Dismissed

A.Navamani, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC21 Apr 2022WP(MD)/12528/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a farmer, sought certiorari to quash an order denying compensation under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme for 2008 crop losses due to rainfall. The court noted the area was not notified as rain-affected and the necessary party was missing, but directed the fourth respondent to refund the premium.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The fourth respondent is directed to refund the premium amount paid by the petitioner with interest at 4% per annum within four weeks.

A.Navamani, Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12528 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 21.04.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12528 of 2009 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009

A.Navamani

... Petitioner

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George,

¶11

Chennai -9.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukottai.

¶13

3.The Joint Director, Agricultural Department, Pudukottai.

¶14

4.The Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank, Kudumiyanmalai, Pudukottai District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings No.C5/7259/09-04, dated 12.10.2009, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the benefit of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme to the petitioner for the 4 acres of land possessed by him.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Saravanakumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Nos.1 to 3 Special Government Pleader

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is filed as against the order of the third respondent dated 12.10.2009 and for a consequential direction to pay the benefit under the Agricultural Insurance Scheme.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

1/3

¶21

W.P(MD)No.12528 of 2009

¶22

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a small farmer, having an extent of 4acres and is cultivating paddy. The petitioner subscribed to the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and paid a premium amount of Rs.465/- through the fourth respondent, the Primary Agricultural CoOperative Bank, Kudumiyanmalai. There was heavy rainfall in the village during the year 2008 and he suffered loss. Therefore, he has made a request to the second respondent seeking compensation under the insurance scheme. But the third respondent vide impugned order has denied the request of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶23

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has paid a premium of Rs.465/- under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. The petitioner claims that due to heavy rainfall, he did not get the yield of the crops and incurred loss during the year 2008.

¶24

4.The learned Special Government Pleader further by referring the counter affidavit filed by the fourth and third respondents submits that the yield of paddy crop is assessed at firka level by conducting crop cutting experiment in ten random plots covering five villages in selected paddy filed by following the specific procedure. The Agricultural Insurance Company compares the firka level yield with the threshold yiled level (average yield obtained during previous three years) if there is any shortfall in yield then the insured farmers, growing crops in the defined area are deemed to have suffered the shortfall in the year and as there was no shortfall of threshold yield in Kudumiyanmalai firka covering Kanniyapatti village, this petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit. Further, the Government has notified the firkas and areas, which were affected by heavy rainfall during the year 2008, wherein the petitioner's area, ie., Kanyapatti village under Kudumiyanmalai firka, Annavasal Block, Illuppur Taluk as not mentioned in the said list.

¶25

5.The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Agricultural Insurance company of India Limited is a necessary party, however this writ petition is filed without making them party in the writ petition.

¶26

6.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶27

7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.465/- as insurance premium under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme during the year 2008.The petitioner claims that he had suffered loss due heavy downpour in his area, ie., Kanyapatti, Eluppur Taluk.The respondents claim that the yield of paddy crop is assessed at firka level in ten random plots by conducting crop https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cutting experiment and if there is any shortfall in the yield in the

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.P(MD)No.12528 of 2009

¶30

particular area, they would be eligible for crop compensation. Such rain affected firkas and areas are also notified by the government by way of notification.

¶31

8.According to the respondents, the area of the petitioner, ie., Kanyapatti, Eluppur Taluk falling under Kudumiyanmalai firkas was not at all notified in the rain affected area. Therefore, the area is not notified in the notification for the year 2008. When the area of the petitioner is not notified as rain affected area, the petitioner is not entitled for such benefit. Further the petitioner has not impleaded the necessary party. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However the fourth respondent shall refund the premium amount to the petitioner paid by him with interest 4% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

9.In the result this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶33

Assistant Registrar (CS I)

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶36

dsk

¶37

¶38

1.The Secretary, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 2.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukottai.

¶39

3.The Joint Director, Agricultural Department, Pudukottai.

¶40

4.The Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank, Kudumiyanmalai,

¶41

Pudukottai District.

¶42

+1 CC to M/s.P. KALAIYARASI BHARATHI, Advocate ( SR-20237[F] dated 21/04/2022 )

¶43

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-20496[F] dated 22/04/2022 )

¶44

W.P(MD)No.12528 of 2009 21.04.2022

¶45

MGJ(02.06.2022) 3P 7C

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

3/3

A.Navamani, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Navamani, v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Ponnusamy, Vs the Principal District Judte

K.Natarajan Vs the Assistant Commissioner

V.Sathyanathan, Vs the District Collector

Shenbagavalli, Vs the Commissioner

Ramasubban @ Ramji, Vs District Revenue Officer

R.Umayavel Arumuganathan Vs the Joint Director