P. MANIMARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGAPATTINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr.A.R.Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, learned State Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondents and Mr.J.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the farmers of Keezhaputhanur village were victims of Gaja cyclone and they sustained a huge loss. However, they were not paid compensation under the Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana. Agriculturists of neighbouring villages were paid compensation under the said scheme. According to the learned counsel, in the status report filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam, erroneously, it has been mentioned that four crop cutting experiments were conducted. However, only two crop cutting experiments were done. He relies upon Form II annexed with the petition.

(3.) According to the learned State Government Pleader, four crop cutting experiments were jointly conducted by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Department of Revenue along with Insurance company officials. As the Actual Yield was more than the Threshold Yield, agriculturists of Keezhaputhanur village were not entitled for the benefit of Pradhan Manthiri Fasal Bima Yojana.