-
by Admin
16 February 2026 10:43 AM
“Insurance Contracts Do Not Become Land Revenue Merely Because Crops Grow on Land” — a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y.G. Khobragade, delivered a landmark judgment in Writ Petition No. 11973 of 2022, involving Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the State of Maharashtra, holding that amounts allegedly due under a crop insurance contract cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
This ruling stems from a contractual dispute under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) relating to Soyabean crop losses during Kharif 2021 in Osmanabad district, where the State sought to compel the insurer to pay an additional ₹374 crore, alleging it had only paid 50% of the total claim due under the “localized calamity” clause of the Revamped Operational Guidelines (ROG), 2020.
The Court firmly held: “The petitioner-insurance company is not liable to pay any further amount as the CCE data showed that no actual crop loss was suffered… The demand by the State is wholly unsustainable and illegal.”
“Definitions in the MLR Code Are Not Elastic” — Court Rules State Had No Jurisdiction to Use Land Revenue Mechanism for Recovery
The High Court rejected the State’s invocation of Sections 2(16), 2(19), and 168–186 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code), 1966, under which it froze the insurer’s bank account and initiated coercive recovery proceedings.
The Court observed: “Use of the word ‘means’ in Section 2(19) makes the definition of ‘land revenue’ a hard and fast one… An amount payable under an insurance contract—where payments are made directly to farmers—is neither claimable by the State nor linked to any interest in land.”
The attempt to stretch the definition of “land” to include insurance obligations was described as “unsupportable by logic and basic principles of interpretation.” The Court cited several precedents including IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. District Collector and Paras Nath Singh v. State of U.P., to reinforce that contractual claims cannot be forcibly recovered as revenue demands unless explicitly authorized by law.
“Normal Harvest Means Actual Harvest” — Court Clarifies Critical Clause of PMFBY for Localized Calamity Claims
The heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Clause 21.5.10.1 of the PMFBY Guidelines, particularly the phrase “normal harvest.”
The State claimed that the calamity (unseasonal rains between 23.09.2021 and 10.10.2021) fell outside the harvest window (15.10.2021–15.11.2021) as per the State’s crop calendar and therefore the claim must be based solely on sample survey.
However, the Court ruled:
“‘Normal harvest’ under Clause 21.5.10.1 is not the notified harvest date but the actual date on which harvesting begins.”
Referring to undisputed State-issued CCE documents, the Court concluded:
“Harvesting began on 17.09.2021. Therefore, the losses due to unseasonal rain occurred within 15 days of normal harvest. Clause 21.5.10.1 squarely applies.”
This meant the loss had to be assessed on a 50:50 basis between sample survey and CCEs, and since the CCE data showed yield above threshold, the insurer had no further liability.
“CCE Data Is the Bedrock of PMFBY — Cannot Be Ignored Just to Inflate Claims”
The Court conducted an exhaustive review of the ROG under PMFBY and stressed the centrality of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs):
“CCE data forms the scientific basis for calculating yield, assessing losses, and finalizing claims. Ignoring it would defeat the foundation of the scheme.”
It cited multiple judicial precedents and official communications where the State itself had previously relied on CCE data for insurance claim settlements, including:
Even the Union of India, in its affidavit, endorsed the insurer’s position:
“If harvesting had already started before the notified date, clause 21.5.10.1 gets invoked.”
“PIL Cannot Be Weaponized Against Contractual Logic” — Public Interest Litigation Dismissed
Alongside the writ petition, Public Interest Litigation No. 38 of 2023, filed by two farmers supporting the State’s demand, was also dismissed. The Court noted that the PIL was not based on factual losses, but on a misinterpretation of the PMFBY scheme.
“Just because a PIL is filed does not convert a contractual disagreement into a public law obligation. The insurer has already fulfilled its duty under the contract.”
“Writ Is Maintainable Where No Disputed Facts Exist” — High Court Rejects Alternative Remedy Objection
The State had argued that the matter should be dealt with by the District or State-level grievance committees, not in a writ petition.
But the Court held: “When the dispute turns solely on interpretation of the scheme, and the facts are undisputed and supported by State’s own documents, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised.”
It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation, emphasizing that “mere existence of disputed facts cannot bar constitutional remedies when the record is clear.”
“No Loss, No Liability” — Court Upholds Indemnity Principle of Insurance Contracts
Despite arguments that the insurer received full premium and must “do justice,” the Court concluded:
“This is a contract of indemnity. Liability arises only if there is actual loss, not to match the premium paid.”
Since CCE data showed no loss in all 42 circles, and the insurer had already paid ₹374.61 crores based on sample survey, no further amount was payable.
This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of three core legal principles:
By holding that land revenue laws cannot be misused for enforcing insurance claims, and interpreting Clause 21.5.10.1 in favor of scientific crop data, the Court has preserved the federal and contractual balance envisaged under PMFBY, and shielded insurance markets from arbitrary executive coercion.
“Crop insurance must remain science-based and data-driven. Rule of law cannot yield to populist expediency.”
Date of Judgment: 12 September 2025
