APHC010428732014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Sixth Day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 5081 of 2014 Between: Gurram Veeraiah and others ...Petitioners and Prl. Secretary, Agriculture Cooperation and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. K.S.Murthy Associates Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Revenue 2. G.P. for Agriculture 3. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not paying 2 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 the amount of compensation to the petitioners for the loss they suffered in a fire accident at Chilli / Mirchi yard, Guntur, on 03.05.2008, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay the amount to the petitioners as per the initial evaluation and the proceedings of the respondent No.5 in R.C.No.90/2008-Suppl., dated 22.02.2009, along with penal interest @ 24% p.a. and to pass such other order as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a. The petitioners are the small farmers who have been cultivating the lands by taking small extent of lands on lease as their livelihood. The stock of chilli of the petitioners was taken to chilli market yard at Guntur to fetch good price. On 03.05.2008, there was a fire accident and the huge stock of mirchi was completely burnt. The respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.609, Agriculture and Cooperation (AM-IV) Department, on 21.05.2008 that the government had decided to assess the damage and suggest suitable compensation to the farmers whose stock was burnt in the accident. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 issued proceedings to conduct enquiry. A Grama Sabha was held and 37 genuine beneficiaries were identified. As per such identification, cheques were prepared. The petitioner No.1 lost 132 bags of chilli worth Rs.3,69,000/-. The petitioner No.2 lost 12 bags of chilli worth Rs.33,000/-. The petitioner No.3 lost 148 bags of chilli worth Rs.4,14,000/-. The petitioner No.4 lost 158 bags of chilli worth Rs.4,42,000/-. These facts were established during the enquiry. As such, cheques were prepared and given to the petitioners. However, the Upa Sarpanch of the Rentachintala Village demanded from the petitioners, money and loyalty to his faction. As the petitioners had not 3 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 heeded him, he bore grudge and influenced the authorities and the cheques were taken back. In the month of November 2008, the respondent No.5 issued proceedings stating that the cheques had been sent back. The petitioners made a representation to the respondent No.4 seeking further enquiry and reporting that the petitioners are ready to produce proof in support of their claim for compensation. The respondent No.4 entrusted the enquiry to another officer, who conducted enquiry afresh as per the direction of the respondent No.4. Pursuant to that enquiry, the respondent No.5 issued proceedings with the details of the land taken on lease and the owner of the land etc. The fact that the petitioners lost their stock was clearly established. In February 2009, the respondent No.5 issued proceedings to the respondent No.3 seeking release of the amount. The respondent No.3 has not responded though the petitioners met the committee. The petitioners got issued a legal notice in December, 2012. The respondent No.3 claimed that the amount had been returned and therefore, the amount cannot be paid to the petitioners. Then, the petitioners made another representation to the authorities, but in vain. Hence, this petition was filed. 3. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed counter admitting the occurrence of the major fire accident in the market yard, Guntur, on 03.05.2008 and the fact that the government announced compensation to the affected farmers at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per mirchi bag of 40 kgs and issuing G.O.Rt.No.609, dated 21.05.2008. It was further stated that a list of beneficiaries was prepared basing on the inward register of the market yard and the genuine farmers were identified for payment of compensation and that the petitioners Nos.1, 3 and 4 made representation to the respondent No.4 for compensation and they were 4 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 also held entitled to compensation and cheques were handed over to them, but, the cheques of the petitioners were returned to the Tahsildar / respondent No.5, and subsequent to re-enquiry by the respondent No.5, the cheques were not issued to the petitioners. Further, it is stated that the respondent No.5 submitted a letter vide R.C.No.90/2008/Supt, dated 01.11.2008, to the respondent No.4 after a re-enquiry conducted through Grama Sabha identifying 37 genuine farmers and paying Rs.43,93,200/- as compensation to them and that the petitioners were not genuine farmers and therefore, the balance amount of Rs.10,30,000 was returned to the Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Guntur, through demand drafts bearing Nos. 324348 and 324349 dated 17.10.2008. It is also mentioned that the respondent No.3 is not competent authority to release any amount of compensation directly to the farmers and that the revenue authorities had distributed the amount of compensation to the genuine farmers as per the procedure. Hence, the respondents requested to dismiss the petition. 4. The respondent No.3 filed a separate counter, reiterating the contents of the counter of the respondents Nos.1 and 2. 5. The respondent No.5 filed a separate counter for the respondent No.5 and also on behalf of the respondent No.4, while reiterating the contents of the counter of the respondents Nos.1 and 2, further stating that the petitioners sent their mirchi bags to the agriculture market yard at Guntur on 27.04.2008 through their private transport and as per the available records, their stock was also burnt in the fire accident occurred on 03.05.2008. The details of enquiry regarding the claim of the petitioners found in the enquiry are mentioned as below: 5 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 “Petitioner No.1: He had taken an extent of acs.3.50 cents in Sy.No.673 of Rentachintala Village from Pallerla Sanjeevareddy on lease basis and cultivated with chilli crop in his leased land and sent 132 chilli bags to Market yard to Guntur through lorry No.6598 on 27.04.2008. Petitioner No.2: He had taken an extent of Acs.3.02 cents in Sy.No.708/A etc of Rentala village of Rentachintala Mandal from P.Sanjeevareddy S/o Krishna Reddy resident of Rentachintala village on lease basis and cultivated with chilli crop in the year 2008 and sent 12 chilli bags to market yard Guntur through vehicle No AP 21 V 0464 on 27.4.2008. Petitioner No.3: He had taken an extent of acs.3.05 cents in Sy.No.789/1 etc of Rentachintala village from P.Sanjeevareddy S/o Krishn reddy etc resident of Rentachintala village on lease basis and cultivated with chilli crop in the year 2008 and sent 148 chilli bags to Market yard Guntur through vehicle No. AP 21 V 0464 on 27.4.2008. Petitioner No.4 : He had taken an extent of Acs.4.27 cents in Sy.No.708/B etc of Rentala village of Rentachintala Mandal from C. Narasimharao S/o Subbaiah resident of Rentachintala village on lease basis and cultivated with chilli crop in the year 2008 and sent 158 chilli bags to Market yard Guntur through lorry No.AP 21 0462 on 27.4.2008.” It is further stated that the disbursement of compensation amount could not be made to the petitioners due to the objection raised by the Upa Sarpanch of the Rentachintala Village and thus, the cheques given 6 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 to the petitioners had been returned. However, finally, these respondents also prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Sri.K.Guru Raj, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are genuine farmers and admittedly their claims were initially accepted even after thorough enquiry and the details were also furnished in the counter of the respondent No.5, yet, the claim was denied only at the instance of the then Upa Sarpanch of Rentachintala Village. 7. The learned standing counsel for the respondent No.3 filed a memo dated 26.09.2025 along with certified copies of the inward register of the Agriculture Market Committee, Guntur, with the entries relevant to the petitioners. The original record was also produced before this Court on 24.09.2025 as per the directions of this Court. 8. As the entries in the inward register of the Agriculture Market Committee, Guntur, support the claim of the petitioners as genuine and it was also initially found to be genuine when the respondent No.5 conducted enquiry before intervention of the Upa Sarpanch of Rentachintala Village, this Court is satisfied that the claim of the petitioners was duly enquired and found to be genuine, but, the payment of compensation was denied as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, it is a case fit to allow the writ petition. Admittedly, the amount payable to the petitioners is available with the respondent No.3 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to pay the amount of compensation, as earlier decided, to the petitioners with interest, if any accrued thereon till now, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners shall furnish the details of their bank account(s), if required 7 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to deposit the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 06.10.2025 RSD 8 W.P.No.5081 of 2014 31 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No: 5081 of 2014 Date: 06.10.2025 RSD