District Authorities Must Address Representation Regarding Arbitrary Assessment and Disbursement of Flood Damage Compensation

The petitioners, 163 farmers from Banaskantha District, filed a writ petition in 2016 aggrieved by the allegedly insufficient compensation awarded for crop and land damage caused by heavy rainfall and floods

Under Revenue Department Resolutions dated 27.04.2015 and 15.07.2015, they received ₹25,000/- per hectare (capped at 2 hectares)

The petitioners contended they were entitled to ₹60,000/- per hectare because the damage resulted from the overflowing and diversion of the 'Rel' river, rather than just rainfall

They alleged discriminatory treatment in the survey process conducted by the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited

A representation sent to the Relief Commissioner in March 2016 remained undecided

1. Whether the petitioners were subjected to discriminatory treatment in the assessment of agricultural damage and determination of compensation under the State’s relief schemes

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to conduct a factual inquiry into individual compensation claims or relegate the matters to the designated administrative authorities

The court relied on the administrative framework established by the Revenue Department Resolutions dated 27.04.2015 and 15.07.2015

It specifically applied the procedural guidelines of the relief scheme, which stipulates that while survey team assessments are generally final, the District Development Officer (DDO) for rural areas and the District Collector for urban areas possess the authority to reconsider assessments and sanction/pay assistance

The Court observed that the grievance regarding discriminatory survey practices and the quantum of compensation involves a detailed factual inquiry for each of the 163 petitioners

Referring to the scheme’s "General Instructions," the Court noted that the District Development Officer (DDO) is the competent authority to oversee the implementation and address discrepancies in rural areas

The Court found that the petitioners’ previous representations were sent to the Relief Commissioner instead of the DDO, meaning the authorized officer never had the opportunity to review the claims

Consequently, the Court determined that rather than keeping the petition pending for a factual trial, the matter should be remanded to the DDO to verify records and ensure compliance with the scheme's criteria

The Court ordered the petitioners to file individual representations before the District Development Officer, Vav Tharad District Panchayat, within two weeks

The DDO was directed to deal with each application by complying with the principles of natural justice, conducting hearings, and verifying relevant records

The DDO must pass a reasoned and speaking order for each applicant within eight weeks of receipt of the representations

The notice was discharged