Madras High Court
E.Govindaswamy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2022
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
W.P.No.28131 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.28131 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.30262 of 2017
1. E.Govindaswamy
2. Radhan
3. G.Dasarathan
4. D.Ravi
5. P.Selvam
6. Mohan
7. Narayanasamy
8. Sanjeevi Naidu
9. D.Sreenivasan
10. K.B.Mahesh
11. Thukkaram Naidu
12. Manickam
13. Ravichandran
14. Sekar
15. Kathavarayan
16. S.Krishnamurthy
17. D.Kakkaiya
18. Govindaraj
19. Suresh
20. Nagesh
21. Jitendra Samtharia
22. Munivel Chetty
23. Vijayakumar
24. Mani
25. Kattan
26. Balarama Naidu
27. R.Maran
28. Sadanandam .. Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.28131 of 2017
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2. The Collector,
Thiruvallur District.
3. Executive Engineer,
PWD Department,
Redhills - 600 052. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the
flood relief and drought relief as per G.O.Ms.No.380, Revenue (DM III (2)
Department, dated 27.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.47, Revenue (DM III (2)
Department, dated 21.02.2017.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.S.Jhothiraman
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Baladhandayutham
Special Government Pleader
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to give flood and drought relief to the petitioners as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.380, Revenue (DM III (2) Department, dated 27.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.47, Revenue (DM III (2) Department, dated 21.02.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, they are agriculturists and having agricultural lands in various extents, situated in Kannan Kottai Village, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. During the year 2015, due to floods, their crops were damaged and in the subsequent year 2016 due to drought their crops were damaged. As per the above said G.Os. the loss was assessed in the above said village and almost 127 agriculturists have been paid compensation leaving along the petitioners herein. Hence, they made representation to the authorities and the same was not considered, so they filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that, earlier petitioners agriculture lands were sought to be acquired for Kannankottai - Thervoykandigai Reservoir Scheme in the year 2014 and the petitioners agriculture lands have been acquired and consequently Award also came to passed. The same was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1607 of 2014 and the said writ petition was dismissed and challenging the said order, writ appeal has been filed in W.A.No.1735 of 2014, wherein, a Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioners to continue their possession till award amount is paid to them. Since the petitioners land were acquired, they are not entitled for flood and drought relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017
4. The respondents have also filed an Additional counter affidavit stating that field inspection has been conducted by the Revenue Department and Agriculture Department and assessed the crop damage during the 2015 flood and 2016 drought. The petitioners agriculture lands were inspected and the damage to the standing crops were assessed at less than 33%, hence they are not eligible to get the relief as per the G.Os. The respondents have also filed the details of the assessment made by the Revenue as well as Agriculture departments.
5. Mr.B.S.Jhothiraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners agricultural lands were acquired in the year 2014 and as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the petitioners continue to be in possession till 2020. They were continuously cultivating crops and in the year 2015 there was a flood and in the year 2016 there was a drought and the petitioners crops were damaged. However, while assessing the crops damage, the revenue authorities did not conduct proper field survey and they wrongly gave compensation to only 127 farmers leaving alone the petitioners. As the petitioners agriculture lands were also damaged, they are also entitled for similar relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017
6. Mr.Baladhandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that based on the joint field survey conducted by the Village Administrative Officer and Assistant Agricultural Officer, 127 farmers were found to be affected due to the floods and drought, hence compensation has been paid to them. As the petitioners agriculture lands were acquired, they are not eligible to get compensation.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
8. Perusal of the materials available on record including the joint field inspection report filed by the Assistant Agricultural Officer and the Village Administrative Officer, it could be seen no data is available to show that the petitioners agriculture lands were inspected and damages were assessed. From the said report, it could be seen that the petitioners agriculture lands were not at all assessed by them, had they assessed the site they would have mentioned about the extent of damage caused to the crops but they have simply stated that the standing crops were not damaged 33% and above and hence the petitioners are not eligible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017
9. The G.O. is a beneficial order to give relief to the agriculturists whose crops were damaged. Admittedly, in the year 2015 due to floods entire village was affected and there is no positive explanation by the respondents as to how the petitioners land alone remained unaffected in the floods and others lands were affected due to floods.
10. Considering the above circumstances, as already 127 similarly placed persons like that of the petitioners have been given compensation, this Court is inclined to grant relief as sought for by the petitioners and the respondents are directed to grant flood and drought relief to the petitioners herein as per the extent of the land owned by them. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
05.04.2022 Index: Yes / No kk To
1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017
2. The Collector, Thiruvallur District.
3. Executive Engineer, PWD Department, Redhills - 600 052.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P.No.28131 of 2017 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
kk W.P.No.28131 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.30262 of 2017 05.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8