Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra

W.P. No.11249/2022:: 4 ::5)Tahsildar, Pune City, NH4, 76/10, Shukrawar Peth, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Shukrawar Peth, PuneMaharashtra – 411 0026)District Superintendent AgriculturalOfficer, Central Administrative Building, 1st Floor, Hall No.65,Aurangabad Road, Osmanabad – 413 5017)Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation& Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, Krushi Bhavan, New Delghi – 110 001 … RESPONDENTS.......Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut, Advocate for applicant Mr. Soli Cooper, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Angad Kochhar, Mr. Vedant Kashyap, Advocates i/b Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate & Mr. Sanjay S. Dudhane, i/b Mr. A.R. Kale, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.2 to 6 - State Mr. S.S. Deve, Advocate holding for Mr. A.G. Talhar, D.S.G. for R.No.7....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Date of reserving judgment : 21st August, 2025Date of written notes submitted by parties : 10th September, 2025.Date of pronouncing judgment : 24th November, 2025 W.P. No.11249/2022:: 5 ::JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred for the following main reliefs : “This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass the following writs and directions : (a)Issuance of a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, setting aside and quashing the impugned directions issuedby respondents No.2 and 4 and annexed to the presentpetition as Exhibits – A, B, C, D, E and F;(b)Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction to the respondents to disbursecompensation to eligible and affected farmers strictly inaccordance with applicable law, as per the comprehensiveand detailed assessment and analysis carried out by thepetitioner based on the available NDRF data andcommunicated to the District Collector via letter of28/10/2022.(c)Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction in the nature thereof, to therespondents declaring that assessment of compensation tobe paid to eligible farmers must be only on the basis of thetotal affected area and not the total insured area aserroneously directed by the District Collector.(d)Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction in the nature thereof, restraining theDistrict Collector, Osmanabad and/or the other officialrespondents from taking any coercive steps against thepetitioner in furtherance to the Revenue Receipt Certificatedated 04/11/2022 annexed to the present petition as ExhibitF, or otherwise.(e)Issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to forthwith pay W.P. No.11249/2022:: 6 ::the balance subsidy of Rs.134,11,91,938/- (Rupees OneHundred Thirty Four Crores Eleven Lakhs Ninety OneThousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight only) to thepetitioner with 12% p.a. interest accrued thereon.”FACTS :2. The petitioner is an Insurance Company. Therespondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, while therespondent No.2 to 5 are the officials of the respondent No.1.The respondent No.6 is the Union of India. The respondentNo.7 was the petitioner in Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.)No.91/2021. He has been made party respondent on hisintervention application.3.The Prime Minister Fasal Beema Yojana (PMFBY)was introduced in the State of Maharashtra. The respondentState issued Government Resolution (G.R.) dated 29/6/2020for its implementation for Kharif Season 2020. The Union ofIndia issued Revamp Operation Guidelines (ROG) in relationto the PMFBY effective from Kharif Season 2020. Thepetitioner Company was selected as the Insurance Companyfor the purpose of implementing the PMFBY for the district ofOsmanabad for a period of three years commencing fromKharif Season 2020. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) W.P. No.11249/2022:: 7 ::was executed between the petitioner Company and therespondent State. The subject matter of the MoU and thispetition as well is post-harvest loss of Soyabean crop sufferedby agriculturists on account of heavy rains in October 2020.Three petitions, two PILs and one Writ Petition were filed forenforcement of the Insurance Contract (petitioner’s liability) topay compensation to eligible farmers. This Court, vide itscommon judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, disposed ofthose petitions with certain directions. The petitioner Companypreferred Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the saiddecision. It has, however, been unsuccessful therein.4.Since the petitioner Company did not comply withthe directions given by this Court vide its order dated 6/5/2022,the respondent No.2 issued the petitioner Companycommunication directing it to pay the amount of compensationas has been directed by this Court. The Tahsildar, on theinstructions of respondent No.2, issued Revenue RecoveryCertificates (RRCs) against the petitioner Company forrecovery of the amount of compensation, as arrears of landrevenue. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 8 ::5.As per the scheme, the respondents No.1 and 6were to pay the petitioner premium of insurance coverage. The insured farmers were also to pay their share of theinsurance premium on time. Both, the insured farmers and theUnion of India paid their respective shares. The respondentState has, however, not paid its second installment, said tohave been amounting to Rs.134,11,91,938. It was expected tomake the payment within a time-frame, lest the amount ofpremium was to carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date itbecame payable to the date of its actual payment. Thepetitioner Company has also prayed the same.6.This Court, vide its order dated 14/11/2022, grantedinterim relief restraining the State authorities to execute RRCs.The order was passed with a condition that the petitioner shalldeposit with this Court a sum of Rs.150 Crores. The order hasbeen complied with. In the meanwhile, Contempt Petitionswere filed against the petitioner Company for non-complianceof the order of the Apex Court in Contempt Petitions. TheContempt Petitions were disposed of with certain directions. According to the petitioner Company, the issue of its liability W.P. No.11249/2022:: 9 ::under the Insurance Contract stood concluded in view of thedecision of this Court, dated 6/5/2022 in those three Petitionsand the orders passed by the Apex Court in contemptproceedings.SUBMISSIONS : 7.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerCompany made oral submissions and has placed on recordwritten notes of arguments. He has also relied on the notes ofsubmissions dated 14/7/2023 filed pursuant to the leavegranted by this Court on the said date. According to thelearned Senior Counsel, the directions issued by the Stateofficial respondents were without jurisdiction, illegal and invalidas well. The directions and the demands issued by the StateGovernment and its officials to pay the amount ofcompensation on the basis of entire insured area wereerroneous and inconsistent with their stand in the earlier roundof litigation (PILs. and W.P.). Their stand was that thepetitioner Company was refusing to pay the compensation onthe basis of entire insured area but only making payment onthe basis of total affected area determined by the NDRF W.P. No.11249/2022:: 10 ::Survey reports. The Apex Court, after detailed hearing, dismissed the Contempt Petitions, discharging contemptnotices. Thus, the Apex Court did not consider the petitionerCompany to be in violation of its earlier orders and negated thestand of the State and its officials. It has been conclusivelydetermined that the total affected area was 208756.5 Hectorsand the total amount payable by the petitioner Company was@ Rs.18,000/- per Hector. The total amount payable by thepetitioner Company comes to Rs.375 Crores. The petitionerhas already paid Rs.300 Crores before the contemptproceedings were disposed of. 50% of the amount depositedby the petitioner Company pursuant to this Court’s order dated14/11/2022 was directed to be appropriated towards paymentof compensation to eligible farmers. The said order has alsobeen complied with.8.The petitioner has also urged in this petition forpayment of the balance amount of Rs.75 Crores, in depositwith this Court along with interest accrued thereon.9.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the stand W.P. No.11249/2022:: 11 ::of the respondent State as was depicted in its counter affidavitin one of the Contempt Petitions was that the petitionerCompany had not complied with the common judgment andorder dated 6/5/2022 of this Court. The petitioner Companyought to be directed to disburse compensation claims to theremaining agriculturists for their entire insured area. Based onarea approach methodology, total amount of compensationwas Rs.545.89 Crores. All these contentions have not beenaccepted by the Apex Court. The contentions in the affidavitdated 13/12/2022 filed by the official respondents weresubstantially identical to the affidavit dated 19/3/2023 filed bythem in Contempt Petitions. They were, therefore, estoppedfrom urging the same contentions as urged by them before theApex Court. According to learned Senior Counsel, theprinciple of estoppel by record (res judicata) would beapplicable with its full force. The learned Senior Counsel reliedon the following authorities to buttress his submissions asregards principle of res judicata (estoppel by record).11.The petitioner respectfully submits that theadjudication of the said disputed issues by the Hon’bleSupreme Court, which were raised based on thesubmissions advanced by the State Government as W.P. No.11249/2022:: 12 ::referred to above, operates as res judicata as betweenthe parties to the present writ petition and cannot bereagitated before this Hon’ble Court in view of thesettled legal principles laid down herein below :(i)Findings made in contempt proceedings attainfinality and operate as res judicata (NeelamegaBhatta Charyar Vs. Arulmighu Devenatha SwamyTemple Thiruvendhipuram, Judgment dated12/04/2013 in S.A.. No.702 of 2000 (para 16) –Annexure-A).(ii)Once an issue is decided on merits in contemptproceedings, it cannot be re-opened in any subsequentsuit or proceeding (Smt. Ranjeet Kour Vs. State of J.& K., Judgment dated 02/12/2023 in CFANo.05/2019 (para 23) – Annexure B and Sanjay G.Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 SCCOnLine Bom 204 (para 40) – Annexure-C).(iii)Principles of res judicata applies with equalforce on all questions which are expressly decided andalso the questions which must be deemed to have beendecided by necessary implication [Sanjay G.Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. state of Maharashtra 2004 SCConLine Bom (para 40) (supra)](iv)A relief claimed but not granted must be deemedto have been denied and it shall not be open for theparties to such proceedings to reagitate or reopen thesaid issue in another proceedings [Sanjay G.Khemuka (Dr.) Vs. state of Maharashtra 2004 SCConLine Bom (para 48) (supra)](v)the principles of res judicata are applicable indifferent stages of the same proceeding. [Sulthan SaidIbrahim Vs. Prakasan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218(para 54) – Annexure-D and Satyadhayan GhosalVs. Deorajin Debi, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 15 (paras7-8) Annexure-E]. In Satyadhan Ghosal, theHon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 7 that “the W.P. No.11249/2022:: 13 ::principle of res judicata is based on the need of givinga finality to judicial decisions. What it says is thatonce a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation andfuture litigation. When a matter-whether on a questionof fact or on a question of law-has been decidedbetween two parties in one suit or proceeding and thedecision is final, either because no appeal was taken toa higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, orno appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a futuresuit or proceeding between the same parties to canvassthe matter again.”(vi)Any previous judgment on a matter incontroversy decided after full contest by a courtcompetent to decide it will operate as res judicata in asubsequent proceeding [Gulabchand ChhotalalParikh Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1965 sc 1153 –Annexure-F]. 10.According to learned Senior Counsel, even theimpugned directions and issuance of RRCs could not subsistor survive in view of grant of compensation payable by thepetitioner to have been determined and crystalised by the ApexCourt in the Contempt petitions. He would further submit that, the State was barred and precluded from executing the RRCson any other extraneous plea or reason. In support of hiscontention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of theApex Court in case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. ChiefElection Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405. According to W.P. No.11249/2022:: 14 ::learned Senior Counsel, even otherwise, the claim of therespondent State fails on merit since it is contrary to Clauses21.6.6.4.2, 21.6.6.4.3 and 21.6.6.4.4 read with theGovernment Resolution dated 29/6/2020 (Clauses 10.5 and25.C.17 at Pages 129 and 178). According to him, since theinsurance contract is in the nature of indeminification, liabilityof Insurance Company could only be to the extent of actualloss suffered. According to him, it is only the affected area thathas to be considered and not the insured area, otherwise theprinciple of contract of insurance would stand negated. According to him, the stand of the State Government was alsocontrary to the operative directions in the common judgmentand order dated 6/5/2022, whereunder the petitioner Companywas directed to comply with the demand made in the letterdated 5/3/2021 and pay the compensation in terms of clause11.2-E-6 of the Government Resolution dated 20/6/2020.According to him, the NDRF data was needed to beconsidered for the purposes of identifying and compensatingthe affected agriculturists. Eligible agriculturists were to beidentified based on the panchanama of the affected area. According to him, clause No.11.2-E-2 to 11.2-E-5 needed to be W.P. No.11249/2022:: 15 ::read before interpreting clause E-6 thereof. The learnedSenior Counsel relied on the affidavit dated 13/12/2022 anddocument dated 18/10/2022, wherein names of agriculturistswith total area insured and area affected have been shown. According to learned Senior Counsel, the said documentreflect the actual area affected in respect of whichcompensation was to be determined. The same negates thestand of the official respondents, that compensation to be paidwas for total insured area. According to him, if the stand of therespondent State is accepted, it would lead to followingconsequences.“21. In conclusion, the stand of the officialrespondents, if accepted, would lead to thefollowing consequences :(i) The State Government would be guilty oftreating unequals as equals since agriculturists whointimated within time or even belatedly were paidcompensation based on actual loss/ damageassessment whereas the remaining agriculturistswould be paid compensation for their entire insuredarea despite the absence of NDRF data showing anypost-harvest loss suffered by them.(ii)Insurance is a contract of indemnity. Thus, aninsurance policy indemnifies loss against a specifiedperil on the occurrence of specified peril and uponconsequential damage. On the contrary, the stand ofthe official respondents would require payment of W.P. No.11249/2022:: 16 ::compensation merely on account of occurrence ofthe insured peril which if accepted would amount toa contract of wager that is illegal under the IndianContract Act, 1872.(iii)The State Government would be able tosubvert the essential principles of payment ofinsurance compensation under the PMFBY Scheme, which is that affected agriculturists should be paidcompensation for the actual loss suffered by them.(iv)The State Government would be able tocircumvent the binding and conclusive adjudicationby the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue ofpayment of compensation to the affectedagriculturists.”RRCs :11.The learned Senior Counsel first took us throughthe definition of the term, “land revenue” given in MaharashtraLand Revenue Code, 1966. Then he referred to the terms, “tohold land” or “the land holder” or “holder of land”. In short, according to learned Senior Counsel, the amount allegedlypayable by the petitioner towards compensation was neitherland revenue nor was on account of anything payable inrelation to an agricultural land or on account of interest therein. Section 168 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966was also relied on. According to learned Senior Counsel, theMoU does not contain a clause authorizing recovery of W.P. No.11249/2022:: 17 ::outstanding amount of compensation by issuance of RRC.According to learned Senior Counsel, the authorities relied onby the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent State werequite distinguishable on facts. He has dwelt at length todistinguish those authorities. We do not propose to dilatemuch on this issue since we are at one with the submissionsadvanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, inthis regard. 12.According to learned Senior Counsel, no insurercould assume any risk unless premium was paid to him. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 was referred to inthis regard in addition to the judgment of the Gujarat HighCourt in case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 1486.According to him, payment of subsidy/ second installment ofthe premium was a sine qua non for disbursement of theamount of compensation. Certain clauses of the G.R. andROGs were adverted to in this regard. Our attention was alsoadverted to a clause regarding payment of 12% interest incase of delay in payment of subsidy beyond three months of W.P. No.11249/2022:: 18 ::the due date. Communications made by the petitionerCompany, asking for payment of the outstanding insurancepremium were also adverted to. With all the aforesaid submissions, the learnedSenior Counsel urged for allowing the Writ Petition in toto.13.Learned Senior Counsel representing therespondent State too made oral submissions and placed onrecord a summary thereof. According to him, the issueinvolved in this Writ Petition regarding quantum of amount ofcompensation stood concluded vide judgment and order dated6/5/2022 passed by this Court. The observations in parasNo.55, 59, 64, 69, 75, 79 and the operative order have all beenreproduced in his written submissions. According to him, reference to NDRF norms in the earlier round of litigation wasin the nature of considering the percentage of loss to the cropsduring Kharif Season 2020. The NDRF data was the basis forconcluding that, there was loss of more than 33% andtherefore, considering the crop insurance scheme, therequirement was of loss more than 25%. Therefore, it is onlyin these circumstances, the said NDRF data was referred to W.P. No.11249/2022:: 19 ::before this Court and it has nothing to do with the area. Thepetitioner Insurance Company itself has considered andgranted full claims/ compensation to the agriculturists who hadgiven intimations within 72 hours. The Insurance Companypaid the claim amount for total insured area of eachagriculturist as per the data provided by them. Therefore, theInsurance Company is now estopped from contending that, itwill consider the claims of the insured agriculturists only to theextent of 2 Hector as per the NDRF Norms. The petitionerInsurance Company is subsequently in order to disobey thedirections issued by this Court in PIL No.91/2021 is trying tomisread and misinterpret the reference of NDRF Norms in thejudgment after dismissal of their SLPs.In view of the fact that, the petitioner InsuranceCompany has granted compensation for total insured area toinitial 64953 agriculturists for total 65746.70 Hectors of land, the remaining agriculturists are also entitled to receivecompensation for total insured area. Therefore, the contentionnow tried to be raised that, the remaining agriculturists asdirected by this Court by judgment and order dated 6/5/2022 W.P. No.11249/2022:: 20 ::will not be paid for the whole insured area of each individualagriculturist cannot be accepted. It amounts to disobeying thedirections issued by this Court.14.According to the learned Senior Counsel, thecontentions made on behalf of the petitioner Company asregards the issue to have been concluded by order dated19/5/2023, passed by the Apex Court, is misconceived. Ourattention was adverted to the order passed by the Apex Courtin the Contempt Petition, whereunder the balance amount indeposit with this Court is to be dealt with in terms of decision tobe given in the present Writ Petition. Meaning thereby, theorder passed in the Contempt Petition kept the issue open fordecision in the present petition. The written notes ofarguments contain the summary with regard to the claims paidand yet to be paid by the petitioner Company. It reads thus : Sr.No.ItemFarmersArea inhectorTotal balanceamount to bedeposited inCrores1.Total amount required as per post-harvest claim (Area X Rs.18000/- ha.) as per order of Hon’ble Court333412285847.06514.12aAs per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29/9/2022 in Special Leave Petition 10391/22. The 201.34 Pg. 912SLP Order-: Total areainsured3,51,593.76Hector W.P. No.11249/2022:: 21 ::amount received by District Collector as on dated 19/10/2022bAs per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14/11/2022 in Special Leave Petition 10391/22. The amount received by District Collector as on dated 30/11/202212.42Pg. 998 : Company letter28/10/2022-: Already paidinsured area65,746.70HectorcAs per order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19/5/2023 in Contempt Petition 682/22 in Special Leave Petition 10391/22. Theamount received by District Collector as on dated 31/7/2023 75.00Pg. 1212SC order-: Remainingarea to be paid 2,85,847.06HectordThe total amount received from insurance company afterthe order of Hon’ble SupremeCourt (a+b+c) dated 19/5/2023288.77Pg.1275Gov. replyeBalance amount yet to be paid225.7515.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Statebeing the implementing authority, has every right to recover theamount of compensation as land revenue as it gets covered bythe definition of the land revenue. He relied on the followingauthorities in justification of issuance of RRCs.1)The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax & ors. [2006 (6) BOM.C.R. 186]2)M/s R.S. Rekchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1997 SC 2591]3)The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha [AIR 1960 SC 610]4)P. Kasilingam & ors. Vs. P.S.G. College of Technology & ors. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 22 ::[AIR 1995 SC 1395]5)Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly division, Bareilly & ors. [2010 (4) SCC 728]6)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & ors. [AIR 1998SC 588]16.According to learned Senior Counsel, in a meetingdated 17/12/2021 of State Level Coordination Committee, itwas resolved that, remaining premium subsidy would not bereleased to the Insurance Company until the issue wasresolved. The said meeting was attended by the representativeof the petitioner Company. The said resolution has not beenchallenged till date. The petitioner Company would, therefore, be estopped from raising the said issue in the present petition. According to him, in any case, the petitioner Company couldnot absolve itself of it’s liability in view of directions issued inthe earlier round of litigation in PIL No.91/2021. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 17.The learned counsel for respondent No.7 (originalpetitioner in PIL No.91/2021) would submit that, the issueregarding quantum of compensation stood concluded vide W.P. No.11249/2022:: 23 ::judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, passed in PILNo.91/2021. The SLP preferred against the said decision wasdismissed. The State authorities took steps for execution ofthe said order. The present Writ Petition was, therefore, notmaintainable, which is basically in the nature of review. Thelearned counsel urged for directing the petitioner Company topay the amount of compensation with interest thereon.18.We have considered the submissions advanced. Perused the documents relied on. PMFGY was introduced inthe State. The State Government took steps for itsimplementation. MoU was entered into between the petitionerCompany and the respondent State, in this regard. Thepetitioner Company undertook to compensate farmers whohave insured their lands against post-harvest loss or damagelikely to be suffered by them to Soyabean crop on account ofdownpour or other natural calamities. There were heavy rainsin October 2020, causing severe loss/ damage to agriculturalproduce including Soyabean. The subject matter of thispetition is a post-harvest loss of Soyabean crop harvested andgathered by the farmers on their respective lands. For W.P. No.11249/2022:: 24 ::enforcement of the petitioner Company’s liability under theMoU, two PILs and one Writ Petition were filed. This Court, byits judgment and order dated 6/5/2022, disposed of thosepetitions with a common order, which reads thus : A. In P.I.L.No.91 of 2021 respondent No. 7 and inP.I.L.No.64 of 2021 the respondent No. 6 are directedto sanction and grant compensation/claim for postharvest loss caused to the soyabean crop in Kharipseason 2020 to the remaining 357287 agriculturists inOsmanabad district. If the said amount is not paid bythe insurance company within a period of six (06)weeks from today, the State Government is directed topay such claim for compensation for post harvest losscaused to the Soyabean crop in Kharip season 2020 toremaining 357287 agriculturists of Osmanabad districtwithin a period of six (06) weeks thereafter. Theinsurance company is further directed to comply withthe directions of the State Government issued by itsletter dated 05th March, 2021. B. In Writ Petition No.6859 of 2021, therespondent No. 6/insurance company is directed togrant and disburse the crop insurance claims of thepetitioners and all other entire eligible agriculturists inOsmanabad district as provided in Clause 11.2E-6 ofthe Government Resolution dated 29th June, 2020within the time prescribed in the G. R. dated29.06.2020. C. P.I.L.No.91 of 2021, P.I.L.No. 64 of 2021 andWrit Petition No.6859 of 2021 are allowed inaforesaid terms.”19.The SLPs. preferred by the petitioner Company W.P. No.11249/2022:: 25 ::against the aforesaid judgment and order stood dismissed withthe following order : “The connected matters arising from the judgment andorder presently under challenge were dealt with byorder dated 5/9/2022, which order is reproducedhereunder for facility.“Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, learned Senior Advocatehas relied upon the counter affidavit filed onbehalf of Respondent No.2 in the instant SpecialLeave Petitions. He has also invited our attentionto paragraphs 75 to 80 of the order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court which ispresently under challenge. Having considered the entirety of the matter, inour view, the conclusions drawn by the HighCourt do not call for any interference in ourjurisdiction under Article 136(1) of theConstitution. The instant Special Leave Petitionis, therefore, dismissed. The amount of Rupees Two hundred crores whichwas deposited in the Registry of this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon shall now beremitted to the credit of District Treasury, Osmanabad, Maharashtra and the disbursementfrom and out of said sum as well as of anyadditional sums shall be done strictly inaccordance with law under the supervision of theDistrict Collector. The entire exercise shall be undertaken andcompleted within three weeks from today.”Later, certain clarifications were issued vide orderdated 29/9/2022, in said matters. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 26 ::The instant petition being fully covered by the orderissued by this Court on 5/9/2022 as clarified on29/9/2022, are disposed of in identical terms. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”20.Since the petitioner Company did not comply withthe judgment and order dated 6/5/2022 passed by this Court inthose three Petitions, the State authorities took coercive stepsfor recovery of the amount of compensation, by issuing RRC.A short question that falls for consideration in this petition is asto interpretation of the operative order dated 6/5/2022, passedby this Court in those three Petitions. There can be no twoviews over the submissions advanced by the learned counselrelying on the host of the authorities (referred to hereinabove)on the principle of res judicata. The respondents herein alsodo not dispute the same. According to them, the issue raisedin this petition in fact stood concluded vide judgment and orderdated 6/5/2022 itself. We, therefore need not dilate on thisaspect (res judicata) of the matter.21.Moreover, the order passed by the Apex Court inthe contempt proceedings (referred to hereinabove) has keptthe issue open for decision in the present Writ Petition. The W.P. No.11249/2022:: 27 ::order reads thus :“During the course of hearing, the petitioner hadcontended that payments disturbed to the 72,000admitted agriculturists was on the basis of the figure ofRs.18,000/- per hectare. This was not disputed byBajaj. Upon consideration it appears that the totalfigure would work out to be approximately Rs.375Crores. It is evident that as of today, in compliancewith the impugned order, Bajaj has deposited a sum ofRs.300 Crores. As stated earlier, the total affected areais 208756.5 hectares. On a broad calculation of theoutgoing at Rs.18,000/- per hectare, the total figure isRs.375 Crores.It is also a matter of record that Bajaj has depositedRs.150 Crores before the Aurangabad Bench, BombayHigh Court on 21/11/2022 (in terms of the order dated14/11/2022 in W.P. No.11249/2022). In thesecircumstances, it is hereby directed that the sum ofRs.75 Crores may be duly appropriated and accountedfor as payment and consequentially disbursed to theeligible farmers by the respondent State ofMaharashtra from the amount deposited in W.P.No.11249/2022. The balance of Rs.75 Crores shall beretained in the Registry of the High Court awaitingfinal appropriation in terms of the order to be made inthe writ petition, on its merits.”22.We are conscious of the fact and legal positionthat, contract of insurance is in the nature of indemnification. Liability of insurer would only be in case of loss or damagesuffered by the insured/ beneficiary under the contract ofinsurance. In the case in hand, although it was a contract W.P. No.11249/2022:: 28 ::between the petitioner and the State of Maharashtra, theinsured were agriculturists in Osmanabad district. Admittedly, those agriculturists paid their contribution of insurancepremium.23.It is true, in the affidavit-in-reply filed in theaforementioned three Petitions and the oral submissions madeon behalf of the respondent State therein, it was specificallystated/ admitted that there were total 457216 affectedagriculturists and the affected area was 208756 Hectors. There was loss of more than 33%. It is true that the factualobservations made in the judgment or order are presumed tobe correct, unless shown otherwise. It is also true that, saidstatement amounts to an judicial admission. Such admissionsstand on higher footing. The admissions are, however, notconclusive proof. An admission can be explained or proved tobe wrong. It can also be successfully withdrawn. The fact, however, is that, in view of the operative order passed by thisCourt in aforesaid three Writ Petitions on 6/5/2022, theevidence and pleadings therein stood merged therein. Admittedly, the petitioner Company preferred SLPs. against W.P. No.11249/2022:: 29 ::the said judgment and order. The SLP stood dismissed. Assuch, the order dated 6/5/2022 attained finality. Relevantclauses of the Government Resolution dated 29/6/2020 needto be adverted to. Clause No.10.5 thereof speaks ofdetermining post-harvest compensation. It reads as under :“10.5) Determining post-harvest compensation. Compensation will be given on individual levelin case of damage from hailstorm, cyclone, hurricaneand unseasonal rains up to a maximum of 2 weeks(14 days) from harvest only for the notified cropsharvested in the notified area and spread for drying. Under this provision, unseasonal rainfall means thatthe risk is applicable only if the district receives morethan 20% of the average rainfall of that month’s long-term rainfall and the damage found in thepanchanama on an individual level.”24.While clause 11.2-E is very much relevant in thiscase, which reads thus : “E) Determination of loss and submission ofreport :1)Within 48 hours from the date of receipt ofinformation by the insurance company, a supervisorshould be appointed according to the prescribedexperience and educational qualification criteria todetermine the assessment of loss. It requires adiploma in any subject and two years experience ora degree in agriculture and allied subjects and oneyear experience. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 30 ::2)Survey of crop loss will be done through jointcommittee which will include supervisor ofinsurance company, agriculture officer at talukalevel and concerned farmers.3)Damage report should be prepared within next10 days.4)Compensation should be paid within 15 daysafter receipt of the loss report (subject to thecondition that the insurance premium has been paid).5)For post-harvest risk, if the affected area ofthe notified crop is more than25% of the total sownarea, then all eligible farmers in the notified areawill be eligible for post-harvest compensation. Theamount of loss will be decided by the insurancecompany on the basis of the sample surveyconducted by the joint committee.6)For local disaster risk, if the affected area isup to 25% of the notified insurance area, then atindividual level and more than 25%, then eligiblefarmers in the notified area (participating in theinsurance scheme and giving advance notified ofthe loss of pigs) will be liable for compensation. Marathi version reads thus :६) स्थानि(cid:6)कआपत्तीच्याजोखि(cid:17)मीकरि(cid:20)ता, ज(cid:20) बाधि(cid:24)तक्षेत्रहेअधि(cid:24)सूधि त नि!माक्षेत्राच्या२५टक्केपय&तअसेलत(cid:20)!ैयनि)कस्त(cid:20)ा!(cid:20) !२५टक्के पेक्षाजास्तअसेलत(cid:20)अधि(cid:24)सूधि त क्षेत्रातीलपात्रशेतकऱ्यां(cid:6)ा(नि!मा योज(cid:6)ेतसहभागीझालेले!निपका े(cid:6)ुकसा(cid:6)नि!निहत!ेळेतपू!2सू (cid:6)ानि3लेले) (cid:6)ुकसा(cid:6)भ(cid:20)पाईसपात्रठ(cid:20)ेल.7)Within 15 days after receipt of the loss report, the insurance company will pay the allowablecompensation.8)If the compensation determined on the basisof average yield received at the end of the season W.P. No.11249/2022:: 31 ::(based on crop harvesting experiment) is more thanthe compensation received under post-harvestcompensation, the difference in the compensationwill be paid to the farmers. However, if the post-harvest compensation is higher, the difference willnot be recovered from the farmers. 25.Admittedly, the affected area of the notified cropwas more than 25%. The petitioner Company, in its writtensubmissions, relied on the very clause with a rider that clause11.2.E-2 to 11.2.E-5 thereof reveal that post-harvestcompensation would be payable to the eligible agriculturistswho have suffered loss or damage and not all insuredagriculturists. It is also true that, in Exh.R-1 (dated18/10/2022), name of agriculturists with total insured area withtotal affected area has been shown. It is also true that, insome of the documents, the affected area is appearing lesserthan the insured area. The petitioner Company, appears to bejustified in contending that its liability is restricted only to theextent of actual loss suffered, subject to the maximum ofRs.18,000/- per Hector.26.The issue, however, stood concluded in view of thejudgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid W.P. No.11249/2022:: 32 ::three Writ Petitions. The operative orders direct the petitionerInsurance Company to grant and disburse the crop insuranceclaim of the petitioners therein and all other entire eligibleagriculturists in Osmanabad district, as provided in clause11.2E-6 of the Government Resolution dated 29/6/2020. Thesaid clause has already been referred hereinabove. As per thesaid clause, if the affected area is more than 25%, then all theeligible farmers in the notified area will be entitled to receivecompensation. The SLPs. preferred against the judgment andorder in the aforesaid three Writ Petitions have beendismissed. As such, the order directing the petitionerInsurance Company to pay the compensation in terms of theaforesaid clause (6) attained finality.27.The Division Bench, while deciding the Petitions, observed in its judgment:-“55.A perusal of the record indicates that theGovernment had collected total data throughCollector and prepared data of different crops andsubmitted to the Divisional Commissioner. Thesaid report submitted by the Collector wouldindicate that there was more than 33% loss caused.. . . . . . . . W.P. No.11249/2022:: 33 ::59.Be that as it may, the insurance company hasnot disputed that loss was suffered by more than33% and accordingly State Government directedthe insurance company to pay the claims of theagriculturists. The agriculturists had approachedthe State Government collectively in view of thefact that the State Government was nodal agencybetween the agriculturists and insurance company. All the agriculturists in the Osmanabad districtwere severely affected and thus there was noquestion of any individual claim.. . . . . . . 64.Thus, it is an admitted position that, thoughin large number of cases intimation was not givenby the agriculturists individually within 72 hoursof the losses, the insurance company has paid thoselarge number of agriculturists and waived theirrights under the said scheme. On one hand, it isthe case of the insurance company that thepayments were made by the insurance company onthe basis of data/ material made through theGovernment agencies or collected during thesurvey at adjoining lands were considered alongwith weather report and payment of compensationwas made in view of the special instructions fromthe Government to entertain all the intimations oflosses irrespective of breach of timeline under thescheme. On the other hand, in respect of theseagriculturists who are the petitioners in the writpetition and large number of other agriculturistsare denied payment on the ground of theseagriculturists not having individually intimated theloss within 72 hours from the date of incident. Inour view, the action on the part of the insurancecompany not to release the payment ofcompensation is discriminatory, arbitrary andwithout any reasonable basis. The impugnedaction on the part of the insurance company is inviolation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 34 ::. . . . . . . 69.We are inclined to accept the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the petitionersthat, the insurance company is liable to grantclaims of eligible agriculturists as per clause11.2E-6 of the G.R. dated 29/06/2020, as the losscaused was more than 25% of the notified area. The individual agriculturist was not required tointimate the insurance company of his loss within72 hours from the date of such loss suffered by theagriculturist.. . . . . . . 75.The said Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojanawas being implemented in the State with an objectto provide financial support to agriculturistssuffering crop loss/ damage arising out ofunforeseen events, stabilizing the income ofagriculturists to ensure their continuance infarming, ensuring flow of credit to the agriculturalsector. The State Government has acknowledgedthe payment of premium paid by the agriculturistsand that total 520175 Hector area had beencovered under the said scheme. In para No.7 of itsaffidavit it is admitted by the State Governmentthat agriculturists who intimated their loss throughagriculture department and even after 72 hours ofnatural calamity were also honoured andcompensated. The insurance company was alsoinstructed to determine the compensation based onthe loss intimation received in offline modethrough Agriculture Department after 72 hours ofthe calamity. A total of 72325 agriculturists werecompensated by the insurance company by payingaggregate amount of Rs.87.87 Crores.. . . . . . . W.P. No.11249/2022:: 35 ::79.The additional affidavit in reply filed by theinsurance company clearly indicates that they haveimplemented the directions issued by the StateGovernment partly and in respect of large numberof selective claims and have taken unreasonablestand in respect of balance agriculturists. Theinsurance company cannot be allowed todiscriminate two sets of agriculturists similarlysituated.”28.It is true that, in the contempt proceedings, theApex Court calculated the amount of compensationconsidering the quantified affected area. It has, however, keptthe issue open for decision in the present Writ Petition. It,therefore, could not be said that the order passed by the ApexCourt in the contempt proceedings gave finality to the issueinvolved. In our view, the principle of res judicata will come inthe way of the petitioner Insurance Company, although in theearlier Writ Petition the respondent State authorities stated onaffidavit the actual affected area to have been lesser than theone for which the petitioner Insurance Company is sought tobe directed to pay compensation. Admittedly, it was ofcompensation to be paid for post-harvest loss of the Soyabeancrop gathered/ stored on the respective lands. It is reiterated, the affected area was admittedly more than 33%. By virtue of W.P. No.11249/2022:: 36 ::clause (6) referred to hereinabove, no actual loss was, therefore, expected to be assessed/ surveyed. Each andevery farmer insured under the Scheme for the loss ofSoyabean crop was entitled to receive compensationamounting to Rs.18,000/-. The respondent authorities, therefore, rightly calculated the amount as Rs.18,000/-multiplied by the number of farmers affected. We areconscious of the legal position that in case of contract ofinsurance, it being in the nature of indeminification, liability ofinsurance company is necessary to the extent of actual losssuffered. The fact is, however, the petitioner InsuranceCompany itself, in view of the terms of Memorandum ofUnderstanding, agreed to pay the amount of compensationwithout going for assessment thereof in case the affected areais more than 33%. Even though the State authorities hadcome with a case in the earlier Writ Petitions that loss was tobe assessed in terms of NDRF norms, the issue stoodconcluded in view of the decision of this Court in PILNo.91/2021, the same could not be reopened. The reasonbehind the parties to have agreed upon to pay compensationin terms of clause (6) is logical and rational as well when due W.P. No.11249/2022:: 37 ::to heavy rains, harvested Soyabean crop gets damaged, itwould be impossible, (at least difficult) to quantify the losssuffered. Be that as it may, when the petitioner InsuranceCompany agreed to pay the insured farmers a sum ofRs.18,000/- without there being assessment of actual loss, andthe issue to have been concluded, the petitioner InsuranceCompany could not be heard to say that its liability would berestricted to the actual affected area. More so, when it hasalready paid the farmers, who gave intimation within 72 hours, compensation @ Rs.18,000/- per hector without ascertain theactual loss suffered.29.The prayers (in common) in both the PILNos.91/2021 and 64/2021, decided on 6/5/2022 arereproduced below(B)The insurance company and respondents may kindlybe directed to compensate or to pay the sum insuredto all the insured farmers of Osmanabad District fortheir all the insured crops of Kharif Season 2020.ISSUE OF REVENUE RECOVERY CERTIFICATES (RRCs)30.Admittedly, the respondent No.4 Tahsildar, on thedirections of the respondent No.2 Collector, issued RRCs W.P. No.11249/2022:: 38 ::against the petitioner Insurance Company. Those certificateshave been issued for recovery of the amount payable underthe contract of insurance. We do not propose to dwell atlength on this issue since admittedly, the amount sought to berecovered was neither a land revenue, nor an amount payableto the State Government in relation to the agricultural land. Moreover, there is no statutory provision nor a term in acontract of insurance to recover such amount by issue ofRRCs. In our view, addressing the said issue with reference tothe relevant provisions of MLRC etc. would be nothing short ofa show off on our part. More so, when the Division Bench ofthis Court, after this judgment was reserved, has decided thesame issue between the same parties (petitioner InsuranceCompany and the respondent State, in Writ PetitionNo.11973/2022), that the amount payable under the contract ofinsurance could not be recovered by taking recourse toSection 162 of the MLRC. We have perused the saidjudgment, and are in respectful agreement therewith. In ourview, therefore, the action of the State authorities in issuanceof RRCs is illegal and unsustainable. To this extent, the WritPetition deserves to be allowed. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 39 ::State Government’s liability to pay the outstanding amount of premium/ subsidy : 31.The respondent State does not dispute its liabilityto pay second installment of the insurance premium. It is alsotrue that, in view of Section 64V-B of the Insurance Act, 1938,it is statutorily provided that, no insurer can assume any riskunless the premium is paid. It is also true that, in view of theterms of Memorandum of Understanding, the respondent Statewas supposed to pay the second installment well before thepetitioner Insurance Company assumes its risk.32.In the meeting dated 17/12/2021 of the State LevelCoordination Committee, which was attended by a responsiblerepresentative of the Insurance Company, it was resolved that, the remaining premium/ subsidy would not be released to thepetitioner Insurance Company till the issue gets resolved. Inview of this resolution, the respondent State was justified in notreleasing the second installment of the subsidy/ premium infaovur of the petitioner Insurance Company. Necessarily, thepetitioner would also not be entitled to claim 12% of interest onthe said amount on account of delay in payment thereof in W.P. No.11249/2022:: 40 ::spite of there being a clause to pay interest @ 12% p.a.33.For the reasons stated hereinabove, the WritPetition is partly allowed in terms of the following order :O R D E R(i)The Writ Petition is partly allowed.(ii)The Revenue Recovery Certificates issued by therespondent No.4 Tahsildar for recovery of the amount, are hereby set aside.(iii)The sum of Rs.75 Crores in deposit with this Courtalong with interest accrued thereon be paid to therespondent State for being paid to the eligible farmers.(iv)We hope that, the amount of second installment of thesubsidy/ premium to be paid by the respondent State tothe petitioner Insurance Company, would beappropriated towards payment of compensation to theeligible agriculturists. (v)The directions in the above clauses (iii) and (iv) to beimplemented after a period of two months from the dateof this order. W.P. No.11249/2022:: 41 ::(vi)In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, Civil ApplicationNo.16984/2022 stands disposed of.(vii)Since no substantive Writ petition has been filed by theapplicant Prashant Achyutrao Lomate (in CivilApplication No.10719/2023), Civil ApplicationNo.10719/2023 stands disposed of. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) FMPathan/-