Authority must decide hailstorm crop-compensation claims after hearing competing title claimants.

The petitioners, claiming to be agriculturists in possession of land comprised in Survey Nos. 197, 246/2 and 247, admeasuring 1.78 hectares, and Aaraji Survey Nos. 201, 248 and 207, admeasuring 3.49 hectares, sought compensation for crop damage caused by hailstorms during 2023–24.

The title to the land was already sub judice before the Supreme Court and the High Court.

The petitioners contended that, irrespective of the pending title dispute, they were bona fide agriculturists who had cultivated the land and whose crops had been destroyed.

They had submitted a representation seeking compensation, but the authorities had not decided it under the applicable Revenue Book Circular.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that compensation had already been paid to the bona fide owners and that the petitioners had failed to implead the persons claiming title, who were necessary parties.

Whether the petitioners’ representation seeking compensation for hailstorm-related crop damage should be considered despite the pending dispute regarding title and possession of the land.

Whether the petition could be decided without impleading the persons claiming title to the property as party respondents.

Whether the competent authority should decide the petitioners’ entitlement to compensation after hearing the interested title claimants.

The Court referred to the compensation framework under the Revenue Book Circular, Block 6, No. 4, Schedule 1, governing relief for crop loss caused by natural calamities such as hailstorms.

The Court applied the procedural principle that persons claiming title or having an interest in the disputed property must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before an administrative decision affecting their competing claim is made.

Since the petition involved disputed facts regarding title, possession, cultivation and prior payment of compensation, the Court confined itself to directing consideration of the representation and expressed no opinion on the merits of the entitlement.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ claim was linked to a disputed property title and that the State asserted that compensation had already been paid to the bona fide owners.

Because the persons claiming title had not been impleaded, the Court considered it inappropriate to determine the petitioners’ substantive entitlement directly.

However, the limited prayer for consideration of the representation could be addressed administratively.

Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioners to resubmit their representation and required the competent authority to decide it after hearing the interested title claimants, thereby preserving procedural fairness without adjudicating the pending title dispute or the merits of the compensation claim.

The petitioners were permitted to resubmit their representation, along with a copy of the order, within 15 days.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation within three months of its submission, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the persons claiming title over the property.

The decision was to be communicated to both the petitioners and the contesting parties.