Natarajan V v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.21117 of 2021 V.Natarajan

...Petitioner

/Vs./ 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Joint Director, Agriculture Department, District Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District.

4.The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.119, Sathiyamoorthy Illam, Sekkalai Road, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

...Respondents

1/8

PRAYER:- Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to disburse the crops insurance amount to the petitioner in S.F.Nos.105/6A, 105/6D, 105/8B, 105/9B, 106/4, 115/2A, 121/2B, 95/2A2, 105/10 total extent of 01.57.5 Hectares situated at Paulkulam Village, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District insured with the 4th respondent under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for the year 2019-20 on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021 within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan (R1 to R3) Additional Government Pleader Mr.C.Karthik (R4)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to disburse the crop insurance amount to the petitioner under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme for the year 2019-2020 on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021 within the time stipulated by this Court.

2/8

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturalist, who had cultivated paddy, green gram, black gram, etc., during the year 2019 - 2020. Due to insufficient rain and failure of monsoon, there was scarcity of water and as a result, the petitioner incurred a loss. The further case of the petitioner is that he had paid the premium under the aforesaid scheme and he was awaiting the payment of the insurance amount. Since the insurance amount was not paid to the petitioner by the fourth respondent, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2023, this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent to take instructions and report before this Court.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent brought to the notice of this Court certain shocking facts. Page 4 of the typed set of papers filed in support of this writ petition contains the receipt that is said to have been issued in the name of the father of the petitioner and for proper appreciation, the scanned copy is placed hereunder:- 3/8

4/8

5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent produced the details of the concerned receipt number and it is found that the relevant receipt pertains to a farmer, named Nandagopal Perumal belonging to Cuddalore District. The actual receipt number is also mentioned in the document that was placed before this Court and for proper appreciation, the scanned copy is placed hereunder:- 5/8

6. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that when the bar code contained in page 4 of the typed set of papers was scanned, no details were forthcoming. Whereas, when the bar code for the receipt issued to the said Nandagopal Perumal was scanned, it provided the entire details.

7. It is clear from the above that the petitioner has attempted to make an insurance claim based on a forged receipt. It has been sufficiently demonstrated by the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that the receipt relied upon by the petitioner is a fabricated document.

8. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to proceed further against the petitioner by giving a police complaint before the concerned jurisdictional police for fabricating a false receipt and relying upon the same before the Court.

9. In the instant case, Section 340 of Cr.P.C., will not apply, since Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., will apply only when the offence is alleged to have been committed during the proceedings in a Court and the document was in custodia legis. The document in question was fabricated even before it was 6/8

brought before the Court and therefore, independent criminal proceedings must be initiated against the petitioner. The concerned jurisdictional police shall act upon the complaint given by the fourth respondent and proceed further in accordance with law. No costs.

21.11.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sm 7/8

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

sm TO:- 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Joint Director, Agriculture Department, District Collectorate, Sivagangai District.

3.The Tahsildar, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District.

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.21117 of 2021 Dated:

21.11.2023 8/8