Company Entitled To Compensation For 2004 Tsunami Farming Losses; Rejection Based On Corporate Status Unsustainable: Calcutta High Court
The High Court held that a farming company cannot be denied disaster compensation solely because of its corporate form when it was in lawful possession and engaged in agricultural activity at the time of the calamity.
Setting aside an order of the Andaman & Nicobar administration that denied compensation on the ground that the claimant was a corporate entity and not a “small or marginal farmer,” the Calcutta High Court ruled that the relevant disaster relief policy did not exclude farming entities solely based on their corporate status.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the Assistant Commissioner, Relief and Disaster Management, South Andaman District, which had rejected the petitioner-company’s claim for compensation under the Tsunami Relief Package and a Central Government policy dated 30 July 2012.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray examined the factual history of the claim, prior judicial findings, and the scope of the relief policy, and noted that earlier coordinate bench orders had already recognised that the petitioner, though a company, was engaged in farming and could not be arbitrarily excluded from compensation.
The Bench accordingly directed “the Administration to pay the admissible compensation to the writ petitioners in accordance with relevant rules, subject to compliance with condition 4 (i) of the policy F.No. U-13018/1/2010-ANL dated 30.07.2012 within twelve weeks from the date of this order”.
Background
The petitioner-company held leasehold rights over several parcels of land in South Andaman District, where it conducted farming operations and provided employment to a large number of workers. On 26 December 2004, the Tsunami caused extensive damage to approximately 54.85 hectares of its cultivated land.
Soon thereafter, the company submitted claims seeking compensation for agricultural losses.
An initial ex gratia payment was made but later withdrawn, prompting a series of legal proceedings. In earlier writ litigation, a coordinate bench had directed the administration to assess and compensate the petitioner in accordance with the law. That order was affirmed on appeal.
Despite these directions, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim in January 2025, reasoning that the petitioner, being a corporate entity with large landholdings, was not eligible for compensation intended for small and marginal farmers.
The petitioner challenged this decision, contending that the rejection ignored prior judicial findings and the actual nature of its farming activities.
Court’s Observations
The High Court traced the chequered procedural history and emphasised that earlier judicial determinations had already addressed the character of the petitioner’s activities. A prior coordinate bench had expressly observed that “the petitioner is also a farmer, though registered as a company under the Companies Act. Its activities are farming, and therefore, it cannot be said that it is either a big farmer, a rich farmer or a more privileged farmer. The fact remains that it is a farmer dealing in farming activities”.
The Coordinate Bench had further noted that nothing in the relief scheme expressly stated that “the Scheme was for 'small' and 'marginal' farmers only and not for Companies”.
The Circuit Bench examined the petitioner’s possession status. It noted that the administration itself had acknowledged that the petitioner was a recorded tenant and in lawful possession of the land at the time of the 2004 Tsunami and had also submitted a report stating that “‘there existed a scientifically spaced and managed coconut and areca nut plantation on the subject land”.
The policy framework, the Bench noted, contemplated compensation subject to surrender of possession to the landowner (the administration), and held that if the petitioner complied with the stipulated condition regarding surrender, it would be entitled to claim admissible compensation for Tsunami-related losses.
The Bench underscored that the impugned authority failed to meaningfully engage with earlier binding directions requiring reassessment under the policy. By reiterating grounds already rejected in prior proceedings, the authority acted contrary to settled judicial findings.
The Bench further clarified that issues relating to the extension of the petitioner’s lease were pending in separate civil proceedings and were not to be prejudiced by its observations. Its decision was confined to the legality of the rejection of compensation under the disaster relief framework.
Conclusion
Concluding that “the said concurrent findings still hold good and therefore without reversing the said findings by judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Administration cannot take up the said issue once again”, the Circuit Bench set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
The administration was directed to pay admissible compensation in accordance with the applicable policy, subject to compliance with the condition relating to surrender of possession, within twelve weeks.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Andaman Plantations and Development Corporation Private Limited v. The Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor & Others
Appearances
Petitioners: Aniruddha Chatterjee, Senior Advocate with Advocates Asif Hussain, Jyoti Singh, Ajay Majh
Respondents: Advocate Sumit Kumar Karmakar