Allowed

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming v. The District Collector (Co-operation)

Telangana HC10 Mar 2011WP/19596/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed Respondents to verify details furnished by the Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming Society regarding land extents and owners within one month and subsequently release the input subsidy for flood-damaged crops to eligible members.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioner to furnish land details; District Collector to verify details and release input subsidy within two months.

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19596 of 2010

¶2

Dated 1 0 th March, 2011

¶3

Between:

¶4

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming Society Ltd.,

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector (Cooperation), Machilipatnam, Krishna District and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi

¶10

Counsel for respondents: GP for Cooperation

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, which is a Cooperative Collective Farming Society Limited of Puligadda Village, Krishna District, feeling aggrieved by non-payment of input subsidy to its members in pursuance of the State Government’s scheme.

¶14

It is the common case of the parties that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.39, Revenue (DM-I) Department, dated 15.12.2009, providing for payment of input subsidy to small and marginal farmers in the State, whose crops were damaged in floods occurred in September/October, 2009. The petitioner-Society comprises farmers, who evidently suffered damage to the crops during the said floods. The Society’s application was considered and its name was shown at Serial No.12 in the Statement Showing Crop Damage prepared by the respondents, wherein, in the remarks column, it is stated that a dispute is pending before the Court.

¶15

In the present writ petition, the action of the respondents in not paying the input subsidy in respect of Acs.27.00 of land being enjoyed by various members of the petitioner-Society is questioned.

¶16

Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the District Collector, Krishna has issued guidelines vide his proceedings, in Roc.No.C5/1843/09, dated 11.10.2009, which inter a l i a fixed responsibility on the revenue officials to identify the holdings/survey numbers/ownership of lands affected in the floods, that the officials of agriculture department are responsible for recording existence of crop damage and that in respect of horticulture, it is the responsibility of horticulture department to estimate the said damage.

¶17

It is further stated that as per the proceedings, dated 07.05.2010, of the District Collector, Krishna, the Mandal Agriculture Officer and the Tahsildar will have to make payments by operating joint accounts and that in the present case, the damage of the crops in respect of the lands has been assessed by the officials of the agricultural department, but, however, the list prepared by the revenue officials does not mention the names of the owners, who are members of the Society, along with respective extents and survey numbers. This has been pleaded as the reason for not releasing the input subsidy in favour of the members of the petitioner-Society.

¶18

It is also stated that the respondents have learnt that there is a dispute over the lands of the petitioner-Society and that if the revenue officials furnish the details of the ownership of the members of the petitioner-Society, along with respective survey numbers and extents, steps will be taken to pay the input subsidy for damage to the crops.

¶19

On considering the above contents of the counter-affidavit, the dispute gets narrowed down to identifying the persons, who are in possession of the lands under the control of the petitioner-Society. Evidently, the agriculture department has assessed the damage to the crops of the lands of Acs.27.00 held by the members of the petitionerSociety, but due to absence of the details of the persons and the extents of the lands held by each of the persons, who are members of the petitioner-Society, input subsidy is not released.

¶20

As regards the alleged Court case, Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi,

¶21

learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the only dispute that was pending in any Court was W.P.No.17815 of 2008 and that even that writ petition was disposed of by this Court during the pendency of this writ petition i.e., on 30.11.2010. She has filed a copy of the order of this Court in the said writ petition, a perusal of which, shows that the writ petition filed by 48 persons was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶22

No material is placed by the respondents that any other dispute with respect to the lands under the control of the petitioner-Society is pending.

¶23

In the light of the above facts, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶24

(1) The petitioner-Society is permitted to furnish relevant information regarding the persons in occupation and the extents of the land held by each of them to the officials concerned of the Revenue Department;

¶25

(2) Within one month from the date of receipt of such details, the District Collector shall ensure that the details are verified with reference to the record and relevant information is furnished to respondent No.4 for payment of compensation to individual members of the petitioner-Society in respect of the damage of crop suffered by them; and

¶26

(3) Within one month from the date of receipt of the details from the District Collector, respondent No.4 shall release the input subsidy in favour of the members of the petitioner-Society, who have suffered crop damage.

¶27

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24840 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶28

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶29

10^th March, 2011 VGB

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming v. The District Collector (Co-operation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming v. The District Collector (Co-operation)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Babamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Davala Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisional officer,Narasaraopet

D.Muni Subramanyam Reddy Vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam Board, rep.by its

Kamineni Jayasri, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Yelamanchili Surya Pushpavathi Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

V. Chandrika , S. Chandrika Vs The Gram Panchayat