District Authorities Must Address Compensation Grievances for Crop Damages Through Reasoned Orders and Natural Justice

96 farmers from District Banaskantha filed this petition in 2016 alleging they received inadequate compensation for crop and land damage caused by heavy rainfall and floods

The petitioners claimed the survey conducted by the authorities under-reported the actual damaged area

They received ₹25,000 per hectare under Revenue Department Resolutions dated 27.04.2015 and 15.07.2015, but claimed entitlement to ₹60,000 per hectare due to the specific nature of damage caused by the diversion of the River ‘Rel’

While the State conducted surveys and disbursed over ₹2.2 crore to hundreds of farmers, the petitioners alleged discriminatory treatment in the assessment process

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹60,000 per hectare based on the specific nature of land damage (washed out lands) versus the standard rate for crop damage

2. Whether the assessment and disbursement of relief by the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation and local panchayat authorities were discriminatory or procedurally flawed

The court relied on the administrative scheme prepared by the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited, sanctioned by the State Government, and the specific Revenue Department Resolutions dated 27.04.2015 and 15.07.2015

Administratively, the court identified that under Clause (6) of the General Instructions of the Scheme, the District Development Officer (DDO) for rural areas is the competent authority to sanction and pay assistance, and the assessment made by the Survey Team is subject to reconsideration by the DDO

The Court observed that the grievance was primarily factual, involving the measurement of damaged land and the categorization of the type of flood damage

Upon reviewing the scheme's framework, the Court noted that while survey reports are generally final, the DDO holds the ultimate authority to oversee implementation and address disparities in rural areas

The Court found that although the petitioners had represented their case to the Collector, the appropriate authority under the scheme—the District Development Officer—had likely not considered their specific grievances

Rather than adjudicating the technical factual dispute of land "wash-out" versus crop damage in a writ petition, the Court determined that the DDO must conduct a factual inquiry

The petitioners were permitted to file individual representations to the DDO, Vav Tharad District Panchayat, within two weeks

The Court ordered the DDO to decide each application on its merits, complying with principles of natural justice by providing a hearing and passing a reasoned/speaking order within eight weeks of receipt

Notice was discharged