District Development Officer Empowered to Adjudicate Disputes Regarding Flood Damage Assessment and Compensation Disbursement Claims

The petitioners (143 farmers from Banaskantha) filed a writ petition in 2016 challenging the "discriminatory" and insufficient compensation awarded for crop and land damage caused by heavy rainfall and floods

They alleged that survey officers under-reported the actual area of damaged land compared to the total area affected

Despite meetings with the Mamlatdar and representations to the Collector, the petitioners claimed their grievances regarding the faulty survey remained unaddressed

The Gujarat State Land Development Corporation (GSLDC) filed an affidavit detailing the survey process conducted between September and October 2015, but did not provide a paragraph-wise rebuttal to the specific claims of the 143 petitioners

1. Whether the petitioners were subjected to discriminatory treatment in the assessment and disbursement of flood-related compensation under the State’s relief scheme

2. Whether the District Development Officer (DDO) is the competent authority to reconsider disputed factual assessments of land damage in rural areas under the relevant scheme

The Court relied on the procedural framework of the relief scheme prepared by the Gujarat State Land Development Corporation Limited, authorized by the State Government, specifically regarding the finality of assessments and the hierarchy of grievance redressal

The Court identified that under the "General Instructions of the Scheme," the assessment by the Survey Team is generally final, but the Right to Reconsider rests with the District Collector for urban areas and the District Development Officer (DDO) for rural areas

Clause (6) of the Scheme authorizes these specific officers to sanction and pay assistance

The Court observed that while the petitioners had reached out to the Collector through representations, these grievances were never effectively placed before or adjudicated by the District Development Officer—the authority specifically empowered by the scheme to oversee rural implementation and reconsider assessments

The Court noted that the dispute was primarily factual, involving the verification of 143 individual claims regarding the extent of land damage

Rather than adjudicating these factual complexities under Article 226, the Court held that the administrative remedy provided within the scheme must be exhausted, provided that the DDO adheres to the principles of natural justice, including providing notice and a fair hearing to each claimant to verify relevant records

The Court held that the DDO is required to deal with each application by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity for a hearing and verifying records

The entire exercise must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representations

The notice was discharged