Judgment : (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enforce and implement the insurance policy adopted by them and to allow the valid insurance claim of the petitioner by awarding Rs. One Lac to the petitioner along with 18 per cent interest from due date and also prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the letter dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4. 3. According to the petitioner, she is affected person because of unexpected accidental death of her son, which took place on 23.9.2005. Respondent no.1 is the Secretary of Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, which is 'the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which issued the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 for the benefit and safeguard of interests of family members of the farmers. Respondent no.2 is the Tahsildar, Parbhani, Taluka and District Parbhani, who is empowered to forward the claim to respondent no.4. Respondent no.3 is the Commissioner of Agriculture, Pune, who is having final authority for adjudication of the claims of the claimants in case of dispute and respondent no.4 is the insurance company, to whom the State of Maharashtra has paid the premium in connection with the personal insurance policy made for the benefits of the farmers and their family members, who reside in the State of Maharashtra. 4. Respondent no.1 issued Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005, which is produced at Exh.'A' (page 15) in respect of personal insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and their family members in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter respondent no.1 issued further Government Resolution on 31.3.2005 and thereby continued the afore said scheme of personal accident insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and their family members from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006, a copy of which is annexed at Page 25. Since the petitioner's son met with the accident and expired suddenly on 23.9.2005, she forwarded the claim to respondent no. 4 on 17.11.2005 through respondent no.2 Tahsildar with all necessary documents. However, respondent no. 4 rejected the said claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 27.1.2006, Exh. Since the petitioner's son met with the accident and expired suddenly on 23.9.2005, she forwarded the claim to respondent no. 4 on 17.11.2005 through respondent no.2 Tahsildar with all necessary documents. However, respondent no. 4 rejected the said claim of the petitioner vide communication dated 27.1.2006, Exh. 'B' (page 35) on the ground that deceased Nitin Dhondiram Mundhe was not a registered farmer. 5. The petitioner made representation to various authorities, such as the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner, Lok Ayukta, etc. and requested to redress her grievance and issued directions to respondent no.4 to grant her claim. Pursuant to the said representation, the Collector, Parbhani sent a letter to the Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006 and directed the Tahsildar to forward the documents/record for necessary compliance to respondent no.4 and a copy of the said letter is produced at Exh. 'C colly' (page 37). Moreover, the Tahsildar, Parbhani also issued a letter dated 5.4.2006 to respondent no.4 Exh. 'C colly' (page 38) stating that deceased Nitin Mundhe was a registered farmer and also requested to allow the valid claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner also sent a letter to respondent no.3 through advocate Shri Ghuge and apprised him about rejection of her claim by respondent no.4 vide communication dated 27.1.2006 and requested him to do the needful, in pursuance of Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and grant her amount of Rs. One Lac towards compensation as the heir and legal representative of her deceased son namely Nitin Mundhe, copy of which is produced at Exh. 'C colly' (page 39). 6. A meeting was held under the chairmanship of respondent no.3, which was attended by the representatives of respondent no.4 insurance company and it was decided in the said meeting that respondent no.2 Tahsildar was the competent authority to decide whether the deceased was registered farmer or not and it was a social welfare scheme for the benefit of family members of deceased farmers and their names should be sanctioned by respondent no.4 without entering into technicalities and copy of the minutes of the said meeting is produced at page 68. 7. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of her representation to respondent no.3 through the advocate Exh. 7. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of her representation to respondent no.3 through the advocate Exh. 'D' (page 39) and in spite of policy decision taken in the joint meeting held under the chairmanship of respondent no.3 along with the representatives of respondent no.4 company on 16.2.2006, respondent no.4 has not sanctioned the claim of the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS : 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the Government of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 in respect of personal accident insurance scheme for the benefit of about One Crore farmers and their family members in the State of Maharashtra and has paid the premiumof Rs. 6/- per farmer to respondent no.4 insurance company and respondent no.4 was to pay amount of Rs. One Lac to family members of the farmers on account of his death and Rs. 50,000/-to the farmer on account of sustaining disability and the said scheme was to be effective for one year. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by subsequent Government Resolution dated 31.3.2005 the period of said scheme was extended from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the son of the petitioner namely Nitin Mundhe succumbed to death on account of accident on 23.9.2005 I.e. during the afore said period and hence she is entitled for the claim of Rs. One Lac submitted by her to respondent no.4. 10. However, in spite of said position, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent no.4 insurance company by communication dated 27.1.2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner, contending that the son of the petitioner namely, Nitin Mundhe was not a registered farmer and, therefore, her claim was not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that a joint meeting was held under chairmanship of respondent no.3 on 16.2.2006, which was attended by representatives of respondent no.4 insurance company and policy decision was taken during the said meeting, wherein it was decided that respondent no.2 Tahsildar was the appropriate authority to decide whether the deceased person was registered farmer or not and it was also decided that the said scheme was a social welfare scheme beneficial to the family members of the farmer and respondent no.4 shall not enter into technicalities while granting the claims of the claimants. 12. It is submitted that accordingly the respondent no.2 Tahsildar sent a letter to respondent no.4 insurance company on 5.4.2006 and communicated that the petitioner's son I.e. Deceased Nitin Mundhe was a registered farmer as per the record of Tahsil office and instructed respondent no.4 to sanction the insurance claim of the petitioner as the heir and legal representative of deceased Nitin Mundhe. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the letter dated 5.4.2006 sent by respondent no. 2 to respondent no.4, respondent no.4 has not granted legitimate claim of the petitioner and hence the petitioner was compelled to approach to this court by filing present writ petition for the prayers as set out herein above. 13. Respondent no.2 filed affidavit in reply, sworn in by Mr. Khudabaksh Alekha Tadvi, working as the Tahsildar, Parbhani and supported the claim of the petitioner herein and submitted that the claim of the petitioner is based on the Government policy issued by the Agriculture Department vide Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005. He stated that son of the petitioner namely Nitin Mundhe died in accident. Hence, respondent no.4 insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the said accident as per terms of Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 submitted that the said Government Resolution, more particularly annexure 'B' thereof, describes necessary documents and conditions to become beneficiary of the said scheme. According to the said scheme, Rs. One Lac compensation is payable for death in accident, loss of both eyes and two parts of body, loss/disability of one eye or one part, etc. It is further submitted that the documents required are proof of farmers having entries in revenue record from 15 to 70 years and 7/12 extract or holding certificate under form 8-A', which indicates the name of the farmer and record in respect of entry in form no.6 recorded by the Tahsildar as heir of farmer. 14. It was further canvassed by respondent no.2 that according to the petitioner, her claim was forwarded to respondent no.4 along with necessary documents as required under the said scheme. It is further submitted that deceased Nitin Mundhe purchased the land Gut No. 369 through registered sale deed dated 14.7.2005. Entry of the said transaction was taken by mutation entry no. 946 recorded by Talathi of concerned village on 15.7.2005 and approved by Circle Inspector on 14.8.2005. It is further submitted that deceased Nitin Mundhe purchased the land Gut No. 369 through registered sale deed dated 14.7.2005. Entry of the said transaction was taken by mutation entry no. 946 recorded by Talathi of concerned village on 15.7.2005 and approved by Circle Inspector on 14.8.2005. Hence, it is canvassed that deceased Nitin Mundhe was recorded as farmer on 14.8.2005 and he died in accident on 23.9.2005 and therefore, at the time of his death he was holding land vide mutation entry no. 946 and, therefore, he is eligible and entitled for the claim of compensation. 15. As regards the contention of respondent no.4 for denial of the claim that deceased Nitin Mundhe was not registered farmer, it is submitted by respondent no.2 that the policy provides insurance cover to the farmers in the State of Maharashtra and petitioner’s claim is admissible as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. It is also submitted that the reasons stated by respondent no.4 in communication dated 27.1.2006 are incorrect and have no rational basis. Hence, respondent no.2 submitted that the Tahsildar, Parbhani sent letter on 5.4.2006 to respondent no.4 and conveyed to respondent no.4 that the assumption of insurance company about non-holding certificate as registered farmer is incorrect. It is specifically informed by the said letter that on recording name of farmer in form no.8-A and 7/12 extract is admissible entry. Therefore, claim of the petitioner was recommended by the Tahsildar, Parbhani and respondent no.4 ought to have considered the same. 16. It is further submitted by respondent no.2 that the insurance cover as claimed by the petitioner is in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and term 'registered farmer' used by respondent no.4 insurance company nowhere appears in the scheme. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the petitioner is eligible and entitled to claim compensation, her claim is required to be sanctioned by respondent no.4 insurance company. 17. Respondent no.4 filed affidavit in reply, sworn in by Shri Nilesh B. Ramchandani, Legal Manager of respondent no.4 company and opposed the present petition. It is submitted by respondent no.4 that the petitioner's son namely Nitin Mundhe was not covered under Janata Personal Accident Insurance Scheme which is meant for the farmers in the State of Maharashtra, as late Shri Nitin was not a registered farmer on the date of commencement of above said insurance policy. It is submitted by respondent no.4 that the petitioner's son namely Nitin Mundhe was not covered under Janata Personal Accident Insurance Scheme which is meant for the farmers in the State of Maharashtra, as late Shri Nitin was not a registered farmer on the date of commencement of above said insurance policy. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner’s claim is not admissible and therefore respondent no.4 declined the same. 18. It is canvassed that late Nitin purchased agricultural land on 22.6.2005 and the insurance policy commenced on 10.1.2005. Hence, on the date of commencement I.e. 10.1.2005 late Nitin was not a farmer. It is also submitted that as per Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and clause no.2.4, it is made clear that One Crore registered farmers, whose names have been registered have been covered under the policy for the registered One Crore farmers registered till the date of commencement of policy of insurance, the State of Maharashtra has paid the insurance premium of Rs.6/- per farmer. Hence, it is submitted that late Nitin Mundhe was not covered under the policy, as no premium was paid for him, as he was not registered farmer at the date of commencement of the policy, since he became farmer by purchasing agricultural land after the commencement of said insurance policy. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that present petition bears no substance and is devoid of any merits and same be rejected. 19. We have perused the contents of the petition and also perused the above referred annexures annexed therewith, as well as perused the impugned communication issued by respondent no.4 on 27.1.2006 and heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties anxiously. 20. The basis and foundation of the very scheme of personal accident insurance for farmers is the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and annexure thereof and the aims and objects of the said scheme have been spelt out in the said Government Resolution and the said scheme is meant for benefits of the farmers and their family members in the event of occurrence of accident and acquisition of disability to the farmers, which were estimated about One crore in the State of Maharashtra. As per clause 2.4 of the said Government Resolution, the compensation of Rs. As per clause 2.4 of the said Government Resolution, the compensation of Rs. One Lac has to be awarded on account of death of a farmer due to accident and compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded on account of acquisition of disability by farmer. 21. Moreover, as per clause no.14 of the said Government Resolution, it was contemplated that in the event of any dispute in respect of awarding the compensation, a committee shall be appointed under the Chairmanship of respondent no.3 i.e. Commissioner of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune and the said committee shall comprise of the representative of respondent no.4 insurance company and two Additional Commissioners of Revenue Department. By annexure ‘A’ of the said Government Resolution, compensation amount of Rs. One Lac was prescribed for the accidental death; by annexure ‘B’ thereof, terms and conditions of the beneficiaries have been prescribed; by annexure ‘C’ the eventualities which were not covered by the said scheme were detailed; by annexure ‘D’ various accidents were prescribed and the necessary documents to be annexed along with the claim were also prescribed; by annexure ‘E’ documents to be produced in case of disability were detailed; as well as annexure ‘E’ the procedure to be adopted by revenue department was prescribed; annexure ‘F’ the procedure for granting compensation by the insurance company respondent no.4 was prescribed and by annexure ‘M’ by Part I proforma of claim form was prescribed and by part II proforma of certified to be issued by Talathi was prescribed and by parts III and IV certificate to be issued by the Tahsildar was prescribed. 22. By issuance of further Government Resolution dated 31.3.2005, the said scheme was extended from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006. The accidental death of petitioner’s son namely Nitin Mundhe occurred on 23.9.2005 and therefore, the said accidental death of the petitioner’s son is very well covered under the afore said scheme. 23. Keeping in mind the afore said aspects and coming to the impugned communication dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4, in which respondent no.4 has taken the stand that late Nitin Mundhe was not registered farmer as per Tahsil record and therefore, declined to grant the claim of the petitioner for the compensation. 23. Keeping in mind the afore said aspects and coming to the impugned communication dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4, in which respondent no.4 has taken the stand that late Nitin Mundhe was not registered farmer as per Tahsil record and therefore, declined to grant the claim of the petitioner for the compensation. However, it is significant to note that the Government Resolutions dated 5.1.2005 and 31.3.2005, from where the said scheme of personal accident insurance emanates, nowhere whispers about the term, “registered farmer” and hence, the stand taken by respondent no.4. In communication dated 27.1.2006 is out of place and same is unwarranted, and therefore, the said communication dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4 insurance company deserves to be quashed and set aside. 24. Apart from that, as per clause 14 of the above referred Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005, a committee, under the chairmanship of respondent no.3 i.e. the Commissioner, Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune, was constituted, wherein the representatives of respondent no.4 insurance company were also members and meeting of the said committee was conducted on 16.2.2006 and the minutes of the said meeting have been annexed at page no.68 along with the present petition. The minutes of the said meeting dated 16.2.2006 are elaborate and are self-explicit, which reflect that the afore said scheme of personal accident insurance is a social welfare scheme and the said scheme is beneficial to the family members of the farmers in the event Karta of the family meets with an accident, resulting into stoppage of the income of the family. The said minutes further disclosed that the said scheme is not for the deceased farmer, but it is meant for the family members of the farmer and technical approach of respondent no.4 while granting the compensation and claim of the family members depriving them from it, is wrong and incorrect. It is further prescribed in the said minutes that as per Land Revenue Regulations of 1950, Tahsildar is the authority to issue certificate whether a person is farmer or not and officers of respondent no.4 insurance company shall not decide the said aspect. 25 Hence, in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner to the Collector and further in pursuance of the letter issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006 Exh. 25 Hence, in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner to the Collector and further in pursuance of the letter issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006 Exh. ‘C page 37 and the said FACTUAL MATRIX :-minutes of the meeting dated 16.2.2006, the Tahsildar, Parbhani issued a letter to respondent no.4 insurance company on 5.4.2006 page 38 and communicated to respondent no.4 insurance company that as per the record of Tahsil office, deceased Nitin Mundhe i.e. the son of the petitioner was a registered farmer and therefore, the Tahsildar recommended to respondent no.4 company to grant the claim of the petitioner for the compensation as the heir and legal representative of said deceased. However, it is apparent that respondent no.4 insurance company has not responded to the said letter positively, which exhibits the callous and perverse attitude of respondent no.4 insurance company. 26. Moreover, respondent no. 2 Tahsildar has pointed out through his affidavit in reply that deceased Nitin Mundhe had purchased land Gut No. 369 through registered sale deed dated 14.7.2005 and entry of the said transaction was taken by mutation entry no. 946 recorded by Talathi of concerned village on 15.7.2005 and same was approved by Circle Inspector on 14.8.2005. Hence, it is crystal clear that deceased Nitin Mundhe was recorded as farmer on 14.8.2005 before his death on 23.9.2005 and even from the said angle also the objection raised by respondent no.4 insurance company by the impugned communication dated 27.1.2006 bears no substance. 27. Besides, it is to be borne in mind that as per the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 as well as minutes of the meeting dated 16.2.2006 that the said scheme is social welfare scheme and it is beneficial to the family members of the farmers who expire in accidental death and respondent no.4 insurance company should not have adopted the technical approach while granting the claims of the family members of the deceased farmer for compensation, but still respondent no.4 insurance company has adopted obstructive attitude and deprived the petitioner from the claim of compensation, although, as stated herein above, the petitioner completed the necessary formalities and submitted the claim along with the necessary documents. Hence present petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘C’ with modification regarding the interest and ‘E’ thereof. Hence present petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘C’ with modification regarding the interest and ‘E’ thereof. Since due to obstructive attitude of respondent no.4, the petitioner was required to approach to this court, the compensatory costs are required to be saddled upon respondent no.4 insurance company. 28. Hence, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, present petition succeeds. 29. In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘C’ thereof with modification in respect of interest, which is awarded at the rate of 12 per cent from the due date. Moreover, present petition is also allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘E’ thereof. However, considering the negative and obstructive attitude of respondent no.4 insurance company and relying upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India, reported at (2005) 6 S.C.C. 344 , the compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000/- are imposed upon respondent no.4 to be paid to the petitioner along with claim amount within six weeks.