Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 828 (KAR)

M. T. THIMMEGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-10-07

body2003
( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 30. 10. 2000 (Annexure-A) passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction directing the respondents to pay the compensation for failed well under the Failed Well Compensation Scheme with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from the date of eligible to till the payment is made. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: ( 2 ) THE petitioner is an agriculturist and having agricultural lands at Mirle Village, K. R. Nagar Taluk, Mysore District. He had applied for loan to the 3rd respondent-Bank for the purpose of digging of open well. The 3rd respondent has considered the request of the petitioner and sanctioned the loan on the basis of the Geological report. But unfortunately, the well had failed and no water borne. When things stood thus, the petitioner has filed an application before the 3rd respondent and other competent authorities on 11. 5. 1987, to grant benefits under the Central Government Sponsored scheme for II Assistance to failed wells Compensation Fund. In pursuance of the said application, the Verification committee has sent recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner in the committee meeting held on 21. 12. 1993. The Deputy Commissioner, without conducting enquiry whether the petitioner is a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) or not has passed the order rejecting the petitioners request only on the ground that the 1 petitioner is a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) and he is not entitle for the benefit under the Failed Wells Scheme sponsored by the Central Government by its order dated 7. 1. 1994 (Annexure-D ). The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 7. 1. 1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, has filed Writ petition before this court in No. 35077/1995. The said writ petition was allowed by this court on. 22. 9. 1997, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh. After the remand, the Deputy Commissioner has once again taken-up the matter for hearing. The said writ petition was allowed by this court on. 22. 9. 1997, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh. After the remand, the Deputy Commissioner has once again taken-up the matter for hearing. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file and after affording opportunity to the petitioner has rejected the petitioners request, for awarding compensation as provided under the Failed Wells Compensation Scheme, by referring the Notification dated 14th April 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Krishi Shavan, New Delhi, held that the petitioner being a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) is not entitled to seek compensation under the Failed Wells Compensation Fund by its order dated 30. 10. 2000 (Annexure-A ). Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30. 10. 2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1,2 and 4. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the specific direction issued by this court in Writ Petition No. 35077/1995 to determine whether the petitioner belongs to small farmer or big farmer and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner is not complied with by the 2nd respondent. Further he has submitted that no specific finding as such has been given by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner is a big farmer, except referring to some report of the Committee stating that he is a big farmer. The reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner for rejecting the petitioners request is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1,2 and 4, inter-alia, contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the Annexure-A and pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner has referred the Government Notification dated 14th April 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Krishi Shavan, New Delhi. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the Annexure-A and pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner has referred the Government Notification dated 14th April 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Krishi Shavan, New Delhi. Further he has submitted that as per Item No. 5 of the said Notification, the benefit is provided only to the Small Farmers, Marginal Farmers and Scheduled caste/scheduled Tribes borrowers as defined under the integrated Rural Development Programme. But, in the instant case, the petitioner is a big farmer and therefore, he is neither entitled to seek any compensation nor he comes within the purview of the said scheme introduced by the Central Government: Therefore, he has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is right in rejecting the petitioners claim for compensation. No error as such, has committed by the been Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) I have perused the materials available on record. After, carefully re-evaluating the materials available on record at threadbare, I do not find any error of law as such, has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the petitioners request for awarding compensation for the failure of the well. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering oral and documentary evidence and the report submitted by the concerned authority has given reasons for rejecting the petitioners request. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1,2 and 4 that, as per the Centrally Sponsored scheme of Assistance to the Failed Wells compensation Fund issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation Krishi. Shaven, New Delhi on 14th April, 1987, the petitioner is not entitled to seek compensation under that scheme. It is worth to extract the relevant portion at Item NO. 5 of the Notification dated 14th April 1987, which reads as follows: at Item No. 5: The State Government should provide matching contribution of 50% which should be credited into the failed wells compensation fund established for meeting the expenditure. It is worth to extract the relevant portion at Item NO. 5 of the Notification dated 14th April 1987, which reads as follows: at Item No. 5: The State Government should provide matching contribution of 50% which should be credited into the failed wells compensation fund established for meeting the expenditure. In view of the constraints of resources the Government of India, will restrict its assistance to cover only the cases of small farmers, marginal farmers and scheduled castes/scheduled tribes borrowers as defined under the integrated rural development programme. After careful perusal of the item No. 5 of the said Notification, it is crystal clear that under the said scheme only four categories of farmers are entitled for the benefits. The four categories are small farmers, Marginal farmers, Schedule caste and schedule Tribe borrowers as defined under the integrated Rural Development. In the instant case, it reveals from the record that, the petitioner is a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) and he is not entitled to avail the benefits under the said scheme. ( 7 ) IT is relevant to note here itself that the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-D, the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner on 7. 1. 1974 to the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Department of Co-operation. In the said report, it is stated that the petitioner is the holder of the following lands in Hanumanahalli: Sy. no. 134/1 measuring 4 acres 33 guntas, dry land sy. No. 34/2 measuring 0. 16 guntas dry land and sy. no. 137/3 measuring 0. 29 guntas of kushki land, totally measuring 5 acres 38 guntas of dry land. In Mirley village, the petitioner is the holder of II Sy. No. 339 measuring 1 acre 09 gutnas of wet land, sy. no. 939 measuring 2 acres 20 Quotas of wet land, and sy. no. 1118 measuring 0. 37 guntas of wet land, totally measuring 4 acres 35 guntas of wet land. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Veterinary Department and he is a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) and therefore, as per the Government Notification, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefits under the scheme, hence his application can be disposed of. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is a retired employee of the Veterinary Department and he is a big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) and therefore, as per the Government Notification, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefits under the scheme, hence his application can be disposed of. It is clear from the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka Department of Co-operation that, the petitioner is holding 5 acres 38 gutnas of dry land in Hanumanahalli and 4 acres 35 gutnas of wet land in Mirley Village and he does not come within the definition of small farmer, marginal farmer and he comes under the purview of big farmer (Dodda Hiduvalidara) and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefit provided by the Central Government Sponsored (Failed Scheme Wells Compensation Fund) as stated in his application dated 11th May 1987 as extracted above. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality -in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the materials available on record and the report submitted by the concerned officer has dismissed the request of the petitioner and the said dismissal is in accordance with law. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and. taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, the interference by this court is uncalled for. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .