Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Meanwhile, by letter dated 19.05.2007, the Assistant Director of the Horticulture Department, Thiruvannamalai, informed the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, that the Horticultural Officer, Cheyyar, inspected the farm of the Petitioner on 14.05.2007 in order to make an assessment of compensation for damage to the plants. On the basis of the said inspection, he submitted a report wherein he estimated the compensation for damage to the plants in a sum of Rs.1,01,02,600/-. With regard to the trees on the said property, two assessments were made. The first assessment was made pursuant to an inspection on 15.06.2007 by the Forest Range Officer, Inspection Wing. Pursuant to such inspection, as regards the damage to teak, rose wood and red sandalwood trees, by communication dated 15.06.2007, the Forest Range Officer informed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 of 32 District Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai, that the compensation was assessed in an aggregate sum of Rs.1,24,69,590/-. The 2nd communication dated 22.08.2007 was sent by the same Forest Range Officer to the District Forest Officer estimating the loss on account of the destruction of coconut, Jamun and Neem trees in an aggregate sum of Rs.98,82,250/-. After issuing several representations claiming compensation, it is stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police only offered a sum of Rs.6,250/- as compensation by communication dated 11.02.2008. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.

6. In the present case, officials of the Horticulture Department and the Forest Department undertook the exercise of assessing the damage to the trees and plants of the Petitioner. Such assessment was on the basis of inspections carried out shortly after the incident. For example, the Horticultural Department Officer visited the Petitioner's farm and inspected the damage on 14.05.2007, and the assessment was made on that basis. His report was accepted by the Assistant Director of Horticulture, who assessed the compensation in a sum of Rs.1,01,02,600/-. Likewise, the Forest Range Officer assessed the damage to the trees by undertaking an inspection on 15.06.2007 and, on that basis, the compensation payable for the damage to teak, rosewood and red sandalwood trees was determined in a sum of Rs.1,24,69,590/-. Because the damage to other trees such as coconut, neem https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 of 32 and jamun trees had not been included in the earlier determination, by communication dated 22.08.2007, the compensation for damage to the above mentioned three varieties of trees was assessed in an aggregate sum of Rs.98,82,250/-. This determination was conveyed under communication dated 22.08.2007 from the Forest Range Officer to the District Forest Officer, Thiruvannamalai. Upon receipt thereof, neither the Deputy Superintendent of Police nor the District Forest Officer Thiruvannamalai raised any objections as regards the assessment made by the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department or the Forest Range Officer. Mr.Ramesh contended that once the Horticultural Department and the Forest Department determined the amount payable in respect of the damage to the plants and trees, the Government was bound to make such payment as per Rule 12 read with the Annexure to the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Rules. Accordingly, he contended that the present writ petition is sustainable inasmuch as it is based on the reports submitted by the officials of the Government.

9. By contrast, he pointed out that in paragraph 21 of the said counter, the quantum of relief had been correctly estimated at Rs.1,50,000/-. In order to substantiate the above contention, the learned Special Government Pleader referred to and relied upon the report dated 22.07.2010 submitted by the Deputy Director of the Horticulture Department, Thiruvannamalai to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, wherein the damage to plants was assessed in a sum of Rs.80,121-/-. Likewise, as regards trees, he referred to the communication dated 22.07.2010 from the District Forest Officer to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, wherein the damage to trees was estimated in a sum of Rs.13.923/-. Although the aforesaid estimates aggregate to a sum of Rs.94,000/-, Mr.Muthukumar submitted that the Government is willing to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation as stated in the counter affidavit of the Collector at paragraph 9 and in paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit of the Superintendent of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10 of 32 Police, Thiruvannamalai. In support of the aforesaid estimates, he also relied upon the communication dated 22.07.2010 from the Deputy Director of Horticulture to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai as regards the cost of production of amla, sapota and lemon trees in an one acre farm for a two year period. By correlating the details provided therein with the estimates made by the Deputy Director of Horticulture, he submitted that the current estimates of the Government are scientific and rational and, therefore, the exorbitant claims made by the Petitioner are liable to be rejected.

4.The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Office of the Collectorate, Thiruvannamalai.

5.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai District, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 31 of 32 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J., rrg Pre-Delivery Order in 19.01.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 32 of 32