The State of Maharashtra and others v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others)WITHPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIO
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:24583-DB 1 WP-11973-2022+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 11973 OF 2022Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,having its Registered Office at :Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerwada,Pune – 411 006Through its Authorized Representative1. 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 Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mumbai2] The Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune 411 0013] The District Collector, Collector Ofice, Osmanabad4] Union of India, through the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi5] The Chief Executive Officer, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi6] District Superintendent, Agriculture Officer, Osmanabad7] Assistant Manager, CITI Bank, Onyx Towers, Near Westin Hotel, Koregaon Park, Pune.. Respondents 2 WP-11973-2022+ WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2222 of 2024 IN WP/11973/2022(The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others)WITHPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 38 OF 20231] 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 Versus1] The Union of India, Through Secretary, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Boma Yojana Government of India, Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 0012] The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0323] The Commissioner for Agriculture, Agriculture Commissionerate, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 1.4] District Collector, Collector Office, Osmanabad5] 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. ShraddhaAchaliya, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Bahira, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Tyagi,Advocate i/b. Tuli & comp. i/b. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for thepetitionerMr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for therespondent – State and for applicants in CA / 2222 / 2024Mr. A.G. Talhar, DSGI for the respondent – UOIPIL / 38 / 2023Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. Yogesh K. Bobade, Advocate forpetitioners Mr. Ravi R. Bangar, Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 – UOIMr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bomi Patel, Advocate,Mr. Naval Sharma, Advocaet, Mr. Saket Satapathy, Advocate, Ms. ShraddhaAchaliya, Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Bahira, Advocate, Ms. Mansi Tyagi,Advocate i/b. Tuli & comp. i/b. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondentno. 6... CORAM : MANISH PITALE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON: 31 JULY 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 12 SEPTEMBER 2025JUDGMENT (PER – MANISH PITALE, J.) :Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent ofthe 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 aMemorandum Of Understanding (MOU), executed between thepetitioner - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and therespondent - State of Maharashtra, in the backdrop of Governmentresolution dated 29.06.2020 (GR), issued by the State for cropinsurance 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 theGovernment 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 respectof localized calamity that occurred in September / October – 2021, ithad satisfied the dues payable as per the Revamped OperationalGuidelines (ROG), issued under the PM Yojna. But, the respondent –State, which is representing the interests of the farmers under theaforesaid MOU and GR, insists that a further payment equivalent to theaforesaid 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 thepetitioner – insurance company, to pay the aforesaid balance amountwith interest.4.In fact, the trigger for the insurance company, to file thewrit petition, were notices issued by the respondent – officers of theState, purportedly exercising the powers under the provisions of theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter ‘the MLR Code”),seeking to recover the aforesaid amount towards arrears of landrevenue and in the process, issuing directions for even freezing thebank 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 therespondent – State, in issuing the impugned communications andorders, on the basis that the alleged amount due cannot be recoveredas arrears of the land revenue under the MLR Code. It is contendedthat the said amount is not covered under the definition of ‘landrevenue’ under section 2(19) of the MLR Code and, hence, theimpugned communications / orders are rendered without jurisdiction. Itis this ground that impressed the Division Bench of this Court, to grantstay to the impugned order of the Collector dated 18.11.2022, by orderdated 30.11.2022, while issuing notice in the writ petition. 6 WP-11973-2022+ 6.The learned counsel for the rival parties have madeelaborate submissions pertaining to the applicability of the MLR Code,as also interpretation of the ROG issued under the PM Yojna, in thebackdrop of the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 and theMOU dated 27.07.2020, executed between the petitioner - insurancecompany and the respondent – State. But, before adverting to the rivalsubmissions, it would be necessary to refer to the chronology of eventsin the present case.CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS :-7.Respondent no. 4 – Union of India, through its Departmentof Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare under the Ministry of Agriculture,introduced the aforesaid PM Yojna, effective from Kharif season of2016, in order to provide crop insurance to the farmers in India againstnon-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 ofimplementing the PM Yojna between 2016 and 2018 and uponreceiving feedback from all the stakeholders, the aforesaid RevampedOperational Guidelines (ROG) were issued effective from Kharif –2020. It is undisputed that the controversy in the present case, iscovered under the aforesaid ROG, issued under the PM Yojna. 7 WP-11973-2022+ 8.In the light of the aforesaid, respondent – State ofMaharashtra issued Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020, underthe PM Yojna for a period of three years from Kharif 2020 and Rabi2020-2021. The said Government Resolution specified the manner inwhich the PM Yojna, in the light of the ROG, would be implemented inthe State of Maharashtra. In this backdrop, in June – 2020, therespondent – State floated tenders for appointing insurance companiesfor implementation of the crop insurance schemes, commencing fromKharif – 2020. The petitioner – insurance company submitted its bidalongwith other insurance companies and its bid was accepted forDistrict - Osmanabad (now Dharashiv) for three years from Kharif –2020.9.On 27.07.2020, the aforesaid MOU was executed betweenrespondent – State and the petitioner – insurance company, under thePM Yojna, for insuring farmers for the notified crops in the notified areafor three years beginning from Kharif – 2020. It is undisputed that thenotified crop in the present case, was soyabean crop and the notifiedarea covered was Cluster no. 10 for the District of Osmanabad. As perthe PM Yojna, read with the aforesaid GR dated 29.06.2020, thefarmers paid a small share of the premium towards the insurancecover, while the State Government alongwith the Central Government
Legal Reasoning
8 WP-11973-2022+ paid the maximum share to the petitioner – insurance company. Thepresent case concerns Kharif season – 2021 and for the same, fromtime to time, amounts were paid towards premium to the insurancecompany, about which there is no dispute.10.On 06.08.2021, respondent no. 2 - the Commissioner ofAgriculture for the State of Maharashtra issued district-wise calenderfor the season of Kharif – 2021, as per the PM Yojna. The said cropcalender, is a significant document as the interpretation of the ROGunder the PM Yojna for deciding the claims of farmers depends uponthe data specified in such a crop calender. The crop calender issuedby the Commissioner of Agriculture, specified the notified dates forcrops such as Soyabean crop for various districts, including District -Osmanabad, with which we are concerned in the present case. Thenotified 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 thepresent case, was between 15.10.2021 and 15.11.2021.11.It is relevant to note here that the ROG under the PMYojna, specifically refers to Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs), thatwere 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 theinsurance company, to prepare database regarding yield of cropsduring the relevant season. The ROG specified the use of latest andmodern technology, including using drones, satellite imaging etc.alongwith ground level CCEs, to ensure reliable data being availablefor ascertaining the extent of loss, if at all, for payment of dues to thefarmers as per the insurance cover. The CCEs were undertaken uponbeginning 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 on17.09.2021, the actual harvesting season of Soyabean crop started inDistrict – Osmanabad and it continued till 11.11.2021. The petitioner –insurance company specifically relies upon documents on record toshow that the first CCE was conducted on 17.09.2021, emphasizingthat the relevant document on record shows the signatures of theconcerned State Government Officials, demonstrating that theharvesting had actually begun. The documents on record show thatbetween 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, there were unseasonal rains inDistrict – Osmanabad and in this backdrop, the farmers submitted theirclaims / intimations regarding damage to the Soyabean crop. Theclaims / intimations were received by the petitioner as regards thelocalized calamity and there is no dispute about the same. The 10 WP-11973-2022+ expression ‘localized calamity’ is specified in the ROG, to whichdetailed reference will be made in this judgment at the time when therival submissions are referred to and considered.13.In this backdrop, on 01.10.2021, a meeting was held in theoffice of the respondent – Commissioner of Agriculture, to take actionfor payment of the amounts. In the light of claims made by the farmers,various aspects were discussed, including determination of the inputcosts of the farmers. It was also observed that sample survey shouldbe conducted as per the ROG, for determination of compensation andif the crops had been harvested by the farmers, the compensationwould be determined accordingly, as per the relevant clause of theROG.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 ofDistrict – Osmanabad, it was recommended that the survey should beconducted on sample basis instead of individual basis. On 25.10.2021,the respondent – Collector sent a letter to the petitioner – insurancecompany, to conduct sample survey for assessing losses due tolocalized calamity that occurred from 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021.Accordingly, a joint sample survey was conducted and the report wassigned 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 companydisbursed an amount of Rs.374.61 Crores to the farmers. This amountwas 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 thecontroversy in the present case.15.The respondent – State received number of complaintsfrom farmers that the petitioner – insurance company did not satisfy theentire insurance claims. The District Level Grievance Committee,constituted under the aforesaid Government Resolution, dated29.06.2020, considered the complaints received from the farmers. Itwas opined that the petitioner – insurance company had paid only 50%of the amount due towards the claims of the farmers and that theremaining 50% amount ought to be paid within 8 days. The respondent– State and the District Level Grievance Committee proceeded on thebasis that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire claimsof the farmers ought to have been paid on the basis of the samplesurvey and, therefore, the remaining amount was immediately due andpayable.16.On the other hand, the petitioner – insurance companyproceeded 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 havingoccurred due to localized calamity which was within 15 days of thenormal harvesting and hence, it was to be paid on the sample surveyand the CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage. According to the insurancecompany, since the CCE yield data shared by respondent no. 2 on16.12.2021, with regard to Soyabean crop of Osmanabad District forKharif season – 2021, showed that the farmers had not suffered anyactual loss in yield, no further amount was payable. The aforesaidassertion of the petitioner – insurance company was based on CCEdata showing that the actual yield of Soyabean in District –Osmanabad for Kharif season – 2021, was more than the thresholdyield, thereby showing absence of actual loss. The threshold yield isnotified in the tender document.17.At this stage, on 20.12.2021, the respondent – Collectorissued notice to the petitioner – insurance company, to show cause asto why the compensation was paid to the farmers only to the extent of50% of their claims. On 17.01.2022, the petitioner – insurancecompany 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 hadoccurred during the harvesting period, the aforesaid clause was clearlyapplicable, 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 DistrictLevel Co-ordination Committee was held and the petitioner – insurancecompany was specifically directed to pay the remaining 50% amount tothe farmers immediately.19.On 31.05.2022, a meeting of the District Level GrievanceCommittee was held, wherein the representative of the petitioner –insurance company was also present. In this meeting, the assertion ofthe insurance company, by placing reliance on clause 21.5.10 of theROG, was rejected and it was directed to pay the remaining amountwithin 8 days directly to the farmers, failing which the matter would beplaced before the Divisional Grievance Redressal Committee.20.On 22.08.2022, the Divisional Grievance RedressalCommittee, directed that the claims of the farmers were to beconsidered only as per dates mentioned in the crop calender and,therefore, the balance 50% amount of Rs.374.34 Crore, should bedisbursed to the farmers.21.In this backdrop, on 20.09.2022, respondent – Collectorissued a letter to the petitioner – insurance company, to immediately 14 WP-11973-2022+ deposit the said remaining amount, failing which legal action would betaken against the insurance company.22.On 12.10.2022, the respondent – Collector issued anotherletter to the petitioner – insurance company, reiterating the direction forpayment of the remaining 50% amount, threatening that if the amountwas not paid, action would be initiated under section 188 of the IndianPenal Code.23.On 26.10.2022, respondent – Collector issued legal noticeto the petitioner – insurance company, for making balance payment of50% amount. On 01.11.2022, the petitioner – insurance companyapproached the Chief Executive Officer of the PM Yojna, asking for anopinion and seeking intervention in the matter, particularly, with regardto its assertion about applying clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, in the factsand circumstances of the present case.24.On 02.11.2022, the respondent – Collector again issuednotice to the petitioner – insurance company, reiterating direction todeposit 50% balance amount for payment to farmers, failing whichaction would be taken under the MLR Code.25.On 16.11.2022, respondent no. 2 – Commissioner ofAgriculture as well as respondent no. 3 – Collector sent a 15 WP-11973-2022+ communication to the petitioner – insurance company, threateningaction under sections 183 to 186 of the MLR Code, for recovering theamount of Rs.374.34 Crores, as arrears of land revenue.26.On 18.11.2022, the respondent – Collector issued warrantof attachment and directed CITI bank (banker of the petitioner –insurance company), to freeze the bank account of the petitioner, to theextent of Rs.374.34 Crores under section 180 of the MLR Code readwith Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules,1967 (Rules).27.On 24.11.2022, the respondent – Union Of India, inresponse 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 approachthe State Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) under the ROG forissues 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 impugnednotices / communications sent by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 dated31.05.2022, 20.09.2022, 12.10.2022, 26.10.2022, 02.11.2022 and16.11.2022. The petitioner – insurance company prayed for urgentstay of the said communications, particularly, the communication dated 16 WP-11973-2022+ 18.11.2022, whereby the respondent no. 3 – Collector sought to freezethe bank account of the petitioner – insurance company for the saidamount of Rs.374.30 Crores under section 180 of the MLR Code readwith the aforesaid rules.29.On 30.11.2022, a Division Bench of this Court, consideredthe rival submissions and while issuing notice, found a prima facie casein favour of the petitioner, to the effect that the direction issued byrespondent no. 3 – Collector to the banker of the petitioner – insurancecompany, 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 thatunless the respondent – State was able to demonstrate that the MOU,which was a contract of insurance, provided for and vested power inthe 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 orderdated 30.11.2022, the direction issued by respondent no. 3 – Collectorfor freezing the bank account of the petitioner, was stayed. The saidinterim order continued to operate during the pendency of the presentproceedings.30.Subsequently, the aforesaid PIL was filed by certainfarmers, 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 havesupported the stand of the respondent – State, in the presentproceedings.31.The respondent – State filed an application for vacating theinterim order and at one stage, it was submitted that such unconditionalinterim order could not have been granted. Considering the saidapplication, the writ petition and the PIL were taken up for hearing anddisposal. In this backdrop, all the submissions of the rival parties weretaken up for consideration.SUBMISSIONS :A)Submissions on behalf of the petitioner – InsuranceCompany : 32.Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe petitioner – insurance company made elaborate submissions onthe aforesaid ROG framed by the respondent – Union of India, underthe PM Yojna, emphasizing on the clauses pertaining to CCEs, cover ofrisks and exclusions, particularly those pertaining to add-on coverfocused on localized calamities. Much emphasis was placed on clause21.5.10 of the ROG, on which the petitioner – insurance company hasrelied, from the beginning of the controversy. Submissions were alsomade 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 therespondent – State.33.It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurancecompany that the ROG framed under the PM Yojna, was acomprehensive and complete code, providing a framework on panIndia basis for disbursement of amounts payable to insure the farmersas per the scheme contemplated under the PM Yojna. Reference wasmade to clauses of the ROG, providing for the manner in which theCCEs were to be conducted by the Officers of the respondent - Statewith active involvement of the representatives of the insurancecompany. It was indicated that CCEs formed an integral part of theentire scheme, for the reason that the data obtained upon such CCEsbeing conducted provided the basis for correct calculation of amountsdue and payable to the insured farmers. Attention of this Court wasinvited to clauses pertaining to basic cover and add on cover for theinsured farmers, with particular emphasis on localized calamities.34. It was submitted that the principle of area approach wasadopted in the ROG and that threshold yield was noted in the tenderdocument itself of the particular season, which was to be used forcalculation of claims for that particular season. It was brought to thenotice 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 thelast 7 years and that threshold yield was equal to the average yieldmultiplied by the indemnity level. It was emphasised that the thresholdyield, which was calculated on the historical yield on the basis of 5years out of the last 7 years, once notified by the respondent – State,would not change under any circumstances. Thereupon, reference wasmade to two stage yield estimation procedure and the time ofoccurrence of calamities or unforeseen events like cyclone, flood,unseasonal rains etc. After referring to the clauses pertaining to therisks at the time of sowing, mid-season adversity and post harvestlosses, special emphasis was placed on the clauses pertaining tolocalized calamities and the loss estimation procedure concerning thesame.35. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner -insurance company submitted that even the State did not dispute thefact that in the present case the localized calamity in the form ofunseasonal rain occurred between 23.09.2021 and 10.10.2021. It wassubmitted that the documents and material on record, which were notdisputed by the respondent - State, showed that the harvesting ofSoyabean crop in District – Osmanabad commenced on 17.09.2021and that it continued till 11.11.2021. 20 WP-11973-2022+ 36.Reference was made to the documents pertaining to CCEdata. It was emphasized that once this position is established, clause21.5.10 of the ROG applied to the facts of the present case. The saidclause was read in detail and it was submitted that the table in clause21.5.10 at serial no.1 consists of two parts. The first part pertains tothe date up to which intimation about occurrence of localized calamitywas to be given, supported by specific documents and that the secondpart clearly specified the circumstances in which the estimation oflosses due to occurrence of the localized calamity would be assessed,based on the components of sample surveys and CCEs with 50 : 50weightage. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the aforesaidfirst part of the clause referred to the harvesting date as notified in theState notification, while the second part referred to ‘normal harvest’.37.It was submitted that the date specified in the cropcalender by the respondent – State, regarding harvesting, was from15.10.2021 up to 15.11.2021, but the expression ‘normal harvest’ wasnowhere defined in the ROG. It was submitted that, therefore, ‘normalharvest’, would mean the actual harvesting of the notified crop in therelevant season. 21 WP-11973-2022+ 38.In this context, much emphasis was placed on documentat Exhibit – H, being the document dated 17.09.2021 signed by theTalathi, showing that CCE was undertaken from 17.09.2021 onwards.It was submitted that the aforesaid document issued by the Official ofthe respondent - State itself demonstrated that the actual harvesting inDistrict Osmanabad began at least from 17.09.2021 for Soyabean cropand that this signified the ‘normal harvest’. 39.Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the Officials ofthe respondent - State in various communications on record admittedthat the localized calamity of unseasonal rains occurred between23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, thereby showing that the losses due tooccurrence of such localized calamity were within 15 days of ‘normalharvest’, which commenced on 17.09.2021 and, therefore, the secondpart of clause 21.5.10 applied with full force. On this behalf, it wassubmitted that the estimation of losses had to be based on combinationof sample survey and CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage. It was submittedthat the petitioner - insurance company had admittedly paid 50%amount towards the claims of the farmers based on the sample surveyamounting to Rs.374,63,93,634/- and that the remaining 50% amountwas required to be paid, based on the CCEs showing actual loss to thefarmers. 22 WP-11973-2022+ 40.At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for theinsurance - company invited attention of this Court to Exhibit - L filedwith the petition. The said Exhibit is a communication dated 16.12.2021sent by the Chief Statistician, Commissionerate of Agriculture to theRegional Manager of the insurance company, giving the data ofthreshold yield and the actual yield pertaining to the notified crop ofSoyabean for the entire 42 circles of District - Osmanabad. It wassubmitted that the actual yield was higher than the threshold yield in allthe circles, thereby demonstrating that the farmers had not sufferedany actual loss as per the CCE data. On this basis, it was submittedthat by operation of clause 21.5.10.1, (for the sake of convenience, thefirst clause in the table is shown as a further sub-clause to clause21.5.10) no further amount was payable by the petitioner - insurancecompany. It was emphasised that this stand was taken by thepetitioner - insurance company right from the beginning before therespondent authorities and the District Level Grievance Committee aswell as the Divisional Level Grievance Committee completely failed toappreciate the same.41.It was submitted that the respondent - State was notjustified 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 documentissued by the respondent – State, could not be the basis to interpretthe expression ‘normal harvest’, as the said expression formed part ofthe ROG, which was issued by respondent - Union of India under thePM Yojna. It was submitted that the use of expression “loZlk/kkj.kdki.kh dkyko/kh” in the crop calender issued by the respondent - Statespecified the notified harvest dates beginning from 15.10.2021 and thateven if the word ‘loZlk/kkj.k’ was used, it would not denote ‘normalharvest’, as contemplated in the second part of clause 21.5.10.1 of theROG. It was submitted that the contention raised on behalf of therespondent - State was anomalous, for the reason that the first part ofthe said clause used the distinct expression ‘harvest date’ as notified inthe State notification, as opposed to the expression ‘normal harvest’,used in the second part. On this basis, it was submitted that no faultcan be found with the stand taken by the petitioner - insurancecompany, right from the beginning on the basis of the ROG framedunder the PM Yojna.42. As regards the significance of the CCE, it was submittedthat the respondent - State itself had taken a stand that estimation ofloss 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 caseof 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. 973of 2004 with connected writ petitions.43. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner -insurance company referred to the clauses pertaining to the otherstages i.e. stage of ‘sowing’, and ‘mid-season adversity’, only with aview to explain the manner in which clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, wasto 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 theharvest of the crop had already begun when localized calamityoccurred, clause 21.5.10.1 would indeed apply.44. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurancecompany that the District Grievance Redressal Committee had nojurisdiction, for the reason that the relevant clause of the ROGspecified that such committee would have jurisdiction only up toRs.25,00,000/-. As the said Committee did not have pecuniaryjurisdiction, the directions issued by the Committee were renderedunsustainable. It was submitted that the ROG did not provide for any 25 WP-11973-2022+ Divisional Level Grievance Redressal Committee and it was onlyGovernment Resolution dated 29.06.2020 that provided for the same,which further demonstrated anomaly in the implementation of the PMYojna by inclusion of such a Committee in the afore-mentionedGovernment Resolution.45. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned actionsof the District Committee deserved to be set aside. It was alsosubmitted that the respondent - Union of India, through the CEO of thePM Yojna misunderstood the grievance of the petitioner - insurancecompany, directing it to approach the STAC, for the reason that thepetitioner - insurance company had not disputed the yield data, but thequestion was with regard to the applicability of clause 21.5.10.1, in thefacts and circumstances of the present case.46. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner - insurancecompany also referred to the relevant clauses of the ROG, pertainingto the input costs, as a factor for determining the amount payable to thefarmers. It was submitted that the respondent - State was not justifiedin relying upon certain communications and documents on record toclaim that the petitioner had conceded to total loss of the crop as thecrop had reached full grown stage when the localized calamityoccurred. In the facts of the present case, it was submitted that the 26 WP-11973-2022+ harvesting activity had already begun when the localized calamitystruck and, therefore, the CCE data assumed significance.47. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner - insurancecompany that in any case, the impugned communications and orderspassed by the respondent – authorities, by invoking the provisions ofthe MLR Code were wholly without jurisdiction. Attention of this Courtwas invited to the provisions of the MLR Code, particularly, section2(19), and Chapter XI thereof, starting with section 168 pertaining toliability for land revenue. 48. It was submitted that the amount claimed in the presentcase, cannot be covered under the definition of ‘land revenue’, as persection 2(19) of the MLR Code, as it was not an amount legallyclaimable by the respondent - State, that the claim was clearly not onaccount of any interest in the land and it was not a sum or paymentunder a contract or deed on account of any land. It was emphasizedthat the amount in the present case forms part of an insurancecontract, wherein the claimants and the beneficiaries are the farmers. 49. It was further submitted that Chapter XI of the MLR Codepertaining to realization of land revenue and other revenue demandswould 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 thisbasis, it was submitted that there was no way in which the respondent– State, could take recourse to section 180 of the MLR Code forissuing the impugned communication or attachment order for freezingthe bank account of the petitioner - insurance company. It wasemphasized that none of the relevant documents i.e. ROG issuedunder PM Yojna, Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 and theMOU dated 27.07.2020, stipulated that amount due under the saidinsurance 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 takenrecourse to the MLR Code, for issuing the impugned communicationsand hence, the entire actions are rendered without jurisdiction, therebyjustifying invocation of writ jurisdiction on the part of petitioner -insurance company.51. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgments of thisCourt in the cases of Maharashtra Rajya Macchimar SahakariSangh Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2005 (2) Mh.L.J.1142; IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. V. District Collector andothers; 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 929. 28 WP-11973-2022+ 52. Since a specific query was put by this Court that even ifthe contention regarding the impugned action of the respondent beingwithout jurisdiction, was to be accepted, whether the respondent -State could institute other proceedings like filing a suit before the civilCourt, as disputed questions of facts could be said to be involved,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner - insurancecompany submitted that there is no disputed question involved in thepresent case. In this regard, emphasis was placed on the fact that theCCE data, upon which the petitioner - insurance company heavilyrelies for applicability of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, has beenprovided by the respondent - State itself and, therefore, there is noquestion of any dispute in that regard. 53. Even the assertion of the petitioner - insurance companythat harvesting began at least from 17.09.2021, is not disputed, as thedocument issued by the respondent - State itself shows that CCEscommenced on 17.09.2021 with regard to the notified Soyabean cropin District - Osmanabad. The communication sent by the Official of therespondent – State, also categorically stated that the localized calamityoccurred 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 submittedthat the controversy in the present case, was limited to the applicability
Decision
29 WP-11973-2022+ of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG and this Court, exercising writjurisdiction, is the proper forum where such a controversy can be put torest. In this regard, reliance was placed on judgment of the SupremeCourt 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 thepetitioner - insurance company submitted that since everything turnedon the applicability of the said clause, and interpretation of theprovisions of the MLR Code, the writ petition is clearly maintainable. Itwas submitted that reliance placed on behalf of the respondent - Stateon section 2(16) of the MLR Code, which defines ‘land’, is alsomisplaced 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 ofHamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner andothers; (2007) 5 SCC 281, Shabina Abraham and others V.Collector of Central Excise and Customs; (2015) 10 SCC 770 andP. 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 dated25.07.2025 sent by the Additional Commissioner (Crop Insurance) of 30 WP-11973-2022+ the Ministry of Agriculture in the respondent - Union of India, to theAdditional Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Farmers WelfareDepartment of the Government of Haryana, wherein in an identicalcontroversy, the said officer of the Union of India, specifically directedthat if the harvest had already begun in a district before occurrence of alocalized calamity, clause 21.5.10 of the ROG would be applicable.On the basis of the said communication, it was submitted that the saidinterpretation and policy of the respondent - Union of India ought toapply pan India and, therefore, this further bolsters the contentionsraised on behalf of the petitioner.56. As regards the PIL, it was submitted on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company, that the contentions raised are identicalto the submissions made on behalf of the respondent - State and,therefore, the PIL also does not deserve any consideration. As regardsreliance placed on judgment of this Court in PIL no. 91 of 2021(Prashant S/o Achyutrao Lomate and another Vs. Union of Indiaand others with connected writ petition, dated 06.05.2022), it wassubmitted that the same was misplaced, simply for the reason that thecontroversy therein pertained to the alleged failure of the farmers inindividually 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 - insurancecompany happened to be a respondent in the said PIL, it cannot leadto 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 petitiondeserved to be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein and thatthe PIL deserved to be dismissed.B)Submissions on behalf of the respondent - State :58. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondent - State vehemently opposed the submissions made onbehalf of the petitioner - insurance company, contending that they werebased on a complete misinterpretation of the scheme framed under thePM Yojna for crop insurance. It was submitted that the petitioner -insurance company had received entire premium and when the timecame for honouring its part of the insurance contract, it illegally refutedthe just claims of the farmers. It was submitted that after the claimswere lodged by the farmers, and the same were being processed, thepetitioner - insurance company itself had conceded that the notifiedcrop had reached the level of maturity and harvesting when thelocalized 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 costsshould have been applied.59.Occurrence of the localized calamity in the present case,had to be appreciated and applied by treating the harvest date asspecified in the crop calender, which was nothing but the harvest dateas notified in the said notification contemplated under clause 21.5.10.1of the ROG. Once this is understood, the fallacy in the contentionraised on behalf of the petitioner - insurance company becomes clear.By referring to the entire scheme as per the ROG issued under the PMYojna, it was submitted that there was no scope for denying thefarmers of their just claims for payment of the balance 50% amount.Since the localized calamity had admittedly occurred between23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, and the normal harvest as per the cropcalender issued by the respondent – State was 15.10.2021, the lossessuffered by the farmers had to be assessed by the sample survey andnot on a combination of sample survey and CCE with 50 : 50weightage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, CCEhad 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 surveybasis, were required to be paid by the petitioner - insurance company.By referring to the contents of clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, it wassubmitted that the whole procedure of processing the claims andmaking payments, was to be completed as per schedule and in anycase, within the outer limit of 39 days. The petitioner - insurancecompany clearly violated the mandate under the said clause of theROG, by withholding 50% amount of the claims of farmers and the saidamount ought to be paid with penal interest to the farmers.61.It was emphasized that the petitioner - insurance companynever disputed the crop calender and fixing of the date of 15.10.2021,as the date of beginning of the harvesting season. Since no disputewas raised, the fact that the localized calamity occurred on 23.09.2021,had to be taken to its logical end, thereby demonstrating that thebalance 50% amount was clearly payable and that too within theschedule specified as per clause 21.5.10 of the ROG. Reference wasmade to the random sample survey jointly carried out and the effect ofthe same upon the quantum of amount payable as per the insurancecontract. 62.It was further emphasized that the ROG, read withGovernment Resolution dated 29.06.2020, provided for a complete 34 WP-11973-2022+ code, including a Grievance Redressal Mechanism. It was submittedthat the petitioner - insurance company clearly had an alternativeremedy of approaching the State Level Grievance RedressalCommittee, to challenge the impugned communications and yet, itfailed to do so, directly invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. It wassubmitted that the constitution of the Divisional Level GrievanceCommittee in the Government Resolution could not be said to beanomalous, simply for the reason that it does not violate the PM Yojna. 63.In any case, the contention regarding the impugnedcommunication / order passed by the District Level GrievanceCommittee being without jurisdiction, was clearly misplaced, for thereason that pecuniary jurisdiction would have to be analyzed byconsidering each individual claim of the farmer. Upon suchinterpretation, the individual claims of the farmers being less thanRs.25 Lakhs, there was no question of lack of any pecuniaryjurisdiction with the District Level Grievance Committee. It wassubmitted that the District Committee had formed an opinion and thesame was placed before the Divisional Level Grievance Committee,which issued the impugned order strictly in accordance with law. Onthis 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 thealternative remedies provided in the ROG under the PM Yojna.64. It was further submitted that the petitioner - insurancecompany itself had approached the respondent - Union of India throughthe CEO under the PM Yojna. The said authority directed the petitioner- insurance company to approach the STAC. Instead of doing so, thepetitioner - insurance company directly filed the present writ petitionand 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 thatthe petitioner - insurance company was required to disburse the claimwithin 15 days of the receipt of the loss assessment report. Theaforesaid timeline was violated by the petitioner - insurance companyand, therefore, this Court ought not to grant any relief in the WritPetition.65. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent – State thenreferred to documents placed on record in the PIL, by way of anadditional affidavit. These documents pertain to the proceedingsbefore the State Level Grievance Redressal Committee and the STACconcerning identical issue with regard to the applicability of clause21.5.10 of the ROG. It was submitted that in identical circumstances, 36 WP-11973-2022+ the said State Level Committees had categorically rejected thecontention pertaining to the expression ‘normal harvest’ in the saidclause and it was emphatically held that the date specified in the cropcalender was the only date for reference while applying the said clause21.5.10, for assessing the claims of farmers in the context of localizedcalamity. Hence, it was submitted that the contention now sought to beraised on behalf of the petitioner seeking to make a distinction betweendate of harvesting specified in the crop calender from ‘normal harvest’,cannot be entertained and that such a contention is raised by thepetitioner - insurance company in a dishonest manner, only with theintention 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 andemphasized upon the fact that the same was executed between theState in the name of the Honourable Governor and the petitioner -insurance company. The MOU specifically authorized the departmentof Agriculture of the respondent – State, to perform its role on behalf ofthe insured farmers, so that their interests were appropriatelyprotected. It was submitted that the interpretation of the provisions ofthe 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 furtherthe 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’ undersection 2(19) of the MLR Code had to be appreciated alongwith thedefinition of ‘land’ in section 2(16) thereof. Much emphasis was placedon the words ‘land includes benefits to arise out of land and thingsattached to the earth, ….….’.68.A conjoint reading of the definition of ‘land’ with ‘landrevenue’, according to learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondent – State, sufficiently demonstrates that the amount claimedin the present case was clearly payable under the contract i.e. theMOU on account of the benefits arising from the land. It was submittedthat since the MOU itself specified that the respondent - State wouldpartly pay the premium towards the insurance contract and it wouldalso take all necessary steps for payment of the claims of the farmers,the invocation of the provisions of the MLR Code was justified forissuing impugned communications and directions.69. In support of the said contention, the learned SeniorCounsel 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 andWeaving Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1997 SC 2591, toparticularly emphasize the rule of interpretation, that words should begiven their ordinary and grammatical meaning. Reliance was alsoplaced on the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of BombayVs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha; AIR 1960 SC 610, to contend thatwhere the Court is dealing with an inclusive definition, it would not beappropriate to put a restrictive interpretation upon the terms of widerdenotation. If two or more words, which are susceptible of analogousmeaning, are coupled together they are understood to be used in theircognate sense. 70. By placing reliance on the said judgments, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the respondent - State submitted that a conjointreading of the definition of ‘land’ under section 2(16) and ‘land revenue’under section 2(19) of the MLR Code, clearly demonstrated that theamount payable by the petitioner - insurance company could berecovered by taking recourse to the provisions of the MLR Code. Itwas submitted that once this is established, it cannot be said that theimpugned communications / orders passed by the authorities of therespondent - State are without jurisdiction and this furtherdemonstrates why the writ petition filed by the insurance company, is 39 WP-11973-2022+ not maintainable. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it wassubmitted that this Court may dismiss the writ petition and considerdirecting the petitioner - insurance company to immediately pay thebalance amount as aforesaid alongwith interest at least @ 12% perannum.(C)Submissions on behalf of PIL Petitioners :71. Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in the PIL, supported the contentions raised on behalf of therespondent - State. He submitted that the documents on recordsufficiently demonstrated that the balance amount is clearly payable tothe farmers. It was submitted that the entire premium was duly paid tothe petitioner - insurance company and when the time came forhonouring the commitment under the MOU, the petitioner - insurancecompany has deliberately raised technical objections based onmisinterpretation of the clauses of the ROG.72. In the past also, the petitioner - insurance company hadindulged in such a conduct, due to which a PIL had to be filed. In thesaid petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed payment of thebalance amount due and the Special Leave Petition filed against thesaid 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 interms of the prayers made therein. CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS :73.In the light of detailed submissions of the rival partiesrecorded herein-above, various issues arise for consideration in theseproceedings. The issues will have to be dealt with in detail and it wouldbe appropriate to first refer to the issues and then render findings uponthe same. It is necessary to first examine the basic contention raisedon behalf of the petitioner - insurance company, that the impugnedcommunications / orders issued by the respondent - authorities,including the Collector, under the provisions of the MLR code, can besaid to be without jurisdiction. This is based on interpretation of theprovisions of the MLR code. If this Court accepts the contention raisedon behalf of the petitioner - insurance company, which, in fact, had ledto the interim order being passed in these proceedings, the writ petitionwill have to be allowed on this ground alone.74.It would not be appropriate for this Court to stop at that, forthe reason that if the respondent - State is able to make out a case onmerits 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 thelearned counsel for the parties, as to whether disputed questions offacts are involved and if not, the merits of the matter could also belooked into and decided in writ jurisdiction itself. It is to satisfy theconscience of the Court with regard to the rival submissions made onthe merits of the matter, that even if the findings on the first issue aboutthe impugned orders or communications being without jurisdiction isheld in favour of the petitioner - insurance company, this Court isinclined to render findings on the merits of the rival claims, essentiallybased on interpretation of the ROG under the PM Yojna. In theprocess, this Court would be considering the position of law andjudgments referred to by the learned counsel for the rival parties.76.In any case, the PIL specifically seeks a positive directionagainst the petitioner - insurance company, to pay balance 50%amount and, therefore, this Court would be considering and renderingfindings on all the issues, upon which submissions have been made bythe learned counsel for the parties.It would be appropriate to firstconsider the issue regarding the impugned orders / communicationsbeing without jurisdiction. 42 WP-11973-2022+ (i) Whether the respondent - State authorities could haveinvoked the provisions of the MLR Code in this case ?77.A perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition showsthat the petitioner - insurance company is seeking quashing and settingaside of impugned orders / communications issued by the respondent -State authorities, whereby balance 50% amount is sought to berecovered from the petitioner - insurance company. The basis of thesaid impugned orders / communications, is that such alleged amountdue from the petitioner - insurance company, is liable to be treated asarrears of land revenue. In this regard, it would be necessary to referto 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 thingsattached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anythingattached to the earth, and also shares in, or charges on, therevenue or rent of villages, or other defined portions of territory;2(19) “land revenue” means all sums and payments, in moneyreceived or legally claimable by or on behalf of the StateGovernment from any person on account of any land or interestin or right exercisable over land held by or vested, in him, underwhatever designation such sum may be payable and any cessor rate authorised by the State Government under theprovisions of any law for the time being in force ; and includes,premium, rent, lease money, quit rent, judi payable by ainamdar 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 claimedfrom 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’ underthe MLR Code. 79.On the other hand, the petitioner - insurance companyclaims that such alleged amount due, can never be claimed as arrearsof land revenue, for the reason that this is a pure and simple case of aninsurance contract and even if the amount is sought to be claimed bythe respondent - State, which is a party to the insurance contract, it cannever be covered under the definition of ‘land revenue’. 80.In order to consider the rival submissions, it is necessaryto peruse the definition of ‘land’ and ‘land revenue’ under the MLRCode, quoted herein-above. If the definition of ‘land revenue’ is brokendown into simple terms, it consists of payments in money that can belegally claimed by or on behalf of the State government; such amountof money is claimed from a person on account of any rent or interest inland or right exercisable over land held by such person; such anamount can be cess, rate, premium, rent, lease money, quit, rent, judipayable 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 saiddefinition of ‘land revenue’, it would be appropriate to refer to thedefinition 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, thingsattached to earth or permanently fastened to the earth and also sharesin or charges on, the revenue or rent of villages, or other definedportions of territory. Upon reading the definition of ‘land’ and ‘landrevenue’, as defined in the MLR Code, for the respondent - Stateauthorities, to successfully claim that they are entitled to resort to thesame, and other provisions of the MLR Code, it will have to bedemonstrated that the amount being claimed from the petitioner -insurance company falls within the four-corners of ‘land revenue’ readwith definition of ‘land’.82.The components of the definition of ‘land revenue’ brokendown and noted herein-above, clearly show that such an amount mustbe legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government. In thepresent case, even if the amount is found to be payable, under theMOU dated 27.07.2020 i.e. the insurance contract, it is payable to theindividual farmers. 83.In fact, it is an admitted position that all payments underthe said MOU, are made directly into the accounts of the individualfarmers. It is a different matter that under the PM Yojna, the StateGovernment and the Central government together do pay the majorityshare 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 therespondent - State authorities, is not legally claimable by or on behalfof the State. On this score itself, the respondent – State, cannot claimthat 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 requiresthat such an amount is legally claimable by the State Government froma person on account of any rent or interest in or right exercisable overland held by or vested in such a person. In the present case, therespondent - State authorities are claiming recovery of the amount fromthe petitioner - insurance company, essentially under the MOU, whichis an insurance contract, read with ROG under the PM Yojna, but itcertainly is not claimed from the petitioner - insurance company onaccount of any land held or vested in the insurance company.85.In fact, it is not even based on any interest in land or rightexercisable over such land by the petitioner - insurance company. Onthis 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 thedefinition, cannot be divested from the first two components referred toherein-above. Therefore, on this basis itself, the contention raised onbehalf of the respondent - State authorities, cannot be accepted. Evenotherwise, in the facts of the present case, the respondent - Stateauthorities can refer to only the MOU i.e. the insurance contract. But,the said MOU also does not concern land. It concerns insurance ofcrops under the PM Yojna. In any case, the MOU dated 27.07.2020does not contain any clause that amount recoverable under the same,shall be treated as arrears of land revenue. In fact, neither the ROGunder the PM Yojna nor the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020issued by the respondent - State Government under the PM Yojnaanywhere provide for treating the amount due being recoverable asarrears 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 - Stateto claim that since definition of land under section 2(16) of the MLRCode includes benefits arising out of the land and crops could be saidto be benefits arising out of lands, the MOU i.e. the insurance contractcould be connected to the same and, therefore, the State authoritiescould 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 basicprinciples of interpretation.88.In this context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondent - State, sought to rely upon judgments of the SupremeCourt 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) and89.On a reading of the said judgments, we are unable toagree that the ratio of the said judgments, can enure to the benefit ofthe respondent – State. On the other hand, we find that theobservations made in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the casesof Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories (supra), Shabina Abraham (supra)and P. Kasilingam (supra) militate against the contention raised onbehalf of the respondent - State. It is reiterated in the said judgmentsthat use of the word ‘means’ shows that the definition is a hard and fastdefinition and no other meaning can be assigned other than is shown inthe definition, further indicating that it is exhaustive in nature. 90.Applying the same to the definition of expression of ‘landrevenue’, 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 thisCourt that the amount being claimed from the petitioner - insurancecompany is covered under the specific hard and fast definition of ‘landrevenue’, it cannot proceed to treat the same as arrears of landrevenue. In the light of the findings given herein-above, it is clear thatthe respondent - State has completely failed to satisfy the individualcomponents of the definition of ‘land revenue’ and the same being puttogether, thereby demonstrating the fallacy in the approach of therespondent - State. 91.As regards judgments in the case of M/s. R.S. RekchandMohota 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 thatwhere two or more words susceptible of analogous meaning arecoupled together, they are to be understood to be used in their cognatesense. Perhaps the respondent - State has relied on the aforesaidjudgments, to claim that the definition of ‘land’ under section 2(16) ofthe MLR Code needs to be understood in a broad sense, for thereason 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 findthat the same cannot enure to the benefit of the respondent – State, tojustify 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 - Stateauthorities have resorted to the provisions of Chapter XI of the MLRCode pertaining to realization of land revenue and other revenuedemands. In fact, one of the impugned orders / communications forfreezing the bank account of the petitioner - insurance company, wasissued under section 180 of the MLR Code. A perusal of section 168 ofthe MLR Code, which is the first provision under Chapter XI thereof,shows that it pertains to liability for land revenue. The said provisionreads as follows : 168. Liability for land revenue.— (1) In the case of––(a) unalienated land, the occupant or the lessee of the StateGovernment ;(b) alienated land, the superior holder ; and(c) land in the possession of tenant, such tenant if he is liableto pay land revenue therefor under the relevant tenancy law,shall be primarily liable to the State Government for thepayment of the land revenue, including all arrears of landrevenue, due in respect of the land. Joint occupants and jointholders who are primarily liable under this section shall bejointly and severally liable.(2) In case of default by any person who is primarily liableunder this section the land revenue, including arrears asaforesaid, shall be recoverable from any person in possessionof the land : 50 WP-11973-2022+ Provided that, where such person is a tenant, the amountrecoverable from him shall not exceed the demands of the yearin which the recovery is made:Provided further that, when land revenue is recovered underthis section from any person who is not primarily liable for thesame, such person shall be allowed credit for any paymentswhich he may have duly made to the person who is primarilyliable, and shall be entitled to credit, for the amount recoveredfrom him, in account with the person who is primarily liable.93.A bare perusal of the above quoted provision shows that inthe facts of the present case, the amount allegedly payable by thepetitioner - insurance company, is clearly not covered under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the MLR Code. The amount allegedly dueis not at all relatable to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) tosection 168 of the MLR Code. Therefore, resorting to the said ChapterXI and the provisions contained therein, was not an option available tothe 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 allothers.— (1) The arrears of land revenue due on account of land shall be aparamount charge on the land and on every part thereof andshall have precedence over any other debt, demand or claimwhatsoever, whether in respect of mortgage, judgment-decree,execution or attachment, or otherwise howsoever, against anyland or the holder thereof.(2) The claim of the State Government to any monies other thanarrears of land revenue, but recoverable as a revenue demandunder the provisions of this Chapter, shall have priority over allunsecured claims against any land or holder thereof. 51 WP-11973-2022+ 95.The respondent - State authorities were unable todemonstrate before this Court as to how the alleged amount due fromthe petitioner - insurance could even be covered under monies otherthan arrears of land revenue, but recoverable as revenue demandunder the provisions of Chapter XI of the MLR Code. Once thisbecomes clear, it is evident that respondent - State authorities couldnot have resorted to the provisions of the said Chapter, includingsection 180 thereof. 96.In this context, observations made by Division Bench ofthis Court, after quoting section 169 of the MLR Code, in the case ofIDBI Trusteeship Services Limited (supra) are of relevance and thesame read as follows : “23. The aforesaid Section makes a clear distinction between actualarrears of land revenue due on account of land, and amounts otherthan arrears of land revenue which are recoverable as arrears of landrevenue under the MLRC. In the former case, the arrears of landrevenue due on account of land, amount to a paramount charge on theland in question, which shall have precedence over all other debts.However, in the latter case, the claim of the State Government tomonies recoverable as other than arrears of land revenue but in thesame fashion, have priority only over unsecured claims and not oversecured debts. Land revenue has been defined in Section 2(19) of theMLRC to mean, "all sums and payments, in money received or legallyclaimable by or on behalf of the State Government from any person onaccount of any land or interest in or right exercisable over land held byor vested in him, under whatever designation such sum may bepayable and any cess or rate authorised by the State Governmentunder the provisions of any law for the time being in force; andincludes premium, rent, lease money, quit, rent, judi payable by ainamdar or any other payment provided under any Act, rule, contractor deed on account of any land;” Therefore, it is clear that landrevenue 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 ofcompensation and interest which have been awarded by RespondentNo. 9 against Respondent No. 4 and in favour of Respondent Nos.10to 15 cannot be said to be actual arrears of land revenue. They are notdues payable to the State Government which arise out of anyparticular land. They are not even claims of the State Government.They are dues payable by a promoter of a real estate project to the flatpurchasers under orders passed under the provisions of RERA. Themode of recovery of such amounts is the same as if they were arrearsof land revenue under the MLRC. Hence these amounts clearly cannotbe governed by Section 169(1) of the MLRC. Therefore, the claims ofRespondent Nos. 10 to 15 as awarded by Respondent No. 9 cannothave priority over the properties of Respondent No. 4 in derogation ofthe Petitioner's secured interest therein. Having held that the Petitioneris a secured creditor of Respondent No. 4 and a Mortgagee in respectof the said Property under the Debenture Trust Deed, we find that thePetitioner has priority in respect of the said Property over the claims ofRespondent Nos. 10 to 15. In other words, the Petitioner is entitled tohave its debts satisfied out of the said Property in priority overRespondent Nos. 10 to 15.24. The above finding is fortified by a similar finding of the MadhyaPradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of Indore vs. RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner (supra) relied upon by the Counsel forthe Petitioner. In that case, a mortgage deed was executed by acompany, mortgaging its entire immovable property in favour of abank. That company failed and neglected to pay the employer'scontribution due from it under the Employees' Provident Funds Act,1958. The State, pursuant to a provision in the Employees' ProvidentFunds Act, 1958 sought to recover the contribution as an arrear of landrevenue under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.Despite the bank informing the State of its prior registered mortgageover the property of the company, the State sold the property torecover the company's provident fund contribution as arrears of landrevenue. The following observations were made by the Court whileholding the sale to be bad in law:“5. In our judgment, the contentions advanced on behalf of thepetitioner must be given effect to. Section 8 of the Act provides,inter alia, that any amount due from the employer in relation toan establishment to which a Scheme under the Act applies,may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered by the appropriateGovernment in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.It does not say that the amount may be recovered as anarrear of land revenue. It merely provides the manner of therecovery of the amount mentioned in Section 8 . The manner prescribed for the recovery of the amount as anarrear of land revenue does not convert the amount into an 53 WP-11973-2022+ arrear of land revenue; nor does it create any charge onany property of the employer for the payment of the amountor give a priority in the manner of payment of the amount.There is no provision in the Act in regard to the creation ofany such charge or priority for the payment of theemployer's contribution." (emphasis supplied). 97.We also find that the petitioner - insurance company isjustified in relying upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of thisCourt in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Machhimar Sahakari SanghLtd. (supra). In the said case, this Court rejected the claim of the StateGovernment that certain outstanding amounts were recoverable asland revenue even when the amounts were said to be due to acompany whose share capital was owned by the Government. It washeld that since the company was clearly an independent corporatepersonality, the amounts recoverable by it could not be said to beamounts legally claimable by or on behalf of the State Government. 98.The petitioner - insurance company is also justified inrelying upon a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court inthe case of Paras Nath Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andothers; 2020 SCC OnLine All 190, wherein it was found that when therelevant statute did not contain any provision that contractual amountcould be recovered as an arrear of land revenue, the State could notjustify 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 insurancecontract dated 27.07.2020, provide that the amounts due from thepetitioner - insurance company are to be treated as arrears of landrevenue. Hence, the petitioner - insurance company is clearly justifiedin contending that the impugned orders / communications issued by therespondent - State authorities are wholly without jurisdiction and on thisground itself, they deserve to be quashed and set aside. 99.We accept the said contention raised on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company. The writ petition deserves to beallowed on this ground itself. But, as noted herein-above, we havedecided to examine the merits of the matter also, to satisfy ourconscience, as also to examine the question as to whether therespondent - State authorities could resort to any other means forrecovering the amount, so long as there is merit in the claim of therecovery made against the petitioner - insurance company. (ii) Disputed questions of facts / entertaining this writ petition : 100.In this context, the issue regarding existence of thedisputed questions of facts arises and it needs to be dealt with, beforeentering 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 aforesaidMOU as also the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020. 101.In this regard, much emphasis was placed on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company on the judgment of the Supreme Courtin the case of A.P. Electrical (supra). In the said judgment, theSupreme Court observed as follows : “48.Normally, the disputed questions of fact are notinvestigated or adjudicated by a writ court while exercisingpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But themere existence of the disputed question of fact, by itself, doesnot take away the jurisdiction of this writ court in grantingappropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the Court issatisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts are disputed by theState merely to create a ground for the rejection of the writpetition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it is the dutyof the writ court to reject such contention and to investigate thedisputed facts and record its finding if the particular facts of thecase, like the one at hand, was required in the interest of justice.49. There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution toindicate that the High Court in the proceedings, like the one onhand, is debarred from holding such an inquiry. The propositionthat a petition under Article 226 must be rejected simply on theground that it cannot be decided without determining thedisputed question of fact is not warranted by any provisions oflaw nor by any decision of this Court. A rigid application of suchproposition or to treat such proposition as an inflexible rule oflaw or of discretion will necessarily make the provisions of Article226 wholly illusory and ineffective more particularly Section10(5) and 10(6)of the Act, 1976 respectively. Obviously, the HighCourt must avoid such consequences.”102.In the said judgment, the Supreme Court also referred toearlier 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 whicha writ Court ought to approach such a situation. Thus, it is clear thatmerely claiming that disputed questions of facts are involved, cannotbe used as a ‘mantra’ or ‘incantation’ on the basis of which the writCourt would automatically desist from exercising its jurisdiction. 103.In any case, upon examining the material on record, andconsidering the rival submissions, we find that there are no disputedquestions of facts involved in the present case at all. The petitioner -insurance company is relying upon the data pertaining to actual yield ofSoyabean crop on the basis of figures provided by the respondent -State itself at Exhibit - L to the writ petition. This is a communicationdated 16.12.2021, whereby the Chief Statistician, Commissionerate ofAgriculture of the respondent - State forwarded crop yield datapertaining to Soyabean for the relevant period on the basis of cropcutting experiments admittedly starting on 17.09.2021, which is evidentfrom Exhibit - H to the writ petition. All these documents are issued bythe respondent - State authorities themselves and, therefore, there isno 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 samplesurveys, to arrive at amounts payable to the farmers on the basis offormula supplied by respondent - State authorities. Therefore, on this 57 WP-11973-2022+ score also, there are no disputed questions of facts involved in thepresent case. 104.Thus, it becomes evident that the present case, for itsdecision on merits, depends upon interpretation of the documents onrecord, particularly the clauses of ROG under the PM Yojna,Government resolution dated 29.06.2020 and the MOU dated27.07.2020. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, this Court can certainly enter into the arena of interpretation ofthe aforesaid documents and other material on record, particularly,when there are indeed no disputed questions of facts involved in thepresent case. Therefore, this Court is proceeding to consider the rivalcontentions on merits. (iii)Revamped Operational Guidelines (ROG) under the PM Yojna105.Respondent - State authorities as well as the PILpetitioners claim that the petitioner - insurance company has paid only50% of the total amount due and that only the data pertaining tosample survey can be used by proceeding on the basis that thefarmers suffered complete loss of Soyabean crop. The petitioner -insurance company, on the other hand, harps upon applicability ofclause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG under the PM Yojna. On this basis, it isclaimed 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 fromsample survey and if at all, the CCE data shows actual loss suffered bythe farmers that further amount would be due and payable to them.106.In order to deliberate upon the rival submissions and torender findings thereon, it is necessary to refer to the scheme underthe ROG as per PM Yojna and interpretation of its various clauses. 107.Although, this case is admittedly concerned with ‘localizedcalamity’, covered under clause 21.5 of the ROG, it would benecessary to refer to other clauses, in order to examine the entirescheme and specific expressions used in clause 21.5.108.The ROG provides for coverage of risks, which includebasic cover and add on coverage. Clause 5.2 pertains to add oncoverage, which includes germination risk under clause 5.2.10, mid-seasonal adversity, under clause 5.2.2, post harvest losses underclause 5.2.3 and ‘localized calamities’ under clause 5.2.4. Clause 7.3.1of ROG refers to threshold yield, which is based on average yield ofnotified 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 isprovided for calculating the amount payable to the farmers and also 59 WP-11973-2022+ timelines to be observed regarding the same. The ROG also providesfor grievance redressal mechanism, which includes committees at thedistrict level, state level and at the level of the Central Government.Roles of the agencies of the State Government and the CentralGovernment are also specified with the intention of implementing thescheme under the PM Yojna as efficiently as possible and after takinginto consideration variables that necessarily affect agriculturaloperations. Emphasis is placed on the utilization of scientific methods,so that steps contemplated under the PM Yojna through ROG arepractical, reliable and predictable. 110.Considering the emphasis placed on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company on the CCE data relevant for thepresent case, it would be necessary to examine the role of CCEs andthe manner in which various clauses of the ROG prescribe the role andimportance of CCEs. (iv)Role and Significance of CCEs :111.Crop Cutting Experiments or CCEs are found to be anintegral part of the scheme contemplated under the PM Yojna asimplemented through the ROG. Clauses 6.1.2 to 6.2.3 of the ROGprovide for conducting requisite number of CCEs by adoption ofinnovative technologies, including handheld devices, smartphones etc. 60 WP-11973-2022+ and uploading of CCE based data on the National Crop InsurancePortal (NCIP). 112.The insurance companies are also required to deploysufficient number of manpower to co-observe CCEs, which are carriedout by officers of the Agriculture department of the respondent - State. 113.Clauses 7.2.1.3 to 7.2.1.6, again highlight the importanceof CCEs and the data generated therefrom. In fact, threshold yielditself is calculated on the basis of such data pertaining to past sevenyears. 114.Clause 16.10 of the ROG stipulates that if CCE datasubmitted through CCE Agri App is not approved within the stipulatedtimelines, it shall stand approved automatically and it shall be used forclaim calculation. This is crucial as it indicates that under the ROG,CCE data does form the bedrock of claim calculation. Clause 18 of theROG pertains to assessment of loss / shortfall in yield and the sub-clauses thereof give the details as to the manner in which CCEs shallbe considered and that CCEs shall be undertaken per crop per unitarea of insurance for notified crop. A reference is made to two stepyield assessment and the manner in which approved CCEs shall beconducted by the Officers of the Agriculture department, in thepresence of the Officers of the insurance company. Clause 18.4.5 61 WP-11973-2022+ states that the State Government shall compulsorily constitute asteering committee in each district to plan, conduct and supervise theCCEs for yield assessment and to provide reports of yield data to theState Nodal Department. There are specific instructions available in theclauses for the modalities of conducting the CCEs in respect of variouscrops. 115.It is also provided that in case there is a dispute withregard to data, the STAC shall resolve the dispute. Clause 19.7.3 ofROG stipulates that all CCE data of contested area shall be availablein digital format along with other collateral data and further instructionshave been given concerning CCEs data yield. Clause 20 provides forvarious instructions for using innovative technology for conductingCCEs 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 ofoccurrence of crop risks. Such risks include unseasonal rains, which isrelevant for the facts of the present case. Clause 20.2.4 is significantin the context of time of occurrence of crop risks and it reads asfollows: “20.2.4 Time of occurrence of crop risks : Timelyidentification of risk-affected insurance units is very criticalto ensure the preparedness by the field functionaries fortimely execution of CCEs. It is recommended that theaffected insurance units be identified by at least 20-30 62 WP-11973-2022+ days before crop harvesting. That means, crop risksoccurring from sowing till 30 days before harvest are onlyaccounted. Abnormal events like cyclones/floods orunseasonal rains that occur a few days/weeks beforeharvest are to be included in the CCE plan. Identificationand notification of insurance units in such a small timewindow would be a challenge. Hence, there should besome back-up plan with all the States to deal withcalamities/risks that occur just before crop harvest.Considering the nature and time of occurrence of croprisks, a quick decision has to be taken by the States onCCE plan, whether to go for requisite number of plannedCCEs at IU level or group of homogenous IUs /pooledareas for conducting less number of CCEs.”116.The contents of the above quoted clause furtherdemonstrate the importance of CCE data for calculating amountspayable under the add-on cover as per ROG, including situations oflocalized calamities. 117.The subsequent clauses of ROG, particularly clause 21pertaining to assessment and claim settlement refer to and rely uponCCE data. In respect of claims due to mid-season adversity, theinsurance companies are required to make an immediate upfrontpayment to the extent of likely claim and clause 21.4.2.7 of the ROGprovides that such amount of 25% of the likely claims payable, shall besubject to adjustments against final claims based on yield assessmentdata arrived through the CCEs. Thus, finalization of the claims invarious add-on covers specifically depends upon CCE data. Evenclause 21.5 of the ROG pertaining to ‘localized calamity’, with which weare 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 claimsto the farmers. 118.Even the post harvest claims covered under clause 21.6refer to the CCE data in the context of initial payment and thenfinalization of the claims of the farmers. Thus, this Court is of theopinion that CCE data is one of the most significant aspects of ROGunder the PM Yojna, as it forms the bedrock of calculation andfinalization 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 inthe facts of the present case. We are unable to accept the contentionraised on behalf of the respondent - State that the localized calamitythat occurred in the present case requires calculation and payments ofthe claims of the farmers by ignoring the CCE data, although it isadmittedly available and provided by the respondent - State itself to thepetitioner - insurance company. 119.It is not as if CCE and its significance has not beenconsidered and deliberated upon by this Court on earlier occasions. Incertain proceedings before this Court, respondent – State authoritieshave themselves relied upon and claimed that CCEs are the basis of 64 WP-11973-2022+ calculating and disbursing amounts payable under such crop insuranceschemes. In the case of Ter Large (supra), a Division Bench of thisCourt recorded as follows :- “8.An affidavit in reply is presented by one AshokPandurang Kadam, Deputy Director of Agriculture, on behalf ofthe State Government. It is contended in the affidavit presentedon behalf of the State Government that the AgricultureDepartment plans the required number of Crop CuttingExperiments in notified areas to estimate per hectare yield ratesof different crops. It is also stated that the current year’saverage yield, based on crop cutting experiments, plannedunder crop estimation survey, is compared with threshold yieldand claims are sanctioned in the proportion of shortfall inthreshold yield. The settlement of claim is done by AIC as perthe prescribed procedure and that the compensation is notdecided on the basis of `paisewari’. It has also been stated onbehalf of the State Government that the threshold yield of eachcrop in the notified area is fixed separately. The method ofunderwriting crop insurance is not similar to other classes ofnon life insurance where coverage is on individual basis. As perthe provisions of the scheme, if there is a loss due to insuredperils and such losses are reflected in the yield arrived at byconducting CCEs, the farmers become eligible forcompensation. The claims are settled for the crop whereshortfall in the yield is recorded. It is stated that there is noroom for any discrimination or for any fraud and the claimsettlement scheme is a full proof system.9.……..10. Thus, the argument of the petitioners, based on scalingdown of annewari by the State, which according to thepetitioners, is less than 50 paise, for consideration of claimtowards recovery of insurance claim, cannot be accepted. Asstated above, the scheme prescribes different modes ofassessing shortfall in the yield. The shortfall in the yield isequivalent to threshold yield and actual yield during relevantperiod. The Respondents, on the basis of crop cuttingexperiments, did not find that there is any shortfall in the yield.Thus, the contention raised by the petitioners that they areentitled to be indemnified, as there is scaling down of annewariby the State Government, which itself is indicative of theshortfall of yield, cannot be accepted.” 65 WP-11973-2022+ 120.In the case of Libaraj (supra), another Division Bench ofthis Court held as follows :- “21. As has been submitted by respondent nos. 3 and 4, theCrop Cutting Experiments are conducted by the StateGovernment machinery and average yield data is furnished bythem and the claims are settled on the basis of shortfall in theyield recorded on the Area Approach basis in the notified areasfor the notified crops. As stated by respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 and7 the system of assessing loss on the basis of Crop CuttingExperiment, is in vogue in Maharashtra since 1944-1945. It isdeveloped by National Sample Survey Organization, NewDelhi. As submitted by these respondents, the saidmethodology of crop estimation is time tested and wellestablished. According to the said method, minimum tensamples are considered per circle and 16 per Taluka. Thenumber of crop cutting experiments are planned in proportion ofthe area under crop and the number may be higher wheresubstantial area under crop is available and where area undercrop is minimal, only six samples are being taken. Theselection of the villages, survey number and the composition ofthe plot in the field is decided by using random tables to obtainunbiased estimates of average yield. As further stated by theserespondents in their affidavit in reply, the plot selected isharvested in presence of village committee comprising ofAgricultural Extension Officer, Revenue Circle Inspector orGram Sewak, Sarpanch and Police Patil of the villageconcerned and the representatives of the farmers are alsoincluded so as to maintain transparency. In addition to theabove, supervision of two villages each at the harvesting stageis allotted to the responsible officers like Deputy Collector,Tehsildar, Agricultural Development Officer, Block DevelopmentOfficer, etc. and based on this, the average yield is beingassessed and if it is found to be less than the threshold yield,the compensation is being awarded to the farmers in the saidarea. The respondents have clarified that the method ofawarding the crop insurance claim cannot be equated withother classes of non life insurance where individual is the basis.The respondents have stated that the National AgriculturalInsurance Scheme is aimed at protecting interests of largeSection of the notified area where the losses occur due tonatural perils and such losses are reflected in the yield arrivedat by conducting crop cutting experiments. The respondentshave further clarified that if an individual farmer has sufferedcrop loss but the circle insurance unit as a whole does notreveal 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 cropinsurance claim whereas if any such farmer harvests a goodcrop but the circle as a whole in which he is situated suffers aloss and such losses are reflected in the yield data, such farmeralso gets compensation and/or insurance claim even though hehas not actually suffered loss. In nutshell, the claims aresettled for the crop on area approach basis where shortfall inthe yield is recorded on the basis of crop cutting experimentmethod.”121.In the context of such crop insurance scheme, anotherDivision Bench of this Court in the matter of The Osmanabad DistrictCentral Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra &Ors.; 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 409, referred to contents of the affidavitin reply filed on behalf of the respondent – State authorities andrecorded as follows:- “16.The respondents in their affidavits have pointedly statedthat the insurance claims of the farmers were settled on thebasis of the Crop Cutting Experiments. In fact, settlement of theclaims is to be made on the basis of Crop Cutting Experimentsand this is the only method which is contemplated under thescheme. Merely because either the report is not available orthat a representative of the petitioner bank was not associatedwould not mean that no Crop Cutting Experiment was carriedout. In any event, this is highly disputed question of fact whichcannot be gone into and decided while exercising writjurisdiction. Settlement of the claims under the ComprehensiveCrop Insurance Scheme cannot be directed to be made on thebasis of annewari-paisewari. The respondents have pointed outthe basic difference between the Crop Cutting Experiment andthe declaration of annewari and paisewari. The schemecontemplates settlement of claims only on the basis of CropCutting Experiments. It would be wholly impermissible for us togo behind the scheme and direct the respondents to settle theinsurance claims on a procedure which is completely alien tothe scheme. Respondent No. 3 has settled various claims ofthe farmers based on the Crop Cutting Experiments or to directrespondent No. 3 to settle the insurance claims on the premisethat in 1991 there was a general drought as a result of whichthere was overall shortfall in the yield of various crops. To do sowould 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 thepetitioners for interfering and granting the reliefs, which areprayed for in this petition. Though we have held that the petitionis maintainable, according to us, on merits no case is made outfor interference.”122.In an appeal arising from orders passed by the Consumerfora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Supreme Court inthe 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 yieldin question, it can be said that the insured i.e. the farmers have failedto prove any loss covered under such scheme of insurance. Thus, it isevident that CCEs, even as per the respondent – authorities, are thebasis for calculating actual loss that may be suffered by farmers in thecontext of crop insurance schemes like the PM Yojna beingimplemented under the ROG. 123.This is not a case where CCEs could not be conducted orthat there was any dispute raised with regard to the CCE data availablefor the relevant period, pertaining to the crop of Soyabean, in respect ofwhich the insurance claim arises in the facts of the present case. As towhether the CCE data can be looked at and utilized, is a differentmatter 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 becalculated in the facts of the present case. (v)‘Localised Calamity’ and applicability of clause 21.5.10 of theROG:124.There is no dispute between the parties about the fact thatthe insurance claim in the present case arises out of a localizedcalamity. The localized calamity in the present case was in the form ofunseasonal rain that occurred between 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021 inDistrict - Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). The fact that the said localizedcalamity took place between the aforesaid period, is not a disputedquestion, for the reason that in various documents issued by therespondent - State authorities, including letter dated 25.10.2021 atExhibit ‘K’ issued by the respondent - District Collector to the petitioner- insurance company it is specifically recorded that unseasonal rainsand hence the ‘localized calamity’ indeed took place between23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021. 125.Rival contentions have been raised before this Court in thecontext 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 takeplace 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 toplay. But, the petitioner - insurance company has contended that thelocalized calamity and hence, the losses to the farmers did occur within15 days of the harvest and hence, the assessment has to be based ona combination of sample survey and CCE with 50 : 50 weightage. Therespondent - State claims that the loss suffered by the farmers wasalmost complete because the crop of Soyabean was standing when theunseasonal rains hit the aforesaid district. The rival contentionsrevolve around the interpretation of clause 21.5.10 of the ROG,particularly, sub-clause (1) in the table that forms part of the saidclause. It needs to be reproduced, in order to appreciate the rivalcontentions. Clause 21.5.10 of the ROG reads as follows : SR.No.Action required to be takenAction to be taken bySchedule for takingaction1Intimation may be given within 72 hours by the farmer either through Mobile Application, Centralized Toll-Free Number, directly to the Insurance Company through it's dedicatedtoll-free number or through the concerned bank, local agriculture department Government/district officials. However, the first mode of intimation should be either cropinsurance app or the centralisedToll-Free Number.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 Affected farmer(s) may intimate using mobile. landline or social media.. Farmer should provide his bank account number (loan account for loanee farmer and savings account for non-loanee farmer) or Enrollment number generated from the portal at the time of intimation.Within 72 hours from theoccurrence of a peril. 70 WP-11973-2022+ SR.No.Action required to be takenAction to be taken bySchedule for takingactionInsurance 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 CCEswith 50:50 weightage.2Forwarding of information / Intimation of the farmer(s) to Insurance Company by either using company's web link or viaNCIP.Bank/PACS, Local Agriculture Department / District officialsWithin 48 hours from thereceipt of the information / intimation from the farmer(s).3Appointment of loss assessor as per qualifications & experience laid down in the OGs of PMFBY.Insurance companyWithin 48 hours from thereceipt of the information / intimation.4Assessment of affected area in term of % of area sown.DLJCWithin 10 days of the appointment of the loss assessor by the company.5Individual level assessment of loss (in case the affected area is < 25% of the total cropped area).Jointly by the Insurance Company & block level Agriculture Officer.Within 7 days of the intimation of loss.6Verification of the details of the affected insured farmer(s) from the bank using company's web link or on NCIP.Insurance company7Claim-payment to affected farmers.Insurance companyWithin 15 days from receipt of loss assessment report subject to receipt of at- 71 WP-11973-2022+ SR.No.Action required to be takenAction to be taken bySchedule for takingactionleast advance Government share of subsidy (1st installment of both State & CentralGovernment).8Data of the Loss assessment report finalized by DLJC, and admissible claims will be uploaded on the NCIP against the farmer from whom the loss intimation was received.Insurance companyWithin 7 days of the survey.126.A perusal of clause 21.5.10.1 shows that the operative partthereof consists of two components. For the sake of convenience, thetwo components are again being separately reproduced, so as tofacilitate appreciation and analysis of the rival contentions of theparties. 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 firedue to lightening may be given upto harvest date as notified inthe State Notification and supported by information of IMD /local media, and Reports of Agriculture / RevenueDepartments, 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 15days of normal harvest will be assessed based on combinationof sample survey and CCEs with 50:50 weightage.” (Emphasissupplied).127.It is of significance that while component I uses the words‘harvest data as notified in the State notification’; component II uses thewords ‘normal harvest’. 72 WP-11973-2022+ 128.There is no dispute about the fact that the harvest date asnotified in the State notification, in the facts of the present case, isnothing but the crop calender issued by the respondent - State forKharif - 2021. A copy of the same is placed on record at Exhibit - R-2alongwith reply affidavit of the respondent - State authorities. Itspecifically states that the crop harvesting period for the crop ofSoyabean in respect of the District - Osmanabad shall be 15.10.2021to 15.11.2021. Applying the same to component - I of clause 21.5.10.1quoted herein-above would show that intimation about occurrence oflocalized calamity would have to be given up to 15.10.2021. The ROGnowhere defines ‘normal harvest’. In the absence of such definition, itwas vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent - State that‘normal harvest’ is nothing but the harvest date / period specified by therespondent - State in the afore-mentioned crop calender for Kharif -2021. On this basis, it was contended that since the localized calamityin the present case occurred from 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021, theestimation of losses was being pressed only up to 30.09.2021 and asper the material available on record maximum claims were submittedup to the said date and hence, the entire amount payable to thefarmers had to be only on the basis of sample survey. It was assertedthat 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 whilecalculating and paying the claims of the farmers.129.On the other hand, the petitioner - insurance company hasplaced much emphasis on the fact that CCEs were undertaken at leastfrom 17.09.2021, in the facts of the present case. A perusal of thedocuments on record indeed shows that even as per the respondent -State, CCEs started on 17.09.2021. This is evident from the documentat Exhibit – H, which gives the details of the manner in which the CCEswere conducted from 17.09.2021, the data pertaining thereto and thefact that the same was issued by an officer of the respondent - Statei.e. the Talathi.130.The document at Exhibit L, being a communication issuedby the Chief Statistician of the Commissionerate of Agriculture,respondent - State dated 16.12.2021 annexes the average yield databased on crop cutting experiments of crop Soyabean in District -Osmanabad for Kharif - 2021 season. These are undisputeddocuments of the respondent - State itself. We are of the opinion thatsuch undisputed documents indeed show that actual harvesting of thesoybean crop started in District - Osmanabad for Kharif - 2021 at leastfrom 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 ofimmense significance in the facts of the present case. It is alsorelevant to note that the expression ‘normal harvest’ is not definedanywhere in the ROG under PM Yojna.131.Neither the Government resolution dated 29.06.2020 northe MOU dated 27.07.2020 executed between petitioner - insurancecompany and respondent - State, refer to the expression ‘normalharvest’. In this situation, we find that the contention raised on behalfof the insurance company that normal harvest must mean actualharvest conducted in that particular season, as a logical interpretationof the expression ‘normal harvest’. If there was no data available tofind out as to when harvest actually began, it would have been adifferent matter. But, normal harvest obviously and logically must meanthe 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 basisof the undisputed documents issued by the respondent - Stateauthorities themselves, pertaining to CCEs being conducted at leastfrom 17.09.2021, the normal harvest began from 17.09.2021.132.At this stage, it would be relevant to consider thecontention raised on behalf of the respondent – State, that since the 75 WP-11973-2022+ crop calender notified by the respondent – State shows the period ofharvesting between 15.10.2021 to 15.11.2021 using the wordloZlk/kkj.k’, which means ‘general’ or ‘normal’, this very period and thedates have to be treated as ‘normal harvesting date’. We find that theROG as well as the stand taken by the respondent – State itself showsthat the date of harvesting notified by the respondent – State is nothingbut the crop calender. We have also found herein-above that thewords used ‘harvest date as notified in the State Notification’ incomponent – I of clause 21.5.10.1, are distinct and different from thewords ‘normal harvest’ used in component – II of the said clause.133.Therefore, the respondent – State cannot be permitted toturn around and claim that the crop calender which is in-fact, the datenotified by the State, is the same as ‘normal harvest’, merely becausethe word ‘loZlk/kkj.k’ is used in the crop calender. As noted herein-above, the words ‘normal harvest’, not being defined anywhere in theROG or the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020 issued by therespondent – State, has to be the date when the actual harvestingstarted. In the present case, the CCEs show that the harvesting ofSoyabean crop in District – Osmanabad had actually started at leastfrom 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 placebetween 23.09.2021 to 10.10.2021. This is a fact acknowledged andadmitted by respondent - State in its own communications, particularly,the communication at Exhibit - K dated 25.10.2021, issued by therespondent - Collector himself to the petitioner - insurance company.Therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company that, in the facts of the present case,losses to the farmers occurred due to localized calamity of unseasonalrains within 15 days of ‘normal harvest’. Once this finding is reached, itbecomes 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 ofsample survey and CCEs with 50 : 50 weightage.135.We are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf ofthe respondent - State that since the insurance company had agreedfor 85% of the input costs to be made the basis of calculating theamount payable as per sample survey, it would mean that theinsurance company had conceded to the fact that the CCEs wouldhave 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 datagenerated therefrom cannot be ignored while calculating the amount ofcompensation payable. It is an admitted position that the petitionerinsurance - company itself paid amount of Rs.374,61,93,634/- on thebasis of joint sample survey, which is equivalent to 50% weightage forthe sample survey. There is no dispute about this aspect of the matter.The difference between the parties is on the assertion of therespondent - State as well as petitioners in the PIL, that the amounthad to be paid to the farmers on the basis of calculation based entirelyon sample survey, with no weightage being given to CCEs.136.Once this Court has accepted the contention raised onbehalf of the petitioner - insurance company with regard to applicabilityof component - II of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG, for the detailedreasons stated herein-above, CCE data can certainly not be ignored.We also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of thepetitioner - insurance company that in every circumstance of add-oncover, 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 areto be made to the farmers, which are then to be finalized on the basisof 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 tojustify their claim that entire 100% payment was to be made to thefarmers 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 usedin the definitions forming part of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG. Thewords ‘harvest data as notified in the State notification’ used incomponent I, are distinct from the words ‘normal harvest’ used incomponent II. The interpretation being placed on behalf of therespondent - State authorities and the PIL petitioners, is in the teeth ofthe clear language used in the said clause and, therefore, the saidinterpretation cannot be accepted.139.It is not as if the insurance company is absolved of itsliability when 50% weightage is given to CCEs as per clause 21.5.10.1of the ROG. The extent of liability would depend upon the CCE dataand if losses are suffered in the actual yield as compared to thethreshold yield, proportionately the insurance company will have to payamounts to the farmers. But, in the present case, undisputedly, CCEdata as per Exhibit - L sent by the Chief Statistician of theCommissionerate of Agriculture of the respondent - State itself shows 79 WP-11973-2022+ that figures pertaining to average / actual yield of Soyabean crop forDistrict - 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 sufferany actual loss with regard to the Soyabean crop despite the localizedcalamity of unseasonal rains. Since the said data is undisputed, itbecomes clear that under the 50% weightage pertaining to CCEs, theinsurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the farmers. Thisindicates that on merits also, the respondent - State authorities andeven the PIL petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that furtheramounts are recoverable from the petitioner - insurance company. It isto be understood that the payment is to be made under the MOU dated27.07.2020, which is a pure insurance contract and it indemnifies foractual losses suffered. The formula of assessing the losses is ingrainedin and provided in detail under the ROG. Once the facts of the presentcase demonstrate that clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG clearly applies, aproper interpretation and implementation of the same demonstratesthat the petitioner - insurance company is not liable to pay any furtheramounts 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 dated29.06.2020 suffered from lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the facts andcircumstances of the present case and, hence, for this reason also, theorders passed by the said Committee were rendered withoutjurisdiction. The ROG as well as the Government Resolution providefor pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.25 Lakh with the District GrievanceRedressal Committee. The response of the State, to the saidcontention, is that since the claim of each individual farmer was lessthan Rs.25 Lakhs, the said Committee did have pecuniary jurisdiction.142.We find that the District Grievance Redressal Committeetook into consideration the grievances of a large number of farmersand in that context, it was indicated that the petitioner – insurancecompany 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 individualfarmer and whether each such claim exceeded Rs. 25 Lakhs. In anycase, the claims of such aggrieved farmers put together clearlyexceeded the pecuniary limit of Rs.25 Lakhs. But, the said aspectpales into insignificance in the light of the specific stand taken on 81 WP-11973-2022+ behalf of the respondent – State that the District Grievance RedressalCommittee, in the facts of the present case, did not decide anythingand that it did not pass any effective order. The respondent – Stateclaims that the said Committee merely made its recommendation andsent the same to the Divisional Level Grievance Committee. If that beso, the issue pertaining to pecuniary jurisdiction loses its significance.At the same time, it is incongruous that the impugnedcommunications / orders under the MLR Code appear to be passed onthe deliberations and findings of the said District Grievance RedressalCommittee. 143.Apart from this, it is evident that the ROG under the PMYojna does not provide for a Divisional Level Grievance Committee andit refers to the hiearchical form, i.e., a Committee at District Level, thena Committee at the State Level and finally the Committee at the Centrallevel. But, this Court finds that introduction of the Divisional Committeeby the afore-mentioned Government Resolution dated 29.06.2020, initself, may not render illegal the aforesaid act on the part of the State,for the reason that the Government Resolution was issued in order toexecute the PM Yojna and it could be said a step in aid thereof. In anycase, when this Court is inclined to hold in favour of the petitioner –insurance company on the merits of the matter, these issues indeedtake a backseat. They are really concerned with the petitioner – 82 WP-11973-2022+ insurance company being able to maintain the present writ petitionbefore this Court and on that score, this Court has already held infavour of the petitioner herein-above. (vii)Alternative Remedy available to the petitioner :-144.Respondent – state has raised a specific objection that thewrit petition could not be entertained in the face of availability ofalternative remedy in the form of Grievance Redressal mechanismprovided in the ROG as well as the Government Resolution dated29.06.2020. As noted herein-above, there is a hierarchical system forgrievance redressal provided under the ROG as well as the said GR. Ifa party is aggrieved by the findings or order of the District GrievanceRedressal Committee, the same could be challenged before the StateCommittee and further before the Committee at the Central level. But,such challenge would necessarily concern the actual calculation of theamount that the insurance company would be liable to pay to theinsured farmers. It would involve the nitty-gritty of applying thedirectives in the ROG, including the formulae indicated therein. But,the interpretation of the clause of the ROG can be undertaken only bythe Central Government under clause 35.1.17 of the ROG. 83 WP-11973-2022+ 145.Thus, considering the nature of dispute raised on behalf ofthe petitioner – insurance company, the grievance redressalmechanism in its hierarchy, could not be said to be an efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, thepetitioner – insurance company had sent a letter on 01.11.2022 to theChief Executive Officer of the PM Yojna seeking guidance for resolutionof the said dispute pertaining to interpretation of the clauses of theROG and intervention in the matter. But, by the letter dated24.11.2022, the respondent – Union of India informed the petitioner –insurance company that it should approach the STAC for the saidpurpose. The scheme under the ROG shows that the STAC candecide only issues pertaining to crop yield or losses for computation ofadmissible claims and not interpretational issues.146.The said admitted position on facts clearly shows that theremedy available to the petitioner – insurance company was sought tobe availed, but the respondent – Union of India, instead of deciding theissue, asked the petitioner – insurance company to approach theSTAC. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the writ petition shouldnot have been entertained due to availability of alternative remedy. Inany case, not to entertain a writ petition due to availability of analternative remedy is not a rule of law, but a rule of prudence andconvenience. 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 toavailability of alternative remedy. Hence, the said contention raised onbehalf 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 certaincommunications issued by the Officers of the respondent – State toclaim that in similar situations, it was opined that clause 21.5.10 of theROG would not apply. Having perused the said communications, wefind that there is no reasoning recorded therein and in any case, suchcommunications / orders may be binding on the respondent – Stateauthorities, but they cannot be binding on this Court while consideringthe rival contentions raised in the present writ petition. 148.On the other hand, the letter dated 25.07.2025 sent by theMinistry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare of the respondent – Unionof India to the Department of Agriculture and Farmers of theGovernment of Haryana concerning similar circumstances, shows theinterpretation placed on clause 21.5.10.1. In the said communication,the said department of the respondent – Union of India has relied uponan earlier communication pertaining to kharif season of 2021 and it hasbeen 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 getsinvoked. This is crucial for the reason that, as noted herein-above, it isthe respondent – Union of India that can interpret any provision of thescheme under clause 35.1.17 of the ROG. The said communicationrelied upon by the petitioner – insurance company, indeed, throws lighton the applicability of clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG. It is also significantto 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 asfollows:- “It is further submitted that if the harvest had already started inthe district (before the date notified by the State in the tenderdocument) before the occurrence of the localized calamity, inthat case clause 21.5.10 gets invoked.” 149.We have already reached a conclusion herein-above thatharvesting actually started, at least from 17.09.2021 i.e. when the firstCCE was conducted, and it was prior to the date of 15.10.2021 notifiedin the crop calender issued by the respondent – State. As per theinterpretation given by the respondent – Union of India itself, clause21.5.10.1 of the ROG applies in the facts of the present case and,hence, contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner – insurancecompany 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 saidjudgment of this Court in the PIL. It was submitted that since thepetitioner – insurance company was a party in the said PIL, and it hadsuffered an adverse order with regard to the issue relating to liability ofpayment to farmers under the crop insurance scheme under the PMYojna, the present PIL ought to be allowed and the writ petitiondeserved to be dismissed. But, having perused the aforesaid judgmentof this Court, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wefind that none of the issues that arise in the present proceedings cameup for consideration before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.The only issue in the aforesaid PIL pertained to alleged failure of thefarmers in the said case in individually intimating losses within 72 hoursof the date of the incident or the localized calamity. This Court as wellas the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contentions raised by thepetitioner – insurance company in the context of the aforesaid issue. 151.But, in the present case, the afore-mentioned detailedissues have arisen, in the context of which this Court has been calledupon to interpret various clauses of the ROG under the PM Yojna aswell 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 beenrendered herein-above. None of these issues came up forconsideration in the afore-mentioned PIL / 91 / 2021 and, therefore,reliance placed on the judgment in the said PIL, merely because thisvery insurance company happened to be a party therein, can be of noconsequence. Hence, the said contention is also rejected. (x)Having received premium, petitioner – insurance companymust pay the amount claimed.152.In respect of the said issue, we find that strenuousarguments were made on behalf of the respondent – State, to the effectthat the petitioner – insurance company had received full premiumamount, but at the time of honouring its commitment to pay legitimateclaims of the farmers, it was deliberately and illegally avoiding to do so.But, it cannot be forgotten that in the present case, this Court isrequired to consider rival contentions in the backdrop of a pureinsurance matter, based on ROG under the PM Yojna as also the GRdated 29.06.2020 and more particularly, MOU dated 27.07.2020executed between the parties. 153.The liability to pay and the indemnification is based on theagreed terms between the parties. It is within the four-corners of thesaid documents that either party is required to make out its case. Themost 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 thebasis of losses suffered by the farmers. Once, the petitioner –insurance company has been able to demonstrate that the basis ofpayment to the claimant – farmers, in the facts of the present case, iscovered under clause 21.5.10 of the ROG, the same must apply withfull force. As noted herein-above, the petitioner – insurance companyis not seeking to avoid its liability by raising any arguments orcontentions outside the four-corners of the agreement between theparties. It is, in-fact, seeking implementation of the clauses of theROG, particularly, clause 21.5.10 in the facts and circumstances of thepresent case. 154.It is also un-deniable that even upon applying clause21.5.10.1 of the ROG, if actual losses on the basis of CCE data werehigher, the remaining 50% amount would have been payable to thefarmers, proportionate to the losses suffered. But, the undisputed CCEdata provided by the respondent – State itself shows that in case of allthe 42 circles of District – Osmanabad concerning the notified cropSoyabean, there was no actual loss suffered. This was because theactual yield in all the 42 circles of the District – Osmanabad was foundto be more than threshold yield. Therefore, this Court is unable toagree with the respondent – State that the petitioner – insurance 89 WP-11973-2022+ company was being rapacious while denying the claims raised by therespondent – State on behalf of the farmers. 155.On the basis of the material on record and the analysisand findings given herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that thepetitioner – insurance company has succeeded in making out its caseand that the respondent – State as well as the PIL petitioners have notsucceeded in proving their stand before this Court. 156.In that light, the writ petition deserves to be allowed andthe PIL needs to be dismissed.O R D E R157.In view of the above. Writ Petition No. 11973 of 2023 isallowed and it is declared that in the facts and circumstances of thepresent case, clause 21.5.10.1 of the ROG under PM Yojna applies. Inthe 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 therespondent – State has claimed further equivalent amount from thepetitioner – insurance company, is found to be unsustainable.Consequently, prayer clause (B) is granted and the impugnedcommunications / 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, alsostand disposed of. [ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/