by the farmers
69 WP-11973-2022+
had to be assessed only on sample survey and that CCE had no role to
play. But, the petitioner - insurance company has contended that the
localized calamity and hence, the losses to the farmers did occur within
15 days of the harvest and hence, the assessment has to be based on
a combination of sample survey and CCE with 50 : 50 weightage. The
respondent - State claims that the loss suffered by the farmers was
almost complete because the crop of Soyabean was standing when the
unseasonal rains hit the aforesaid district. The rival contentions
revolve around the interpretation of clause 21.5.10 of the ROG,
particularly, sub-clause (1) in the table that forms part of the said
clause. It needs to be reproduced, in order to appreciate the rival
contentions. Clause 21.5.10 of the ROG reads as follows :
SR.No. Action required to be taken Action to be taken by Schedule for taking
action
1 Intimation may be given within Affected farmer(s) Within 72 hours from the
72 hours by the farmer either may intimate using occurrence of a peril.
through Mobile Application, mobile. landline or
Centralized Toll-Free Number, social media.. Farmer
directly to the Insurance should provide his
Company through it's dedicated bank account number
toll-free number or through the (loan account for
concerned bank, local loanee farmer and
agriculture department savings account for
Government/district officials. non-loanee farmer) or
However, the first mode of Enrollment number
intimation should be either crop generated from the
insurance app or the centralised portal at the time of
Toll-Free Number. intimation.
In case the intimation has been
given through concerned bank
branch or Government officials,
the intimation should be given
within next 48 hours to the
70 WP-11973-2022+
SR.No. Action required to be taken Action to be taken by Schedule for taking
action
Insurance Company.
Intimation about occurrence of
localized perils/ calamities viz.
Hailstorm, Landslide,
Inundation, Cloud burst and
Natural fire due to lightening
may be given upto harvest date
as notified in the State
Notification and supported by
information of IMD / local
media, and Reports of
Agriculture / Revenue
Departments, Media Reports.
The losses due to occurrence of
localized perils within 15 days
of normal harvest will be
assessed based on combination
of sample survey and CCEs
with 50:50 weightage.
Forwarding of information /
Intimation of the farmer(s) to Bank/PACS, Local Within 48 hours from the
Insurance Company by either Agriculture receipt of the
using company's web link or via Department / District information / intimation
NCIP. officials from the farmer(s).
Appointment of loss assessor as Within 48 hours from the
3 per qualifications & experience Insurance company receipt of the
laid down in the OGs of PMFBY. information / intimation.
Within 10 days of the
Assessment of affected area in
4 DLJC appointment of the loss
term of % of area sown.
assessor by the company.
Individual level assessment of Jointly by the
loss (in case the affected area is Insurance Company &
< 25% of the total cropped block level Agriculture
area). Officer.
Within 7 days of the
Verification of the details of the intimation of loss.
affected insured farmer(s) from
6 Insurance company
the bank using company's web
link or on NCIP.
7 Claim-payment to affected Insurance company Within 15 days from
farmers. receipt of loss
assessment report
subject to receipt of at-
71 WP-11973-2022+
SR.No. Action required to be taken Action to be taken by Schedule for taking
action
least advance
Government share of
subsidy (1st installment
of both State & Central
Government).
Data of the Loss assessment
report finalized by DLJC, and
admissible claims will be Within 7 days of the
8 Insurance company
uploaded on the NCIP against survey.
the farmer from whom the loss
intimation was received.
126. A perusal of clause 21.5.10.1 shows that the operative part
thereof consists of two components. For the sake of convenience, the
two components are again being separately reproduced, so as to
facilitate appreciation and analysis of the rival contentions of the
parties.
Component - I of Clause 21.5.10.1 reads as follows :
"Intimation about occurrence of localized perils/ calamities viz.
Hailstorm, Landslide, Inundation, Cloud burst and Natural fire
due to lightening may be given upto harvest date as notified in
the State Notification and supported by information of IMD /
local media, and Reports of Agriculture / Revenue
Departments, Media Reports." (Emphasis supplied).
Component - II of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG reads as follows :
"The losses due to occurrence of localized perils within 15
days of normal harvest will be assessed based on combination
of sample survey and CCEs with 50:50 weightage." (Emphasis
supplied).
127. It is of significance that while component I uses the words
'harvest data as notified in the State notification'; component II uses the
words 'normal harvest'.
72 WP-11973-2022+
128. There is no dispute about the fact that the harvest date as
notified in the State notification, in the facts of the present case, is
nothing but the crop calender issued by the respondent - State for
Kharif - 2021. A copy of the same is placed on record at Exhibit - R-2
alongwith reply affidavit of the respondent - State authorities. It
specifically states that the crop harvesting period for the crop of
Soyabean in respect of the District - Osmanabad shall be 15.10.2021
to 15.11.2021. Applying the same to component - I of clause 21.5.10.1
quoted herein-above would show that intimation about occurrence of
localized calamity would have to be given up to 15.10.2021. The ROG
nowhere defines 'normal harvest'. In the absence of such definition, it
was vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent - State that
'normal harvest' is nothing but the harvest date / period specified by the
respondent - State in the afore-mentioned crop calender for Kharif -
2021. On this basis, it was contended that since the localized calamity
in the present case occurred from 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, the
estimation of losses was being pressed only up to 30.09.2021 and as
per the material available on record maximum claims were submitted
up to the said date and hence, the entire amount payable to the
farmers had to be only on the basis of sample survey. It was asserted
that there was no question of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG being
73 WP-11973-2022+
applicable and, therefore, the CCE data became wholly irrelevant while
calculating and paying the claims of the farmers.
129. On the other hand, the petitioner - insurance company has
placed much emphasis on the fact that CCEs were undertaken at least
from 17.09.2021, in the facts of the present case. A perusal of the
documents on record indeed shows that even as per the respondent -
State, CCEs started on 17.09.2021. This is evident from the document
at Exhibit - H, which gives the details of the manner in which the CCEs
were conducted from 17.09.2021, the data pertaining thereto and the
fact that the same was issued by an officer of the respondent - State
i.e. the Talathi.
130. The document at Exhibit L, being a communication issued
by the Chief Statistician of the Commissionerate of Agriculture,
respondent - State dated 16.12.2021 annexes the average yield data
based on crop cutting experiments of crop Soyabean in District -
Osmanabad for Kharif - 2021 season. These are undisputed
documents of the respondent - State itself. We are of the opinion that
such undisputed documents indeed show that actual harvesting of the
soybean crop started in District - Osmanabad for Kharif - 2021 at least
from 17.09.2021 onwards. Thus, harvesting had begun on 17.09.2021,
notwithstanding the fact that the crop calender specified the date of
74 WP-11973-2022+
harvesting period as 15.10.2021 to 15.11.2021. This fact is of
immense significance in the facts of the present case. It is also
relevant to note that the expression 'normal harvest' is not defined
anywhere in the ROG under PM Yojna.
131. Neither the Government resolution dated 29.06.2020 nor
the MOU dated 27.07.2020 executed between petitioner - insurance
company and respondent - State, refer to the expression 'normal
harvest'. In this situation, we find that the contention raised on behalf
of the insurance company that normal harvest must mean actual
harvest conducted in that particular season, as a logical interpretation
of the expression 'normal harvest'. If there was no data available to
find out as to when harvest actually began, it would have been a
different matter. But, normal harvest obviously and logically must mean
the date when the exercise of harvesting the crop actually began.
Therefore, we accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner -
insurance company that, in the facts of the present case, on the basis
of the undisputed documents issued by the respondent - State
authorities themselves, pertaining to CCEs being conducted at least
from 17.09.2021, the normal harvest began from 17.09.2021.
132. At this stage, it would be relevant to consider the
contention raised on behalf of the respondent - State, that since the
75 WP-11973-2022+
crop calender notified by the respondent - State shows the period of
harvesting between 15.10.2021 to 15.11.2021 using the word
loZlk/kkj.k', which means 'general' or 'normal', this very period and the
dates have to be treated as 'normal harvesting date'. We find that the
ROG as well as the stand taken by the respondent - State itself shows
that the date of harvesting notified by the respondent - State is nothing
but the crop calender. We have also found herein-above that the
words used 'harvest date as notified in the State Notification' in
component - I of clause 21.5.10.1, are distinct and different from the
words 'normal harvest' used in component - II of the said clause.
133. Therefore, the respondent - State cannot be permitted to
turn around and claim that the crop calender which is in-fact, the date
notified by the State, is the same as 'normal harvest', merely because
the word 'loZlk/kkj.k' is used in the crop calender. As noted herein-
above, the words 'normal harvest', not being defined anywhere in the
ROG or the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 issued by the
respondent - State, has to be the date when the actual harvesting
started. In the present case, the CCEs show that the harvesting of
Soyabean crop in District - Osmanabad had actually started at least
from 17.09.2021 onwards. Thus, the aforesaid contention raised on
76 WP-11973-2022+
behalf of the respondent - State, harping upon the word ' loZlk/kkj.k'
used in the crop calender, cannot be accepted.
134. As noted herein-above, the 'localized calamity' took place
between 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021. This is a fact acknowledged and
admitted by respondent - State in its own communications, particularly,
the communication at Exhibit - K dated 25.10.2021, issued by the
respondent - Collector himself to the petitioner - insurance company.
Therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company that, in the facts of the present case,
losses to the farmers occurred due to localized calamity of unseasonal
rains within 15 days of 'normal harvest'. Once this finding is reached, it
becomes clear that such losses have to be assessed under component
- II of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, on the basis of combination of
sample survey and CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage.
135. We are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of
the respondent - State that since the insurance company had agreed
for 85% of the input costs to be made the basis of calculating the
amount payable as per sample survey, it would mean that the
insurance company had conceded to the fact that the CCEs would
have no role to play while calculating the amount of compensation.
The relevant clauses and sub-clauses of the ROG pertaining to
77 WP-11973-2022+
localized calamity do indicate that the role of the CCEs and the data
generated therefrom cannot be ignored while calculating the amount of
compensation payable. It is an admitted position that the petitioner
insurance - company itself paid amount of Rs.374,61,93,634/- on the
basis of joint sample survey, which is equivalent to 50% weightage for
the sample survey. There is no dispute about this aspect of the matter.
The difference between the parties is on the assertion of the
respondent - State as well as petitioners in the PIL, that the amount
had to be paid to the farmers on the basis of calculation based entirely
on sample survey, with no weightage being given to CCEs.
136. Once this Court has accepted the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner - insurance company with regard to applicability
of component - II of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, for the detailed
reasons stated herein-above, CCE data can certainly not be ignored.
We also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner - insurance company that in every circumstance of add-on
cover, be it germination, mid-season adversity or post-harvest losses,
CCE data consistently has significance.
137. In fact, under such add-on coverage, upfront payments are
to be made to the farmers, which are then to be finalized on the basis
of CCE data, to reach a conclusion as to whether any adjustment is
78 WP-11973-2022+
necessary in the light of the upfront payments made to the farmers.
Neither the State authorities nor the PIL petitioners have been able to
justify their claim that entire 100% payment was to be made to the
farmers only on the basis of sample survey data.
138. If the contentions raised on their behalf are to be accepted,
then there would be no distinction between specific expressions used
in the definitions forming part of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG. The
words 'harvest data as notified in the State notification' used in
component I, are distinct from the words 'normal harvest' used in
component II. The interpretation being placed on behalf of the
respondent - State authorities and the PIL petitioners, is in the teeth of
the clear language used in the said clause and, therefore, the said
interpretation cannot be accepted.
139. It is not as if the insurance company is absolved of its
liability when 50% weightage is given to CCEs as per clause 21.5.10.1
of the ROG. The extent of liability would depend upon the CCE data
and if losses are suffered in the actual yield as compared to the
threshold yield, proportionately the insurance company will have to pay
amounts to the farmers. But, in the present case, undisputedly, CCE
data as per Exhibit - L sent by the Chief Statistician of the
Commissionerate of Agriculture of the respondent - State itself shows
79 WP-11973-2022+
that figures pertaining to average / actual yield of Soyabean crop for
District - Osmanabad for Kharif season - 2021 in each of the 42 circles,
was much higher than the threshold yield.
140. Therefore, the farmers as per the CCE data did not suffer
any actual loss with regard to the Soyabean crop despite the localized
calamity of unseasonal rains. Since the said data is undisputed, it
becomes clear that under the 50% weightage pertaining to CCEs, the
insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the farmers. This
indicates that on merits also, the respondent - State authorities and
even the PIL petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that further
amounts are recoverable from the petitioner - insurance company. It is
to be understood that the payment is to be made under the MOU dated
27.07.2020, which is a pure insurance contract and it indemnifies for
actual losses suffered. The formula of assessing the losses is ingrained
in and provided in detail under the ROG. Once the facts of the present
case demonstrate that clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG clearly applies, a
proper interpretation and implementation of the same demonstrates
that the petitioner - insurance company is not liable to pay any further
amounts to the farmers.
80 WP-11973-2022+
(vi) Jurisdiction of District Grievance Redressal Committee and
Role of Divisional Level Grievance Committee :-
141. A specific contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner
- insurance company that the District Grievance Redressal Committee,
as contemplated under the ROG and the Government Resolution dated
29.06.2020 suffered from lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and, hence, for this reason also, the
orders passed by the said Committee were rendered without
jurisdiction. The ROG as well as the Government Resolution provide
for pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.25 Lakh with the District Grievance
Redressal Committee. The response of the State, to the said
contention, is that since the claim of each individual farmer was less
than Rs.25 Lakhs, the said Committee did have pecuniary jurisdiction.
142. We find that the District Grievance Redressal Committee
took into consideration the grievances of a large number of farmers
and in that context, it was indicated that the petitioner - insurance
company ought to pay the balance amount of above Rs.374.34 Crores.
It is not clear as to what was the extent of the claim of each individual
farmer and whether each such claim exceeded Rs. 25 Lakhs. In any
case, the claims of such aggrieved farmers put together clearly
exceeded the pecuniary limit of Rs.25 Lakhs. But, the said aspect
pales into insignificance in the light of the specific stand taken on
81 WP-11973-2022+
behalf of the respondent - State that the District Grievance Redressal
Committee, in the facts of the present case, did not decide anything
and that it did not pass any effective order. The respondent - State
claims that the said Committee merely made its recommendation and
sent the same to the Divisional Level Grievance Committee. If that be
so, the issue pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction loses its significance.
At the same time, it is incongruous that the impugned
communications / orders under the MLR Code appear to be passed on
the deliberations and findings of the said District Grievance Redressal
Committee.
143. Apart from this, it is evident that the ROG under the PM
Yojna does not provide for a Divisional Level Grievance Committee and
it refers to the hiearchical form, i.e., a Committee at District Level, then
a Committee at the State Level and finally the Committee at the Central
level. But, this Court finds that introduction of the Divisional Committee
by the afore-mentioned Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020, in
itself, may not render illegal the aforesaid act on the part of the State,
for the reason that the Government Resolution was issued in order to
execute the PM Yojna and it could be said a step in aid thereof. In any
case, when this Court is inclined to hold in favour of the petitioner -
insurance company on the merits of the matter, these issues indeed
take a backseat. They are really concerned with the petitioner -
82 WP-11973-2022+
insurance company being able to maintain the present writ petition
before this Court and on that score, this Court has already held in
favour of the petitioner herein-above.
(vii) Alternative Remedy available to the petitioner :-
144. Respondent - state has raised a specific objection that the
writ petition could not be entertained in the face of availability of
alternative remedy in the form of Grievance Redressal mechanism
provided in the ROG as well as the Government Resolution dated
29.06.2020. As noted herein-above, there is a hierarchical system for
grievance redressal provided under the ROG as well as the said GR. If
a party is aggrieved by the findings or order of the District Grievance
Redressal Committee, the same could be challenged before the State
Committee and further before the Committee at the Central level. But,
such challenge would necessarily concern the actual calculation of the
amount that the insurance company would be liable to pay to the
insured farmers. It would involve the nitty-gritty of applying the
directives in the ROG, including the formulae indicated therein. But,
the interpretation of the clause of the ROG can be undertaken only by
the Central Government under clause 35.1.17 of the ROG.
83 WP-11973-2022+
145. Thus, considering the nature of dispute raised on behalf of
the petitioner - insurance company, the grievance redressal
mechanism in its hierarchy, could not be said to be an efficacious
alternative remedy available to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the
petitioner - insurance company had sent a letter on 01.11.2022 to the
Chief Executive Officer of the PM Yojna seeking guidance for resolution
of the said dispute pertaining to interpretation of the clauses of the
ROG and intervention in the matter. But, by the letter dated
24.11.2022, the respondent - Union of India informed the petitioner -
insurance company that it should approach the STAC for the said
purpose. The scheme under the ROG shows that the STAC can
decide only issues pertaining to crop yield or losses for computation of
admissible claims and not interpretational issues.
146. The said admitted position on facts clearly shows that the
remedy available to the petitioner - insurance company was sought to
be availed, but the respondent - Union of India, instead of deciding the
issue, asked the petitioner - insurance company to approach the
STAC. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the writ petition should
not have been entertained due to availability of alternative remedy. In
any case, not to entertain a writ petition due to availability of an
alternative remedy is not a rule of law, but a rule of prudence and
convenience. Therefore, it cannot be said in the facts of the present
84 WP-11973-2022+
case that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained due to
availability of alternative remedy. Hence, the said contention raised on
behalf of the respondent - State is also rejected.
(viii) Reliance on communications issued by the respondent -
State authorities and Union of India.
147. The respondent - State has relied upon certain
communications issued by the Officers of the respondent - State to
claim that in similar situations, it was opined that clause 21.5.10 of the
ROG would not apply. Having perused the said communications, we
find that there is no reasoning recorded therein and in any case, such
communications / orders may be binding on the respondent - State
authorities, but they cannot be binding on this Court while considering
the rival contentions raised in the present writ petition.
148. On the other hand, the letter dated 25.07.2025 sent by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare of the respondent - Union
of India to the Department of Agriculture and Farmers of the
Government of Haryana concerning similar circumstances, shows the
interpretation placed on clause 21.5.10.1. In the said communication,
the said department of the respondent - Union of India has relied upon
an earlier communication pertaining to kharif season of 2021 and it has
been specifically opined that if the harvesting had already started in the
85 WP-11973-2022+
District (before the date notified by the State in the tender document)
before the occurrence of the localized calamity, clause 21.5.10 gets
invoked. This is crucial for the reason that, as noted herein-above, it is
the respondent - Union of India that can interpret any provision of the
scheme under clause 35.1.17 of the ROG. The said communication
relied upon by the petitioner - insurance company, indeed, throws light
on the applicability of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG. It is also significant
to note that even in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
- Union of India in the instant writ petition, it has been stated as
follows:-
"It is further submitted that if the harvest had already started in
the district (before the date notified by the State in the tender
document) before the occurrence of the localized calamity, in
that case clause 21.5.10 gets invoked."
149. We have already reached a conclusion herein-above that
harvesting actually started, at least from 17.09.2021 i.e. when the first
CCE was conducted, and it was prior to the date of 15.10.2021 notified
in the crop calender issued by the respondent - State. As per the
interpretation given by the respondent - Union of India itself, clause
21.5.10.1 of the ROG applies in the facts of the present case and,
hence, contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner - insurance
company deserve to be accepted.
86 WP-11973-2022+
(ix) Reliance placed on Judgment of this Court in PIL / 91 / 2021
(supra)
150. The PIL petitioners have placed much reliance on the said
judgment of this Court in the PIL. It was submitted that since the
petitioner - insurance company was a party in the said PIL, and it had
suffered an adverse order with regard to the issue relating to liability of
payment to farmers under the crop insurance scheme under the PM
Yojna, the present PIL ought to be allowed and the writ petition
deserved to be dismissed. But, having perused the aforesaid judgment
of this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we
find that none of the issues that arise in the present proceedings came
up for consideration before this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The only issue in the aforesaid PIL pertained to alleged failure of the
farmers in the said case in individually intimating losses within 72 hours
of the date of the incident or the localized calamity. This Court as well
as the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contentions raised by the
petitioner - insurance company in the context of the aforesaid issue.
151. But, in the present case, the afore-mentioned detailed
issues have arisen, in the context of which this Court has been called
upon to interpret various clauses of the ROG under the PM Yojna as
well as the GR dated 29.06.2020 and the MOU dated 27.07.2020. The
87 WP-11973-2022+
said issues have been considered in detail and findings have been
rendered herein-above. None of these issues came up for
consideration in the afore-mentioned PIL / 91 / 2021 and, therefore,
reliance placed on the judgment in the said PIL, merely because this
very insurance company happened to be a party therein, can be of no
consequence. Hence, the said contention is also rejected.
(x) Having received premium, petitioner - insurance company
must pay the amount claimed.
152. In respect of the said issue, we find that strenuous
arguments were made on behalf of the respondent - State, to the effect
that the petitioner - insurance company had received full premium
amount, but at the time of honouring its commitment to pay legitimate
claims of the farmers, it was deliberately and illegally avoiding to do so.
But, it cannot be forgotten that in the present case, this Court is
required to consider rival contentions in the backdrop of a pure
insurance matter, based on ROG under the PM Yojna as also the GR
dated 29.06.2020 and more particularly, MOU dated 27.07.2020
executed between the parties.
153. The liability to pay and the indemnification is based on the
agreed terms between the parties. It is within the four-corners of the
said documents that either party is required to make out its case. The
most crucial aspect, while interpreting and implementing the clauses of
88 WP-11973-2022+
the ROG and the MOU, is that amounts will have to be paid on the
basis of losses suffered by the farmers. Once, the petitioner -
insurance company has been able to demonstrate that the basis of
payment to the claimant - farmers, in the facts of the present case, is
covered under clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, the same must apply with
full force. As noted herein-above, the petitioner - insurance company
is not seeking to avoid its liability by raising any arguments or
contentions outside the four-corners of the agreement between the
parties. It is, in-fact, seeking implementation of the clauses of the
ROG, particularly, clause 21.5.10 in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
154. It is also un-deniable that even upon applying clause
21.5.10.1 of the ROG, if actual losses on the basis of CCE data were
higher, the remaining 50% amount would have been payable to the
farmers, proportionate to the losses suffered. But, the undisputed CCE
data provided by the respondent - State itself shows that in case of all
the 42 circles of District - Osmanabad concerning the notified crop
Soyabean, there was no actual loss suffered. This was because the
actual yield in all the 42 circles of the District - Osmanabad was found
to be more than threshold yield. Therefore, this Court is unable to
agree with the respondent - State that the petitioner - insurance
89 WP-11973-2022+
company was being rapacious while denying the claims raised by the
respondent - State on behalf of the farmers.
155. On the basis of the material on record and the analysis
and findings given herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner - insurance company has succeeded in making out its case
and that the respondent - State as well as the PIL petitioners have not
succeeded in proving their stand before this Court.
156. In that light, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and
the PIL needs to be dismissed.
ORDER
157. In view of the above. Writ Petition No. 11973 of 2023 is
allowed and it is declared that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG under PM Yojna applies. In
the light of the CCE data showing no actual loss as the actual /
average yield in all 42 circles of Osmanabad District for Kharif season
- 2021 was more than the threshold yield, the basis on which the
respondent - State has claimed further equivalent amount from the
petitioner - insurance company, is found to be unsustainable.
Consequently, prayer clause (B) is granted and the impugned
communications / orders dated 31.05.2022, 20.09.2022, 12.10.2022,
26.10.2022, 02.11.2022 and 16.11.2022 are quashed and set aside.
90 WP-11973-2022+
158. For the very same reasons, Public Interest Litigation No.
38 of 2023 is dismissed.
159. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
160. Pending applications in both proceedings, if any, also
stand disposed of.
[ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
