Madras HC Directs Agriculturist to Pay Insurance Premium Amount Payable Under the PMFBY Scheme

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

The Madras High Court on 27 November 2020, directed the petitioner to pay the insurance premium amount payable under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) Scheme for availing crop insurance amount for the year 2020-21 for the property, within a period of one week. The Court also informed that after receiving the insurance premium amount, the third respondent shall decide thereafter as to whether the petitioner is eligible for the crop insurance amount or not under the aforementioned Scheme.

Brief Facts of the Case 

In S. Ayyakannu vs. The District Collector, the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste community, is an agriculturist. He was eligible to avail crop insurance payment under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) Scheme, for his lands in S.Nos.110 and 111 of Silukkapatti Village in Kalayarkoil Taluk in Sivagangai District. The petitioner approached the third respondent from the year 2016 for paying the insurance premium under the scheme, but refused to receive the same. The last date for payment of insurance premium for the year 2020-221 is 30.11.2020. The petitioner gave a representation on 05.11.2020 to the respondents 2 and 3 in person requesting them to accept the insurance premium payable under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) Scheme. But despite the said representation, the respondents 2 and 3 refused to receive the insurance premium. In the said circumstances, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

Submission of the Petitioner 

The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that the last date for the payment of the insurance premium for the year 2020-21 is 30.11.2020. The respondents should be directed to receive the insurance premium from the petitioner and thereafter decide as to whether the petitioner is eligible for crop insurance amount or not.

Submission of the Respondent 

The learned Advocate of Government, who appeared for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for granting of the crop insurance amount under the said Scheme. He also did not produce the revenue records pertaining to his property for granting of the crop insurance amount under the aforementioned Scheme and that is the reason for the third respondent to refuse the receipt of the insurance premium from the petitioner. 

Observation of the Court 

The Court observed that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the insurance premium payable by the petitioner for availing crop insurance amount under the PMFBY Scheme, is paid for the year 2020-21. 

Order of the Court 

The Court directed the petitioner to pay the insurance premium amount payable under the  PMFBY Scheme for availing crop insurance amount for the year 2020-21 for his property, within a period of one week. After receiving the insurance premium amount, the third respondent shall decide as to whether the petitioner is eligible for the crop insurance amount or not under the aforementioned Scheme.

Click here to view the full judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -