justice ab palkar commission of inquiry report volume-i

Report

One Man Commission

Justice A.B.Palkar (Former Judge, Bombay High Court)

Appointed

Government of Maharashtra

As per order No.POS-1205/Beed/61/C.R.22/05/ FFC-2

dated 1st October 2005 for revalidation of 355(354,

354A) freedom fighters pension cases from Beed

district in pursuance of the order passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2nd August 2005 in Civil

Appeal No. 5162 to 5167 of 2005 arising out of SLP

No. 11344 and 11348 of 2004 in the matter of

Shri Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar & Others

State of Maharashtra.

(VOLUME I)

I N D E X

Part Subject

VOLUME I

Page No

I. INTRODUCTION 2-3

II. BRIEF HISTORY 4-7

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION 8-13

IV. GOA LIBERATION MOVEMENT 14-15

V. CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED EITHER ON

CONVICTION OR OTHERWISE DETENTION IN

CUSTODY FOR SOME PERIOD BY THE

RESPONDENT

VI. CASES RECOMMENDED BY ZILLA GAURAV SAMMITI OR CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS

SANCTIONED BY THE HIGH POWER

COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF

GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 4.7.1995

VII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES OF

UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS

VIII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES BASED ON

WARRANTS OF ARREST

IX. CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED ON

ARREST WARRANTS AND ALSO ON THE

GROUND THAT THE PERSON WAS WORKING

UNDERGROUND IN HYDERABAD FREEDOM

MOVEMENT

72-140

X. CASES IN WHICH DATE OF BIRTH IS

DISPUTED

VOLUME II

141-215

XI. CASES IN WHICH FILES WERE NOT MADE

AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION

XII. CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT AS WELL AS

HIS OR HER SPOUCE IS REPORTED DEAD AND

HENCE CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION

XIII. PARTICULAR CASES OF UNDERGROUND

FREEDOM FIGHTERS

VOLUME III-A & B

219-487

XIV. PARTICULAR CASES OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS

CLAIM BASED ON ARREST WARRANT

489-838

XV. CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THE

COMMISSION

839-848

XVI. ANNEXURES (KEPT SEPARATELY)

849-862

XVII. LIST OF ALL 355 CASES (354, 354A)

863-872

PART-I

INTRODUCTION

One man Commission of inquiry headed by Justice A.B.Palkar

(Retd), Former Judge of High Court in respect of 354+1 (as there are

two files 354 and 354A) Freedom fighters alleged to have obtained

bogus certificates i.e. Sanmanpatra and allied benefits admissible to

Freedom Fighters.

The Government of Maharashtra has constituted the Commission

by Government Resolution No. POS 1205/Beed/61/CR-1205/Freedom

Fighter Cell-2, dated 1st October 2005. The State Government

constituted the Commission in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in special Leave Petition Nos. 11344 to 11349 of 2004

and Civil Application Nos. 5162 to 5167 of 2005 decided on 22nd

August 2005. The appointment was made by the orders of the Supreme

Court and in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, the above

stated Government Resolution has been issued. The Supreme Court

initially directed by the order dated 22nd August 2005 that the report be

submitted to the Government within a period of 4 months which period

was subsequently extended.

Although the cases of underground freedom fighters, freedom

fighters claiming on the ground that arrest warrant was issued and

those claiming on both the grounds are considered in separate parts,

the reasons stated in the parts of general reasons for warrant cases,

general reasons for the cases of underground freedom fighters as

well as the concluding remarks are to be considered in addition to

the reasons stated in the particular type of case. The reasons

contained in the aforesaid three parts apply “mutatis mutandis” to

the particular type of case.

LIST OF ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED BEFORE

THE COMMISSION

Following Advocates Appeared before the Commission :

Shri R.M.Deshpande, Advocate for the Commission

Shri Kishor J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the State

Advocates for Respondents:-

1) Shri B.K.Sanap

2) Shri P.D.Bachate

3) Shri Sahebrao Nagargoje

4) Shri Shivajirao Karhad

5) Shri A.G. Chapalgaonkar

6) Shri L.N.Kulkarni

7) Shri M.R.Andhale

8) Shri K.J.Suryawanshi

9) Shri S.T.Deshmukh

10) Shri T.B.Bhosale/Shri D.B.Bhosale

11) Shri B.F.Chavan

12) Shri S.D.Hivare

13) Shri B.A.Darak

14) Shri S.D.Thigale

15) Shri S.J.Tupe

16) Shri S.A.Nagarsoje

17) Shri Mohammad Muniruddin

18) Shri V.A.Gangal

19) Shri V.D.Rakh

20) Shri B.F.Chavan

21) Shri B.E.Yele

22) Shri T.A.Shaikh

23) Shri B.S.Porwal

24) Shri K.S.Chaure

25) Shri. N.L. Jadhav

26) Shri. Sachin Raut

Part - II

Brief History

As stated in the introduction the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

was passed in the above stated Special Leave Petitions, as the Supreme Court

set aside order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing

the Public Interest Petition bearing 2619 of 2002. The Petitioners in the said

Petition (PIL) filed petition contending inter-alia therein that in Beed district

there were as many as 354 cases of persons who have obtained Sanmanpatra

as freedom fighters and consequent allied benefits of pension etc, on the basis

of totally false and concocted documents although they had not taken part in

the (Hyderabad Liberation Movement) freedom movement known as

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and also Goa Liberation (Mukti Sangram).

It needs to be pointed out here that there are only two cases pertaining

to Goa Liberation Movement and the remaining cases are in respect of

Hyderabad freedom movement. The petitioners filing the Public Interest

Petition namely Advocate Ajit Murlidharrao Deshmukh and Bhaurao Dagadu

Paralkar claimed in the petition that they had come to know that several

persons were getting pension and allied benefits as freedom fighters on the

basis of claims sanctioned by the Government on the false and fabricated

documents and false representation made by the said persons claiming to be

freedom fighters although they had no concern with the freedom movement.

Advocate Ajit Deshmukh is President of Beed District Bhrastachar

Nirmulan Samatti (committee for eradication of corruption) established by

Shri Anna Hajare and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar had taken part in Hyderabad

Mukti Sangram alleged that they had come to know several persons had

secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits although they were not involved in

the freedom movement. A news item was published in local daily on 16th

October 2001 in respect of arrest of one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan, who was

alleged to be preparing bogus documents like warrants for substantiating the

claim as freedom fighters.

Various allegations were made in the said petition and number of

reliefs were claimed. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 2000 one Ramrao

Avargaonkar was President of Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed, Advocate Ajit

Deshmukh had made representation to the Collector for securing names of the

freedom fighters who were granted benefits during the period 1998-99. He

had also made representation to the concerned Minister and the Sub-Divisional

Officer.

Petitioners approached the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti Ramrao

Avargaonkar for securing the list of the persons and necessary information on

the basis of which these persons had secured the Sanmanpatra. The petitioners

learned that the Collector Beed had given adverse remarks or refused to

recommend the cases of these persons, and in some cases even in the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the cases.

Shri Ramrao Avargaonkar had also filed a complaint to the Chief

Minister in this regard.

In the petition before the High Court affidavit was filed by the

Collector stating that 26 out of 354 persons were either minors or of extremely

tender age and some of them were not even born. The High Court had called

all the 3000 files.

After perusing 3000 files the Hon’ble High Court retained 354 files

and appointed a Committee for inquiry. The Committee was headed by one

retired Judicial Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Shri M.

R. Mane and consisted of two other persons one of whom as a practicing

lawyer and the other was a freedom fighter.

The Inquiry Committee (Hereinafter referred to as Mane Committee)

issued notices to 355 freedom fighters and not 354 as file No.354 was divided

into 354 and 354-A. The Committee recorded their statement on oath and

considered the material on record including their statements. The Committee

did not hear any submissions. It also did not allow the parties to be

represented by lawyers.

The Inquiry Committee submitted its report stating that 349 cases do

not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July

After the report of the inquiry committee many of the freedom fighters

whose cases were found to be not covered by the aforesaid Government

Resolution and consequently who were found not to be entitled to the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits filed Civil Applications to implead them as

Respondents or as interveners. The Hon’ble High Court, however, declined to

allow them to intervene or to implead them as Respondents. However, on the

basis of the report of Inquiry Committee, the High Court had directed the

Collector, Beed not to release the pensions of the persons whose cases were

covered by the report. The persons whose Civil application for impleading

them as Respondents or interveners was rejected approached the Supreme

Court and the Supreme Court passed the following order :

“We decline to grant permission to file the Special

Leave Petitions but give liberty to the petitioners to file

independent writ petitions, challenging the order of the enquiry

Committee, if so desired.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners

states that certain observations made in the impugned order

will come in their way and/or affect the case of the petitioners

on merits. We make it clear that the observations made in the

impugned order shall not affect the merits of the case of the

petitioners in the writ petitions that may be filed.”

In view of the aforesaid order, the High Court also dismissed the Civil

Applications with liberty to the Respondents to file independent Writ Petitions

challenging the report of Enquiry Committee. Thereafter number of them

filed Writ Petitions and those petitions as well as the Public Interest Petition

were heard together and order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court

dismissing the Public Interest Petition and allowing the Writ Petitions of the

freedom fighters.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court of India by the

petitioners in the PIL in which the Supreme Court passed the order as a result

of which present Commission is appointed as per the directions contained in

the said order. The directions contained in the order are as below:-

“To give finality to the controversy, we appoint Mr.

Justice A. B. Palkar a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court

to examine the 354 cases. The relevant files shall be handed

over to the commission immediately. The commission is

requested to complete the verification within four months and

submit its report to the state Government for necessarily action.

The claimants whose cases are to be examined shall be given

opportunity to have their say before the Commission. The

records of the Zilla Gaurav Committee, High Power Committee

and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be

examined by the Commission before issuing notice to individual

applications to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the

claims for freedom fighters pension. On getting report of the

commission, the State Government shall take necessary action.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

acceptability or otherwise of the claims as the Commission

appointed by this Court shall examine those aspects.

From the directions contained in the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that

the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed the Commission with a view to give

finality to the controversy in the 354+1 cases.

The Commission has divided the cases into different parts for the sake

of convenience. The Commission has also given general reasons of particular

type of cases in different parts which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the

individual cases and has considered the individual cases on merits after

perusal of the file on the basis of the material found in the file, oral and

documentary evidence produced before the Commission by the parties and the

material produced before the High Court, as well as material available to the

Mane Committee as contained in the direction of the Supreme Court.

PART-III

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

After the Notification was issued by the Maharashtra Government, the

Commission took over charge and caused the 354 + 1 files to be produced.

On perusal of the different files the Commission noted certain facts, as

well as some disturbing and disquieting aspects. The Commission has given in

2 separate parts, the general reasoning in the cases of claims based on warrants

and general reasoning in the cases of claims based on the ground that the

claimant (respondent) was underground during the Freedom Movement.

In the cases based on arrest warrant issued against claimant it was

noticed that in almost all cases only true copies had been produced and this

aspect has been considered in detail in the part pertaining to the general

reasons of warrant cases. Similarly, in the cases of underground freedom

fighters the Commission noticed that very few freedom fighters who were

qualified to file supporting affidavits had filed affidavits in number of cases

and most of the affidavits contained certain additions or erasures, without

there being signatures of either the deponent or the authority before whom the

affidavit was sworn or of the person identifying the deponent before the

authority. This has also been considered at length in separate part of this

report.

The Commission also noticed that the respondent freedom fighters

were not joined in the Public Interest Petition. Only few of them were made

respondents, many others who were not joined as respondent's had applied for

being joined or for intervention. However, they were not joined as respondent.

They were given opportunity to file separate Writ Petition and the same

position was maintained even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even Mane

Committee merely issued notices and recorded the statements of the person

who appeared in response to the notice. These statements were recorded on

oath. However Mane Committee did not give any opportunity of being heard

to these respondents. They were also not allowed to engage advocates. The

Commission had noted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court contained

directions only to go through the files and to issue notices to the respondent

freedom fighters and give them opportunity of filing affidavits in reply.

After giving careful, consideration to the aspect that in case the

Commission comes to the conclusion that the respondents who have been

granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by the Government have either not

proved their entitlement as per law or can even be said to have secured the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by fraudulent means and as such the same are

liable to be cancelled and discontinued, it would be necessary and in

consonance with the principles of natural justice that before passing any

adverse order against them cancelling their Sanmanpatra and discontinuing the

benefits granted to give them full opportunity of being heard.

The Commission therefore directed first the petitioners in Public

Interest Petition or their witnesses to file affidavits in support of various

contentions raised in the Public Interest Petition. Many of the respondents also

applied for giving opportunity of cross examining the petitioners and the

witnesses. The Commission found that the cross examination of the petitioners

and their witnesses for and on behalf of 355 respondents would take

considerably long time but the same was absolutely necessary. Taking into

consideration the fact that many of the respondent freedom fighters belong to

the poor class of the society and are resident of district Beed which is in far

interior and most of them were above the age of 70 years, the Commission

thought it desirable not to compel them to come and stay at Mumbai for the

purpose of proceedings of the Commission and decided to hold sittings at

Beed. In order to avoid any adjournment of the proceedings on the ground that

the respondents are not aware of the statements made against them by the

petitioners in their affidavits filed before the Commission, the Commission

issued summons to the respondents and attached with the said summons zerox

copies of the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners so as to enable them

to instruct their advocates properly and to have effective cross examination of

witnesses on their behalf. The cross examination was held during the first

sitting of the Commission at Beed.

The petitioners produced PW 1 Mr. Ramrao Awargaokar who was not

a petitioner in the Public Interest Petition but was and according to the

respondents responsible for filing complaint to the Chief Minister and even the

Public Interest Petition in the High Court. The only other witness offered for

cross examination was one of the petitioners in Public Interest Petition

Advocate Ajit Deshmukh. The other petitioner Mr. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar

did not appear and did not offer himself for the cross examination and as such

- 10 -

his affidavit has been kept out of consideration by the Commission and the

petitioner and their advocates were informed accordingly. However Advocate

Ajit Deshmukh had not challenged the order of the Hon'ble High Court by

filing Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The two witnesses who appeared before the Commission were cross

examined at length for and on behalf of the respondents by their respective

advocates. Shri. Ajit Deshmukh who is a practicing advocate of Beed was not

born when the freedom movement was going on and had no personal

knowledge. However, Shri. Ramrao Awargaokar who was the Chairman of the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti and has again been appointed as Chairman, Zilla Gaurav

Samiti Beed district recently, is himself a freedom fighter receiving pension

from the Central Government as well as from the State Government. He also

said that he had taken part in Goa Mukti Sangram but is not getting pension on

that ground because one person can not claim more than two different

pensions as Freedom Fighter.

Although he was involved in the freedom movement, he clearly said

when questioned by various respondents that he has no personal grudge or

enmity. He complained to the Chief Minister only on realising that some of

the claimants were not concerned with the freedom movement on examining

the record of various cases. He also realised that atleast few of them were not

born or were of extremely tender age during the freedom movement. He later

on obtained their school record entries. On examining the files he had also

noticed that the Additional Collector Beed who was member Secretary of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti had consistently raised objection after the recommendations of

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that the person did not comply with the provisions of

the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. One of the objections raised on

behalf of the respondents is that the Collector has no authority after

recommendations of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti to convey to the Government his

opinion one way or the other. Even if the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not

recommend he has no authority to comment much less to remark that the

person has not made out case as required by Government Resolution.

According to the arguments by the Shri. Bachate advocate the Collector is

only like postman who is bound to forward the report of Zilla Gaurav Samittee

to the Government (High Power Committee) for decision according law.

However, by Government Resolution No. ZGS 1095/CR 438/95/Beed/FFC,

Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 19.3.1996 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was

- 11 -

reconstituted appointing Shri. Babasaheb Bangar as Chairman and 4 other

members namely Mr. Ganpat Etke, Mr. Pandurang Joshi, Mr. Shripad

Maindkar, Mr. Harishchandra Pawar as members and the Government

Resolution further states that the resident Deputy Collector shall be the

member Secretary to help the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and on the

recommendations of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Collector will be the final

authority to recommend the case to the Government. The Collector is also

expected to attend the meetings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti from time to time when

available. The Additional Collector being member Secretary remained present

in almost all meetings and in his capacity as member Secretary of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti, after the case of a particular person was considered by Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and he found that the recommendation was improper, the

additional Collector used to inform to Government in detail as to what was

lacking in the claimant’s application or the affidavit produced by him and how

the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not proper. It is therefore not

correct to say that the Collector has no powers and is mere a postman to

forward the decision of Zilla Gaurav Samiti to the Government for further

action. The Commission also found that although one and the same person

was acting in two different capacities, one as Member Secretary and one of

Additional Collector he noted objection to the recommendations in the

meetings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti in very few cases but in all cases invariably

after the decision of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, he sent letters to the Government

noting his objections to grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

After the cross examination of the two witnesses produced by the

petitioner was over the petitioners applied for permission to cross examine the

respondents, the petitioners’ advocate was informed that it would be

impracticable to call all 355 persons for cross examination and he may select

some of them restricting the numbers to few who can be called for cross

examination and by their cross examination some light can be thrown on facts.

When summons were issued to some of the respondents on request of the

petitioners to appear for the cross examination, almost all of the respondents

who were so summoned filed different applications raising their objections to

offer themselves for cross examination either by the petitioners or even by the

advocate appointed for the Commission. They even went to the extent of

alleging that the work of Commission is going in favour of one party, the

petitioners have no right to cross examine them, there is no direction from the

- 12 -

Hon’ble Supreme Court and so a detailed common order has been passed in all

such applications by the Commission informing them that although the

Commission could not and was not forcing them to offer themselves for cross

examination, the Commission was entitled to draw inference in accordance

with law on this conduct of refusing to offer themselves for cross examination.

In retrospect the Commission now finds that it would have been not only

inconvenient but would have amounted to placing themselves in very

awckward position, had they in fact appeared for cross examination. There

were various improvements in their affidavits made from time to time and

various contradictions in the different statements made and that appears to be

reason why they all consistently contended that they would not offer

themselves for cross examination and the petitioners have no right to cross

examine them. It is pertinent to point out that when the petitioners filed

affidavits making allegations against, them they had themselves applied for

permission to cross examine the petitioners and their witness. At that stage

they did not even consider that there was no such directions from the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. In view of the fact that at no stage they had the opportunity to

challenge the contentions of the petitioners specially by engaging advocates

and to put up their contentions effectively, the Commission had given them

opportunity to cross examine by engaging advocates and to effectively put up

their defence.

After recording of evidence of the petitioners’ witnesses was over and

the respondents refused to offer themselves for cross examination, the

Commission heard arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the

petitioners and the learned advocates appeared for the different groups of the

respondents.

On behalf of the Government, Mr. Ghute Patil advocate was appointed.

However, in view of the fact that the Government had already made statement

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Government proposes to appoint one

man commission to scrutinise individual cases and decide the question of

eligibility of person and whether benefits given to the freedom fighters who

are not genuine should be continued or not, he did not advance any argument.

He however assisted the Commission effectively in scrutinising various files.

The Commission had also appointed Shri. R. M. Deshpande as Commission’s

advocate.

- 13 -

As pointed out, in detail in the portion related to general reasoning of

the warrant cases the Commission having found the entire bunch of warrants

received from the 3 different authorities suspicious decided to send these set of

warrants for examination by hand written expert as the Commission had also

found certain documents which can be said to be undisputed documents

containing undisputed signatures of the Tahasildar Mr. Mir Moiddin Ali Khan

and accordingly all the warrants and the undisputed documents were sent to

the hand writing expert and his report is on record.

When the warrants were being got translated at Beed and arguments

were going on, none of the advocates showed any interest even to look into the

warrants, didn't even seek inspection, probably they did not expect that

examining the same my reveal anything.

It needs to be made clear that the Commission has not drawn any

adverse inference against any of the respondent on the refusal to present for

cross examination and has proceeded on the basis of material before it.

- 14 -

Part-IV

Goa Liberation Movement

Case File No. 46 ( Responddent No. 46)

Govind Gopal Jadhav r/o Ambejogai.

Govind Gopal Jadhav filed application for grant of pension stating that

he had taken part in Goa Liberation Movement. The criteria for the Goa

Liberation Movement are different and the applicant has fully complied

with the criteria prescribed in this Government Resolution and petitioners

have not objected to the pension sanctioned to him.

Mane Committee recommended grant of pension to him.

He took part in Goa liberation movement and worked under the

leadership of Wamanrao Deshmukh. He took part in the Satyagrah held

on 14th August 1955 and he and other persons working with him hoisted

tricolour flag on Government school.

As required by the Government Resolution he has produced

recommendation letter of Wamanrao Deshmukh, freedom fighter who took

part in Goa liberation movement. There appears no infirmity in the claim

put up by the freedom fighters. His file was also cleared by Mane

Committee.

- 15 -

File Case No. 110 (Respondent No.110)

Shri Sayed Jamal Syed Hasan.

As he has applied with the necessary requirements his grant of pension

not challenged. As the petitioners have considered before Commission and

probably the Mane Committee also cleared his case.

He took part in Goa liberation movement on 15th August 1955. He

has produced certificate of Shri Jayawant Rao Tilak, Secretary of Goa

liberation movement.

The Commission therefore finds that in the case of these two freedom

fighters who took part in Goa liberation movement was rightly granted

pension and no interference is called for with findings of the Government for

grant of pension to the said freedom fighters.

- 16 -

PART-V

CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED EITHER ON

CONVICTION OR OTHERWISE DETENTION IN

CUSTODY FOR SOME PERIOD BY THE

RESPONDENT

The cases of freedom fighters who claim to have been convicted for

the activities or for part they took in Hyderabad Freedom Movement are of a

separate category and are treated as in this Part.

Sr.No. Case

File No.

Name of Freedom Fighter Page No.

1. 26 Ramchandra Krishna Dhat 17

2. 48 Manik Nagu Malekar 20

3. 49 Ashruba Sakharam Ugale 21

4. 107 Tukaram Purushattam Pathak

(Deceased) represented by Shrimati

Snehalata Tukaram Pathak.

5. 131 Yeshwant Kulkarni (deceased)

represented by wife Kaveribai.

6. 132 Dattu Ranuji Jogadand 28

- 17 -

Case File No. 26 (Respondent No.26)

Shri Ramchandra Krishna Dhat

Applied for the pension on the ground that he was in the prison on 14th

July 1958. He stated in his letter dated 8th December 1989 that he was not

sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200 and enclosed copy of the order of Court along

with translation thereof.

In the letter dated 31st May 1989 sent by the Collector to the Deputy

Secretary it is mentioned that he was an accused and right from 1938-39 had

taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement he was not arrested.

In his clarification letter dated 27th October 1988 addressed to the

District Collector, he had stated that he was working with Swami Ramanand

Thirth, Babasaheb Paranjape and Kalidas Deshpande as underground freedom

fighter and he had to live away from his house. Kalidas and Dattu were

arrested at Chincholi but he was not arrested. However he was made accused

in the case. He filed copy of judgement. He stated that his name appeared in

it as Ramu.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.6.1997 stated that

‘Ramchandra’ and ‘Ramu’ whose name appears in the judgment of criminal

court is the same person. The High Power Committee accepted the

recommendation.

The Additional Collector wrote letter to the Deputy Secretary on 10th

July 1997 that in the judgment of criminal case he is referred to as Ramu as

one of the accused. He has not produced any arrest warrant or its copy,

certified or otherwise and in the copy of judgment of the criminal court dated

10th Bahman 1358 Fasli (10.12.1947) his name appears and according to

applicant he is described as Ramu without mentioning his father’s name or

community or caste. He, however, does not claim that he was also convicted.

The main accused in that case Kalidas Deshpande and others were convicted

and sentenced and Kalidas was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six

months and other accused were sentence to pay fine.

- 18 -

It is, however, stated by Kalidas Deshpande in his letter that Ramu was

not arrested as he ran away and therefore there was not tried or convicted.

He has not produced copy of any arrest warrant nor has he produced

the affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced for not less than

two years imprisonment.

However there is a letter for taking action on his application

personally sent by the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Chief Minister.

Before the Mane Committee he did not appear.

He appeared personally before the Commission. He has not filed any

affidavit.

In his affidavit he has stated that he was one of the accused along with

Kalidas Deshpande and others in criminal case No.20 of 1348 F. and his

name is mentioned in the judgment of the case as Ramu. He is the same

person Ramu, who was then aged about 13 years or so. According to his

own statement the case was filed against five persons and his name is

mentioned as Ramu studying in Nutan Vidyalaya, Ambejogai.

A perusal of the judgment shows that accused Kalidas Deshpande was

sentenced to imprisonment for six months on two different counts whereas

accused Ranganath was sentenced to fine of Rs. 200/- and accused Dattu

and Ambadas were sentenced to fine Rs. 100/-. The boy Ramu which

according to the Respondent is his own name, was as stated in the

judgment, one of the persons in the company of the accused and it is

stated that apart from the persons named as accused there were some other

persons named Ramu Bhimrao, Tatya,Maruti, Sujjadin and Ramu. Ramu

was not arrested as he ran away. He was not even arraigned in the

criminal case as accused and there is no question of his conviction or

sentence.

He was neither an accused in criminal case nor he was convicted and

sentenced and taking his claim at its best, he can be said to be the same

school going boy ‘Ramu’ accompanying six to seven other persons

arrested and prosecuted but he escaped. There was no warrant of arrest

against him.

- 19 -

Merely because he was in the company of some persons who were arrested

, prosecuted and sentenced, he does not become a freedom fighter and his

case is not covered by any of the clauses of any of the Government

Resolutions and in the opinion of the Commission he has been granted

freedom fighter’s pension without considering the provisions of the

Government Resolution on non existant grounds. His claim should have

been rejected and the Commission recommends accordingly that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him to be and be cancelled

forthwith.

- 20 -

Manik Nagu Malekar

Applied for grant of pension on 16th May 1995 and stated in the

application that he was arrested and he was imprisoned from 27-2-1357 Fasli

to 19-3 1357 Fasli for a period of 26 days. He has also produced certificate

from Superintendent of District Prison, Beed that he was admitted to prison

under sections 33 and 34 of the Nizam Government Protection Act on 27-2-

1357 Fasli for taking part in civil disobedience movement .

In view of this certificate and his imprisonment Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended his case and High Power Committee also granted pension.

Mane Committee also held valid the grant of pension to him and the

petitioners have as on today no objection to the sanctioned in for the fact that

he suffered imprisonment in the freedom movement.

He has also filed affidavit stating that he was required to live away from

his house during the freedom movement.

Having suffered imprisonment for taking part in the Hyderabad freedom

movement, his case has been rightly considered by the Government and

Commission finds that he was rightly granted pension. No interference is

called for with the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

- 21 -

Ashruba Sakharam Ugale

Applied for grant of pension in the year 1986. In his application he has

stated that he was arrested and a case was filed against him in criminal court.

He was obstructing recovery of levy and working underground. He has

produced certified copy of the Court record. The original is in Urdu. Its

translation in Marathi shows that he was not even arrested.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 12th August 1995 noted

that chargesheet was filed against him and the offence was in connection with

the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and his case was recommended.

However, the Additional Collector by his letter dated 17th August 1998

addressed to the Deputy Secretary recorded his objection expressing suspicion

on the ground that he was released and not convicted and sentenced.

Thereafter the High Power Committee considered the case on the

ground that he joined Hyderabad Mukti Sangatna and recommended the case

as he was in custody and therefore the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti deserves to be accepted.

It appears that earlier his application was rejected and thereafter he

filed writ petition. However the concerned papers of the file were not

traceable as stated in its note dated 12th October 1998.

He appeared before the Mane Committee on 5th February 2003 and

stated that he was arrested by the police at Kamaleshwar Dhanura in the year

1947 as he was obstructing the recovery of levy when he was produced before

the court and was in custody for two to three months. Thereafter he was

released.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has reiterated the same

facts.

- 22 -

In the meeting of Zilla Gaurav Samiti held on 12.08.1998 , it is

observed that the documents produced by him as warrant was sent for

verification to the Court and the Court has informed that his name appears

as accused No.1 in F.I.R. However the police did not file any charge-sheet

and the case was filed on 29 Tir 1356 F. equivalent to 29th May 1947 in

view of the police report, no charge-sheet was filed no further action was

taken.

In letter dated 17th August 1997 sent by the Additional

Collector to the Deputy Secretary, it is clearly mentioned that his name

was in the FIR but no charge-sheet was filed against him and final report

was sent to the Court. There is no mention in the record that he was even

arrested and therefore his case is not fit for sanction of freedom fighter’s

pension.

It however, appears that since he had filed Writ Petition 5099/95 in

the High Court, a note was put up before the High Power Committee that

the Court has recommended his case, whereas direction of the Court was

to consider his case within a period of six months. It appears that in view

of the note put up pension was sanctioned to him from the date of his

second application dated 5th July 1997.

The note put up to the High Power Committee was completely

misleading. He did not claim pension on the ground that arrest warrant

was issued against him. There was only F.I.R. and he was not even

arrested or prosecuted as the case was filed. As his name was in the FIR,

the note to High Power Committee stated that his name was in warrant.

What is referred to in the note as warrant is only F.I.R. and not arrest

warrant.

There does not appear any application of mind to the facts of the case.

The claim appears to have been sanctioned hurriedly, in view of direction

of the High Court for early decision. He had not made out case of being a

freedom fighter entitled to freedom fighters’ pension under any of the

provisions in any of the Government Resolution and claim should have

- 23 -

been rejected and the Commission accordingly recommends that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith .

- 24 -

Tukaram Purushattam Pathak (Deceased) represented by Shrimati

Snehalata Tukaram Pathak.

Tukaram Purushottam Pathak filed application on 25.4.1994. Earlier he

had filed application on 20.11.1981 and had sent several reminders. He stated

that he had taken part in the freedom movement, armed revolt (Sashtra Uthav)

and was involved in armed action against the Nizam Government along with

Digambar Virghe, Vinayakrao Rampurkar.

In the affidavit dated 24.10.1990 he has asserted that he took part in

the freedom movement with Betuke Guruji and Govindbhai Shroff. He was

collecting funds and secretly colleting and storing weapons. He was arrested

on the report of police patil and was prosecuted under section 53 of the

Defence of Nizam Government Act. He was however acquitted. He has

produced copy of Court record in Urdu with Marathi translation, which shows

that he was found in possession of arms and ammunition. He had also

produced license for possession of arms. He was acquitted as there was not

evidence against him.

He had filed Writ Petition. 3760/95 and 485/95 wherein Aurangabad

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court haddirected to grant him provisional pension

and to decide his claim within 9 months Thus he was arrested for offence

under Arms Act but he was not convicted and sentenced. Even in his

application dated 07.11.1990 he has stated that he was acquitted. He has also

filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 20.02.1997 referred to

the warrant (which is not warrant but copy of Court register regarding criminal

case) and stated that one of the members Shripad Madekar who knows Urdu

stated that it was against Nizam Government and therefore recommended

sanction of pension.

High Power Committee considered this case and note was put up for

early decision in view of the directions of the High Court. Further note was

put up that in view of the provisional pension granted by the High Court his

case can be considered.

Thereafter reference was made to the Contempt Petition filed by him in

the High Court. Orders for Provisional Pension were issued and thereafter it

- 25 -

was observed that in view of the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti

further time was sought from the High Court. Thereafter, High Power

Committee also relied on the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti in which one of the

member knowing Urdu stated that warrant was in connection with the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. It was stated that warrant be sent to the

translation department. After the translation was received it was observed that

the warrant document is of 22 Amardad 1357 Fasli (22nd June 1948) which

shows that he was prosecuted under Section 53 of Defence Act for violation of

Section 119 and his name appears in the warrant and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has

recommended his case therefore, pension be sanctioned.

He appeared although summons issued by the Commission was

returned unserved. He filed written argument through his Advocate which has

been kept in the file.

In his application dated 25.4.1994 he has stated that he took part in the

Hyderabad freedom movement and was underground freedom fighter. He

took part in war against the Nizam Government and offence was registered

against him. He was acquitted. However, he has produced affidavit of

Digambar Haribhau Virdhe and Vinayak Vaijnathrao Rampurkar to the effect

that he took part in the freedom movement against Nizam Government.

Thus even according to the application, he does not claim that any arrest

warrant was issued against him. He was no doubt prosecuted under

section 53 of the Protection of Nizam Government Act, as during his

personal search some weapons like knives, 200 cartridges were seized

from him. As admitted by him he was acquitted in that case. There is no

evidence produced by him to show that he was ever arrested. It is also

stated in the extract of the Court order that even on accepting that 200 live

cartridges were found with him, the same is not against the provisions of

any law. He has produced necessary documents for possession of such

cartridges. What was therefore found with him was only cash and therefore

there was no evidence of any offence committed by him and therefore the

case ended in acquittal.

The abstract of Court order shows that he was acquitted because

possession of cartridges was not found to be against the provisions of any

law. He must be holding license. He avoided to state it. However, the

- 26 -

Court accepted that he produced necessary documents for possession

thereof.

The conclusion of Zilla Gaurav Samiti, that, the evidence produced

established that he took part in the freedom movement against Nizam

Government and therefore the case is fit for sanction of pension is not at

all acceptable. He possessed live cartridges. He was found entitled to

possess.

The High Power Committee observed that the name of Respondent

appeared in the copy of warrant which was in respect of Hyderabad

freedom movement showing that part was taken by him in the freedom

movement. Thereafter it was observed in the note that the so called

warrant copy was got translated and from the translation department. It

appears that he was prosecuted under the Defence of Nizam Government

Act Section 53 and Hyderabad Penal Code 119. His name appeared in the

warrant and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case.

However, it is clear from the record that no arrest warrant was issued

against him and he was acquitted in the criminal case. There is also no

evidence to show that he was ever arrested. He also does not claim that he

was ever arrested and imprisoned even as an under trial prisoner. The fact

remains that provisional pension sanctioned by the Court was only an

interim relief granted.

As already pointed out that he did not produce any copy of warrant and the

note put up before the High Power Committee and the observation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti were misleading as what was produced was only a copy of

abstract of Court register in respect of case which ended in acquittal which

on the face of it shows that he was neither arrested nor imprisoned and no

arrest warrant was issued against him. Therefore he was not entitled for

pension under the provisions of any Government Resolutions. In fact he

was held legally entitled to possess the cartridges.

The Commission therefore finds that he was wrongly granted pension on

grounds which are on the face of it is contrary to the record produced by

him and the Commission is therefore of the considered view that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled

forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 27 -

Shri Yeshwant Kulkarni (deceased) represented by wife Kaveribai.

Kaveribai filed application, as by the time of filing application her

husband Yeshwant Kulkarni was no more. In the application she stated that

her husband had cut shindi trees and he was convicted and sentenced, fine of

Rs.500 and there was ordered to attach his property for recovery of fine. The

copy of order directing him to pay fine is produced. It is certified copy

obtained by Kaveribai. She had filed W.P. in High Court No.1665/95. There

was an interim order for payment of provisional pension.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 20.2.1997 observed that

the warrant was pertaining to attachment of property.

The District Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 10.02.1997

that the original record of the warrant is available with Tahasildar Patoda and

copy has been issued by the Tahasil office. The warrant mentions the name of

Kaveribai’s husband. There was delay in establishment of Zilla Gaurav Samiti

and time limit give by the Court is coming to an end and Government should

therefore take a decision.

Thereafter the High Power Committee sanctioned pension on 2.7.1997.

While considering his case it has not been pointed out in the that the

warrant was in respect of attachment of property because fine was not paid. It

was not arrest warrant as is required by the Government Resolution and there

is no provision in the Government Resolution to grant pension to persons who

was fined for offences of cutting shindi tree.

Before the Mane Committee Kaveribai appeared. She has no personal

knowledge. She has filed a detailed affidavit before the Commission stating

that aforesaid facts and mentioning various orders of the High Court passed in

the petition.

He has produced one certified copy one of panchanama in respect of

attachment of property, in which four names of panchas are mentioned viz.

Dattatraya, Waluba, Jamdarkha and Ranganath. It is stated that the

Panchas appeared on being called by police at the house of Yashwantrao

- 28 -

Kulkarni and police demanded amount of Rs. 500/- which fine was

imposed for cutting shindi trees etc. He refused to pay the fine but there

was nothing in the house available for attachment, therefore his and was

attached. The warrant was for attachment and not for arrest.

In view of the provision of the Government Resolution No. POS 1270/L1

dated 10th August 1970 he is entitled to pension as freedom fighter for the

reason that he was sentenced to fine and in the recovery proceeding his

property was attached. His case was rightly considered with reference to

the provisions of Government Resolution dated 10th August 1970 and

Commission does not find it proper to interfere with the order.

- 29 -

Shri Dattu Ranuji Jogadand

Dattu Ranuji Jogadand was convicted in the Hyderabad freedom

movement and sentenced to imprisonment and in view of this his claim was

approved by the Mane Committee and before the Commission also it is not

challenged.

Dattu Ranuji Jogdand claimed pension on the ground that arrest warrant

was issued against him. However, he never produced copy of any arrest

warrant issued against him. The evidence produced is certified copy of

Register No.1 of the Court which appears to be copy of FIR register

maintained by the Court from which it is seen that offence was registered

against him and three others under section 33(2) and 37 of the Protection

of Nizam Government Act.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 19.3.1997 decided to call for

the verification report regarding warrant and to take decision thereafter.

Therefore the Collector sent a letter to the Civil Court Ashti for

verification of the warrant as the copy was issued by the Ashti Court. The

report in this respect was sent by letter dated 1.8.1995 wherein it is clearly

stated that although FIR was registered against him there is no record of

warrant having been issued against him and the case was closed as no

charge-sheet was filed.

The FIR was in respect of section 32(2) and 37 of the Protection of Nizam

Government Act. However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated

23.04.1997 observed that the name of the person appears in the warrant, its

original record was available with court and the copy was obtained in

regular course from the Court and hence his case is recommended for grant

of pension. This reasoning of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti for recommending

pension is on the face of it is wrong as the report received was that no

warrant was ever issued against him and copy produced was not copy of

warrant but copy of F.I.R. register.

- 30 -

Thus his case can be treated as a case in which offence was registered but

neither warrant was issued nor was he arrested. No charge-sheet was ever

filed against him and the case was closed by the police by sending a final

report. He was thus not even prosecuted for any of the offences, which

were alleged against him by the police.

In the meantime in view of pendency of his application for considerable

time, he filed writ petition in the High Court (Aurangabad Bench) bearing

No. 1165/95, in which a Court passed order on 24.4.1995 for and directed

sanction of provisional pension with a further direction to decide his case

on merits within nine months.

The note put up before the High Power committee further states that the

copy produced was copy of warrant register issued by the Civil Court

Ashti, which was in fact not a copy of warrant register but a copy of FIR

register. Therefore his name appeared not in the warrant register but in the

FIR register.

Initially after the Court order, provisional pension was sanctioned to him

and it appears that as provisional pension was sanctioned in pursuance of

the Court order, there was some apprehension on the part of the

Government that if the pension is not sanctioned that may be against the

Court direction and therefore pension was finally sanctioned. As pointed

out earlier reasons for sanction of pension being contrary to the document

produced on record, the case can not be said to be case of conviction and

sentenced or arrest warrant issued for any activity against the Nizam

Government and thus he had failed to make out any case under the

provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July1995 or any other

Government Resolution.

The Commission therefore is of the view that Dattu Ranuji Jogdand was

sanctioned pension on the grounds which were non existant and the

grounds stated in the note put up before the High Power Committee were

contrary to record. He was not entitled to freedom fighter’s pension and

the Commission recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

- 31 -

sanctioned to him deserves to be and be cancelled forthwith and

recommends accordingly.

- 32 -

PART-VI

CASES RECOMMENDATED BY ZILLA GAURAV SAMITI

OR CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS SANCTIONED BY

THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF

GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 4TH

JULY 1995.

Sr.No. Case

File No.

Name of Freedom Fighter Page No.

7. 111 Tatyaba Bapurao Dhage 31

8. 138 Motiram Vithoba Pakhare 32

9. 192 Shankar Gangaram Kakade 35

10. 354 A Maruti Appaji Kotkar (Deceased)

represented by Shrimati Krishnabai

Maruti Kotkar

- 33 -

Tatyaba Bapurao Dhage:-

He filed applied application for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension on

26.06.1985 and stated in the application that he worked at Pathardi camp

under leadership of Kashinath Jadhav. He filed affidavit on 16.07.1993/

03.07.96 and produced supporting affidavits of Shesherao Changuji Gavhane

and Devidas Kadam dated 27.07.1996. However, there is no evidence of

these two persons had been convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, he filed

another affidavit on 14.05.1997 and produced the affidavit of Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti unanimously recommended his case for grant of

pension. The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Anna

Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and sanctioned pension.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommendations referred to above , is of the

year 1992.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded.

There is nothing new in the statement and similar is in his affidavit filed

before the Commission.

In view of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommendation prior to

13.08.1993 the further rejection of his claim and its reconsideration by the

Government and its long pendency at the Government level will not bring the

case within the purview of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution as on the date of

publication of said Government Resolution his claim was not pending with the

Collector. It was pending with the Government. The Commission finds that

on the ground of noncompliance of Government Resolution dated 4th July

1995 sanctioned of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits cannot be interfered with

by the Commission and the Commission accordingly recommends

continuation thereof.

- 34 -

Case File No. 138 (Respondent No. 138)

Motiram Vithoba Pakhare:-

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 4.12.1996

and stated in the application that he worked under the Ramling Swami and

also named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Bhima Umaji Bangar. He claims to have

applied earlier in 1983 for grant of pension but the original application is not

traceable and the District Collector wrote to the Joint Secretary on 29.1.1992

that although he claims to have sent application by registered post on

25.12.1983 and has produced a receipt, there is no entry in the Register of that

year. He filed affidavits dated 4.12.1992 and stated therein that he worked in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement under Ramling Swami, Advocate Vaze as

well as Namdev Khade and Bhima Umaji Bangar.

He has filed supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

4.12.1996 in which his name is written in ink in the typed affidavit in the

space already left blank for that purpose and it is further added in handwriting

that he worked at Kharda Camp and he was underground, collecting and

coordinating information. He filed the certificate of imprisonment. Another

affidavit filed is of Bhima Umaji Bangar in which it was stated that there were

90 to 95 groups which were working against the Razakars. He was providing

secret information to Kharda Camp and the name of Motiram Vithoba and the

contents of Kharda Camp and secret information are added in handwriting to

the typed affidavit and there is no initial on this of the person whom affidavit

was sworn or the authority before whom it was shorn.. He again filed affidavit

of Anna Eknath Telap dated 1.1.1997, in which also his name is added in

handwriting to the typed format which was already typed.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti has observed that Motiram Vithoba Pakhare had

taken part in freedom movement and that after query it was found that he was

working underground and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is satisfied. The

proceedings are signed by the Chairman and the Members. However, one of

the members Mr. P.V.Joshi mentioned that only because the Chairman states

that whatever he claimed by the person is true, he has signed. There is no date

- 35 -

on the proceeding of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and there is no reference to

affidavits of two freedom fighters.

The District Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 29.3.1997 that

he has filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and and Bhima Umaji

Bangar. Bhima Umaji Bangar was not sentenced to two years. There was

warrant against him only for 9 months and on 20.2.1996 the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti taken decision to forward the case for decision at higher level.

Thereafter applicant filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

1.1.1997. The High Power Committee referred to two affidavits and the letter

of the Collector. There is further note of the Department with reference to his

work in the freedom movement with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao

Vaze, Namdev Khade and Bangar. He has filed affidavit of Anna Eknath

Telap and in view of the support from the two freedom fighters it is clear that

he took part in the freedom movement. It is further added that the Deputy

Chief Minister had recommended his case for sanction of pension. There is

also letter of Deputy Chief Minister dated 24.6.95 requesting the Sabhapati to

sanction pension to him as freedom fighter.

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

that there was no warrant issued against him and when there was firing at

Dighol he ran away and resided at Jamkhed with his maternal uncle and next

day he went to Kharda Camp. He filed affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

He has filed detailed affidavit before the Commission stating there

for the first time that for three months he was to leave away from his house

and he could not take education.

A reference to the note placed before the High Power Committee

shows that the Respondents was insisting from beginning that he had filed

application on 25th December 1983. It is true that the said application was not

traceable in the Collector office. He produced a postal acknowledgement for

having sent such an application and his application was forwarded by the

- 36 -

Collector on 25th January 1990 The note put up thereafter shows that the

application was in proper format. There was recommendation of the Kendra

Pramukh as well as Zilla Gaurav Samiti and he had also filed affidavits of two

freedom fighters.

On going through the entire note of the High Power Committee the

earlier proceedings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the correspondence, it is clear

that the Respondent was insisting from the beginning that he had given

application on 25th December 1983 which in fact has been accepted by the

Government by giving effect to the pension granted to him from that date.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti had considered his case and although not

recommended, it was forwarded to the Government long before the issuance

of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution as is clear from the note put up to the

High Power Committee.

It is true that when the claim was not being considered he filed

affidavits of two freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath

Telap as required by the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

However, since in the year 1991 itself the Collector’s letter was there and the

note to the High Power Committee mentioned that his case was recommended

by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. It appears that thereafter objections were raised

and even it was suspected that the postal receipt produced by him may not be

in connection with the application. However, since it was addressed to the

Freedom Fighters Cell of the District Collector, it could not be anything

different and his contention that it was in respect of application sent for grant

of freedom fighter’s pension had to be accepted. He had no other reason to

send any registered letter to the Freedom Fighters Cell by registered post. If

the application was lost or was misplaced by the Collector office, it is not his

fault and since his case was not pending before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 4th

July 1995 but was pending before the Government. The provisions of 4th July

1995 Government Resolution is applicable and his claim although granted on

consideration of these provisions, the findings deserve to be upheld because it

should have been granted on the basis of Government Resolutions existing

prior to 4th July 1995 with which he had complied with. The Commission

therefore considers that the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by the

Government need not be interfered with and recommends accordingly.

- 37 -

Shankar Gangaram Kakade

He applied for grant of pension on 30.12.1994 stating that he worked

under Ashraji Raojai Jagtap and he was underground Freedom Fighter. After

notice dated 18.08.1997 was issued he stated that he worked with Dr. Achyut

Amrut Rasal and is producing documents.

He filed affidavit dated 19,07,1997 where in he stated that he was

sentenced to fine of Rs.30/- and imprisoned for 3 days and he has produced

the copy of entry in the Court Register. He filed supporting affidavits of Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 21.07.1997 and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal dated

05.07.1997. Dr.Rasal was convicted and sentenced in the Freedom Movement

of India and in his affidavit he merely stated that he also worked in Hyderabad

Freedom Movement. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 21.07.1997

his name is added in ink to the typed proforma in which space is kept blank for

inserting name and insertion is not initialed by anybody.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting Dated 09.12.1997 relied on the

affidavits of Achyut Amrut Rasal, Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended

grant of pension.

However, the Additional Collector – Member Secretary by letter dated

14.07.1998 pointed out that there was no compliance with the Government

Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee observed in the note that he worked from

Mirajgaro camp in the Freedom Movement and he referred to the fact that he

was convicted and sentenced to fine and was in prison for three days and the

copy of entry in the register shows his name at Sr.No. 15. He has also

produced two affidavits of Freedom Fighters who were sentenced to two years

imprisonment and pension was sanctioned. However, copy of order of

Criminal Court shows that although other persons were convicted and

sentenced Shankar Gangaram, Dashrath Aba, Dadaba Daji, Babu Hiraman,

Bhanudas Aba, Sahebrao Tatya having tendered apology, personal bonds were

ordered to be obtained from them for one year.

- 38 -

After notice was issued by the Commission he filed a detailed affidavit

running into 12 pages but he has not stated that in his affidavit that he was

convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 30/- and three days imprisonment.

In the statement he did not refer to the name of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Dr.

Achyut Amrut Rasal.

In this case on going through the file one thing is clear that he was one

of the accused in criminal case No. 52/18-1356-Fasli which was decided by

the Judicial Magistrate, Ashti. Accused No. 1 Narharrao who was well-known

freedom fighter was sentenced to two years and some others accused were

also sentenced to imprisonment. The claim of the respondent does not appear

to be correct as contended by him that he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 30.

He was for 3 days in the custody of police as he was produced in court

along with all the accused after 3 days. He may be under apprehension that it

was conviction and sentenced because he was in custody for 3 days. In any

case the copy of judgment reveals that he was involved in the incident for

which one of the freedom fighters was sentenced for 2 years which obviously

means that the incident was quite serious and he was in custody for three days.

Therefore apart from his other claim of being an underground freedom fighter,

the fact that he was in custody for taking part in freedom fighter movement is

clearly established and on this ground alone the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserves to be continued and the Commission

- 39 -

File Case No. 354/A (Respondent No.354/A)

Maruti Appaji Kotkar (Deceased) represented by Shrimati Krishnabai

Maruti Kotkar

Maruti Appaji Kotkar filed application on 30.4.1984 for freedom

fighter’s pension stating his detailed role-played as underground freedom

fighter in the movement against Nizam Government. Thereafter on 1.7.1989

Desk Officer, General Administration Department asked him to filed

certificates of two freedom fighters.

On 10.7.1989 Maruti Appaji Kotkar submitted recommendation letter

of Camp Leader along with his reply dated 10.7.1989. Thereafter on 19th

December 1989, General Administration Department further asked him to

produce the certificates of other freedom fighters. He submitted affidavits of

Yugraj Sambhaji Thorve dated 31.12.1993.

The High Power Committee granted application of Maruti Appaji

Kotkar dated 17.1.1994 and accordingly order was issued on 22.3.1994.

Maruti Appaji Kotkar died on 28.11.1999, so Krishnabai appeared before

Mane Committee on 16.4.2003 and stated that she supplied bread and other

things to the leaders of Hyderabad freedom movement for a period of one year

and she does not know anything more.

Pension was sanctioned to him with effect from 1.1.1994 as he had

complied with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 31st

December 1993. His case is therefore not covered by the provisions of 4th

July 1995 Government Resolution as his case was not pending for

consideration before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 4th July 1995 and there is no

question of reconsidering the case of freedom fighter who was sanctioned

pension prior to the issuance of said Government Resolution dated 4th July

It appears that original file was missing and therefore long time was

required for issuance of order sanctioning pension to him. That however, does

not make any difference as the pension was already sanctioned prior to

- 40 -

issuance of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution although the orders were

issued afterwards.

The Commission therefore finds that there was no reason to reconsider

his case after the issuance of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and

pension granted to him has to be continued and cannot be cancelled now. The

Commission recommends the continuance thereof accordingly.

- 41 -

PART – VII

REASONS IN GENERAL APPLICABLE TO THE CASES

OF UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTER (UGFF)

While considering the cases of underground freedom fighters (UGFF

for short) it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of 5th July

1995 Government Resolution. According to clause 3 (E) the freedom fighters

who were working underground are required to produce following

documents:-

1) Certificate describing the different types of suffering as a result of

remaining underground and taking part in the freedom movement.

(A) That he was required to live away from his house,

(B) He was required to give up education or was removed from the

educational institution for the reason that was involved in the

freedom movement,

(C) That he was beaten by the police to such an extent that it caused

him permanent disability.

In addition he has to produce affidavits and certificates of at least two

freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years imprisonment in the

freedom movement or were absconding for a period of two years. For the

aforesaid purpose he is required to produce certificate from the Jail Authority

or any evidence to show that there was publication that the said supporting

freedom fighter was absconding for a period of two years. He is also required

to file affidavits of such freedom fighters.

In the State of Maharashtra, official language being Marathi any

Government Resolution is first drafted and published in Marathi and Marathi

is the original. It is then translated by the Translation Department in English

and is also published in the Official Gazette in English. The Government

Resolution dated 4th July 1995 published in the Official Gazette in English

shows that Column 3 E (1) A. B. C is to the effect that the underground

freedom fighters are required to file along with the application the evidence in

- 42 -

the form of certificates and affidavits of two freedom fighters who have

undergone imprisonment for a period of two years. As per the original Marathi

version what is required is certificate and / or affidavit of two freedom fighters

who were sentenced to two years imprisonment but not necessarily of freedom

fighters who have undergone imprisonment for two years. This is a very

relevant aspect of the matter, which shows that the English translation is not

correct.

The entire Hyderabad Freedom Movement went on for a period of 13

months from 15th August 1947 to 17

th September 1948. On the Government

of Nizam being taken over by the Union of India after military action, all the

persons in detention either for preventive measures taken or because of

conviction and sentence for their part in the freedom movement were released

forthwith on the State being practically merged in the Union of India. Some

of the freedom fighters were already released either because of grant of bail or

execution of bond for good behavior. Therefore, not a single freedom fighter

had in fact undergone imprisonment for two years. Therefore, the correct

version which is the Marathi version states the correct position. The

Commission is therefore of the view that what is to be produced are affidavits

and/or certificates of freedom fighters sentenced to two years imprisonment

or were declared absconding for two years or against whom there was warrant

of arrest effective for two years. No format of certificate is prescribed. It can

be accepted that affidavit with the record of jail or declaration as absconding

would serve the purpose.

So far as documents stated in Clause E(1) regarding production of

certificates stating what type of problems and hardships, he had undergone, it

is not made clear as to who was to issue such certificates. There is no law,

which prescribes the authority required to issue such certificate. Similarly,

regarding the fact that he was required to remain away from his house and

family, also there is no authority which could issue or was expected to issue or

given authority or duty to issue such certificate and therefore the affidavit of

the claimant freedom fighter making positive statement supported by at least

one of the freedom fighter stating that he was required to live away from his

- 43 -

house can be accepted as sufficient evidence complying with the provisions of

the Government Resolution. Affidavit being a statement on oath has sanctity

in law and must contain statements which are and can be accepted as

trustworthy. Filing affidavits is not a mere technical formality. The statement

contained therein must be found reliable. If there are any changes in the typed

or originally hand written affidavit, the changes or alterations must be signed

or at least initialed not only by the person swearing affidavit but also by the

authority before whom it is sworn.

Thus, it is necessary to bear in mind that the affidavits of the freedom

fighter and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters should be found

reliable and trustworthy and if the same is either suspicious and on the face of

it unreliable then it is in the eye of law no evidence to make out the case as

required by the Government Resolution.

So far as the other aspect that he was expelled from school or was

required to give up education, his school certificate or any documentary

evidence from the school record can be produced. If he was beaten by the

police, which caused permanent disablement, medical certificate of disability

connecting the same with the incident of beating by police should serve the

purpose and the Commission finds accordingly.

It needs to be pointed out at this stage only that in the cases placed for

consideration before this Commission no underground freedom fighter has

claimed that he was beaten by the police to such an extent that he suffered

some disability. Similarly, nobody has produced any news paper cutting or

news item showing that he was declared absconding. Neither anyone has

claimed that he was required to give up education (with few exceptions) nor

has produced any school record to show that he was required to give up

education or was expelled from the educational institution as a result of

participation in the freedom movement.

Twenty five freedom fighters have claimed pension on both grounds

i.e. on the ground that he was underground during the freedom movement as

well as on the ground that warrant of arrest was issued against him. The

- 44 -

Commission has considered these cases by keeping in mind that the claim can

be held valid if either of the ground is satisfactorily established.

The 164 freedom fighters have filed supporting affidavits of two or

more freedom fighters most of which are from out of the following list.

1) Anna Eknath Telap

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

3) Namdeo Balawant Aher

4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)

5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule

6) Sona Rama Jaybhay

7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal

8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia

9) Mohan Narhari Deth

The above list is restricted to the persons who as per the Government

Resolution are qualified to issue the supporting affidavits in the sense that they

were either sentenced to two years imprisonment or were declared absconding

for two years or against whom there was arrest warrant for two years.

In addition to the above underground freedom fighters have also filed

affidavits of some other freedom fighters out of which many are known for

their work against Nizam Government in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement

or Hyderabad Mukti Sangram, their affidavits can be taken into consideration

to ensure the reliability of the statement of the freedom fighter regarding his

work in the freedom movement but at the same time it has to be borne in mind

that they are not qualified as per the Government Resolution to file supporting

affidavits in order that the claim of freedom fighter as underground freedom

fighter is recommended by the Zilla Gavrav Samiti or sanctioned by the High

Power Committee.

Many of the freedom fighters from the above list have filed

supporting affidavits in number of cases which creates doubt regarding their

statement that the said freedom fighters (Claimants) took part in the movement

- 45 -

along with them and was involved in the particular incidents stated in the

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighter working with him.

The following are the approximate number of cases in which each of

the supporting freedom figher has filed affidavits in the cases referred to the

Commission which consist 164 cases of underground freedom fighters.-

Name of the Supporting No. of cases in which

freedom fighter affidavit is filed.

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………. 89

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane…………………79

3) Namdeo Balawant Aher…………………46

4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)…46

5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule………………45

6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………..66

7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal………………14

8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia…13

9) Mohan Narhari Deth…………………….10

In addition to the cases which are referred to the Commission the

aforesaid persons have filed supporting affidavits in following number of

cases which are out of 347 cases rejected by the Collector.

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………………….89

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane……………………….…101

3) Namdeo Balawant Aher………………………..…24

4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)..22

5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule……………………….07

6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………………..45

7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal……………………….24

8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia……..…..07

9) Mohan Narhari Deth………………… …….…..07

- 46 -

There are 2068 files at present in the Mantralaya in which the claims

are rejected and in those cases supporting affidavits are filed by the above

stated freedom fighters (viz):-

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………..900

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane………………..1068

3) Namdeo Balawant Aher………………. 44

4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

(absconding for two years)………………99

5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule……………… 43

6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………..463

7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal………………205

8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia.. 201

9) Mohan Narahari Deth……………….. 200

In addition there are likely to be affidavits of the some of the said

freedom fighters in 1417 cases from the Beed district in which claim was

sanctioned earlier. However those files have not been scrutinized by the

Commission.

The Commission called these files in addition to the 354 + 1 files when

in number of cases it was noticed that same persons were filing supporting

affidavits with same contents. It was also noted that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as

well as the High Power Committee had also at some stage realised this aspect

and had expressed suspicion.

There is one disturbing aspect of these supporting affidavits. In almost

all affidavits of these freedom fighters with exceptions which are far and few

between, the names of the freedom fighter supported, his age and place of

residence is added to the typed affidavit either in hand writing or by typing at

later stage in different type with different ink which difference is obvious to

the necked eye. In many cases the name of the supporting freedom fighter is

- 47 -

also added after the affidavit was typed. These alteration or additions in the

typed affidavits are neither signed nor initialed by the deponent and much less

by the authority before whom the affidavit was sworn or even by the person

who identified the deponent before the said authority.

Another more important aspect is that the affidavit of one supporting

freedom fighter in one case, if compared with the affidavit of the same

supporting freedom fighter in another case, discloses the same story or the

same incident stating that 50 or 60 persons including the person whom he is

supporting had taken part in the said incident.

Anna Eknath Telap in his affidavit refers to have worked at Kharda

camp with Wamanrao Vaze and Namdevrao Khade who were head or Kendra

Pramukh. He further states that there were 90 to 95 groups, which groups

used to attack on razakar camps and ransack their Camps. During these

activities they had burnt pachangri naka, antervali naka and in these incidents

the particular freedom fighters whose name is added in the affidavits later on

by ink or by typing had taken part along with 50 to 60 persons. In some

further affidavits he increased the number from 50-60 to 90-95 and at some

later stage he merely stated that many other persons including the named

freedom fighter was with him but the incidents mentioned are the same

namely burning of pachangri naka and Antarvali Naka. If 50 to 60 persons

including him had taken part in these incidents, how could he file affidavits

supporting more than thousand persons as underground freedom fighters

quoting one and the same incident.

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has referred to the incident of burning of

pachangri naka and burning Daskhed police patil wada and office record in

which there were 50 to 60 persons with him and stating these very incidents,

he has filed affidavits supporting more than 1200 claimants as underground

freedom fighters.

Sona Rama Jaybhay also refers to the incident of burning of Antarvali

naka, Daskhed police patil wada and office record. Sona Rama Jaybhay has

filed affidavits supporting about 575 underground freedom fighters.

- 48 -

One more aspect of these affidavits is that so far as Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changedia and Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal are concerned they

were sentenced to imprisonment in the freedom movement of India and not in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. Similarly Mohand Narhari Deth was also

sentenced in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad Freedom

Movement. All three are from Ahmednagar District. It is by no means the

intention of the Commission to indicate that freedom fighters from the

adjacent Ahmednagar district are not qualified to file supporting affidavit.

However, regarding the role of these freedom fighters in Hyderabad Mukti

Sangram there is reason to suspect whether they in fact took part in Hyderabad

Freedom Movement. No independent oral or documentary evidence is

adduced regarding their factual involvement in the Hyderabad Freedom

Movement. This aspect as well as the aspect that these very persons have

been consistently filing supporting affidavits and there are such additions and

alterations was noticed by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as by the High

Power Committee.

So far the High Power Committee is concerned the Member Secretary

went to the extent of making statement in his note in file No. 106 of Hemraj

Premraj Meher about Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Changedia who are

from Ahmednagar district, incidentally the said Member Secretary Rajabhau

Zarkar also belonged to Ahmednagar district. He has stated in his note that

these persons have collected money from various claimants and have given

affidavits supporting their claim and it is necessary to hold inquiry against

them. In pursuance thereof the Collector was directed to hold inquiry. The

inquiry was never held and naturally no report was given to the Government.

In spite of the aforesaid observations of the Member Secretary, and

consequent order for inquiry to the Collector, the said Respondent No. 106 i.e.

Hemraj Premraj Meher, was sanctioned pension and even after such

observation the claims of underground freedom fighters supported by the same

freedom fighters were accepted on the basis of supporting affidavits from

- 49 -

Similarly the Zilla Gaurav Samiti also observed in file No. 9

Bhagawan Dhondiba Chaure in the note put up before the High Power

Committee by the office recommending sanction, the Member Secretary

Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar noted on 16.4.1998 that the supporting freedom

fighters Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap, Namdeo Balwant Aher have filed supporting affidavits in hundreds of

cases and therefore their affidavits are not reliable and one particular advocate

Tandale had identified the deponents before the competent authority and an

enquiry is required to be made in this regard and the claim be rejected.

Thereafter the claim was first rejected and he was also informed. However,

after that the same member Secretary stated that he filed his own affidavit and

two other affidavits of supporting freedom fighters and thereafter a completely

contradictory note was put up and the claim was recommended for sanction.

Whereafter again the Member Secretary, (Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar) noted

that in view of the new documents the claim is required to be reconsidered and

the same be sanctioned. This clearly shows how indiscriminately the

supporting freedom fighters were filing affidavits which on the face of it are

unreliable.

There is one another aspect that even the freedom fighters themselves

while filing affidavits which were typed in a format keepting blank space for

writing the name of the respondent freedom fighter which was added in ink

later on and that also without signature or initial of anybody much less of the

competent authority. What sanctity can be attatched to the statement contained

in such affidavits of the freedom fighters regarding various incidents in which

they claim to be involved and on the basis of which they are claiming

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane have indiscriminately

filed supporting affidavits which are containing typed material and names

have been later on added in number of cases which creates doubt regarding

truthfulness of the statements of such freedom fighters that the claimant

freedom fighter was working along with them in the freedom movement and

had taken part in the particular incident stated in the said affidavits.

- 50 -

The High Power Committee also observed in file No.216, Bhanudas

Sadhu Jagatap and file No.310, Raghunath Parshuram Shinde that Anna

Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane have indiscriminately filed

supporting affidavits in number of cases which raises clear doubt regarding

their credibility and the statements contained in their affidavits and it is

necessary to hold inquiry against them.

In addition the Commission found that in some cases the spaces left

blank for addition of the name of the freedom fighter have remained blank and

the affidavit has been sworn in with such blank spaces and even the authority

before whom the affidavit was sworn has over looked the said material

illegality in the affidavit. In fact this raises doubt regarding the credibility of

the said officer/authority who was of the rank of Naib Tahasildar. From the

fact that in some affidavits the spaces for writing names of freedom fighter

have remained blank lead to an irresistible conclusion that the persons who are

holding Sanmanpatra, had kept ready a proforma affidavit which was being

typed on the stamp paper and as and when some person claiming to be

freedom fighter approached them, in the blank space, the names and other

particulars were added. These serious infirmities and illegalities in the

affidavits cannot be over looked and lead to the conclusion that the supporting

freedom fighters were swearing and issuing affidavits on demand to anybody.

The entire credibility of statement contained in their affidavit is therefore

suspicious. Their affidavits are not even worth the paper on which they are

written. In file No.216, Bhanudas Sadhu Jagtap there are blank affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap dated 5.2.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In Case file No.337 Kisan Yadav Pawar there are blank affidavits

bearing signature of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr.

Changedia has also signed on the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth where in

fact Mohan Narhari Deth should have signed. The affidavit is incomplete and

it has not been sworn in. The Commission noted this very disgusting aspect.

There is one more aspect which is equally shocking and shows that to

what extent the supporting freedom fighters were filing affidavits

indiscriminately with no regard for the truth of the contents. In some cases the

- 51 -

original freedom fighter died after filing the application. (Two case numbers

and names are given below) After the death of the freedom fighter, his widow

was entitled to continue the proceedings and the final order could be passed

sanctioning the claim in her favour as widow of the freedom fighter

representing him. She herself had not moved any application claiming to be

freedom fighter. However, after the death of the freedom fighter, the affidavit

filed by her was to the effect either that she was the freedom fighter or that she

along with her husband was a freedom fighter. She produced supporting

affidavits from out of the above stated list of freedom fighters and in those

supporting affidavits it is mentioned that she was the freedom fighter and not

that her husband was a freedom fighter. When the widow never applied

claiming to be freedom fighter and entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits,

how could a supporting freedom fighters make statement on oath not only that

she was the freedom fighter but also to the effect that in the particular incident

stated in their affidavit she was involved along with them. It is this type of

conduct of the supporting freedom fighters and affidavits of such freedom

fighters that led the Commission to scrutinize the affidavits of the freedom

fighters as well as the supporting freedom fighters minutely. Although the

Commission was aware of the legal position that the evidence in such

proceedings is not to be scanned as in the criminal cases. When, on the face of

it, it is obvious that supporting freedom fighters are going to such an extent,

then their affidavits lose all sanctity and require a minute scrutiny.

Following are some such cases :-

In file No. 79, (Mathurabai widow of Bajirao Laxman Tarte)

Mathurabai herself had not filed application for grant of Sanmanpatra

and allied pensionary benefits, application was filed by Bajirao Laxman Tarte

who claimed himself to be freedom fighter. In the note to High Power

Committee also it was mentioned that Bajirao Laxman Tarte was freedom

fighter and in his affidavit it is stated that how his family members were

required to suffer because of his part in the freedom movement. Thus the

entire claim of Bajirao Laxman Tarte is contradicted by the affidavit of his

wife and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters as suddenly after his

- 52 -

death, Mathurabai herself claimed to be freedom fighter and even the

supporting freedom fighters stated on oath to that effect and so all these

affidavits are not reliable. This is one of the classic cases which shows how

the supporting freedom fighters could go to any extent and filed supporting

affidavits when the said person had not even applied .

When called before the Mane Committee Mathurabai stated clearly

that she did not take part in the freedom movement and is claiming pension as

widow of Bajirao Laxman Tarte. She further stated that at the time of freedom

movement her age was 8 to 10 years and therefore she was not aware what

was the exact part played by Bajirao Laxman Tarte in the freedom movement

and she is not aware what documents were produced by her husband along

with application for pension.

Similar is the case of one Dwarkabai in Case File No.84.

In Case File No.231, (Narayan Shankar Waghmode). Narayan

Shankar Waghmode died on 18th March 1996 and record to that effect is in the

file (death certificate), however affidavit in the name of Narayan is sworn in

and verified on 7th September 1999 and he was identified before the competent

authority by Mr. S.N. Kulkarni advocate of Beed. This in fact calls for not

only an inquiry but even prosecution of the concerned Advocate Mr.

S.N.Kulkarni.

There are cases of freedom fighters who were either of extremely

tender age or were not even born and could not have taken part in the freedom

movement but inspite of this the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two

years imprisonment have filed supporting affidavits making positive statement

that these persons have taken part in the Hyderabad freedom movement and

were involved along with them in the particular incident stated in the

affidavit.

- 53 -

In some of the cases viz. File No. 320 Rama Manik Wanave the

competent authority who has given oath and in whose presence affidavits are

claimed to be sworn has not even signed, which indicates that the affidavit

was never in fact sworn before the authority and is a mere statement in writing

on stamp paper but is filed as if it is an affidavit and was treated by the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti of which the Additional Collector was member secretary and

also by the High Power Committee before whom notes were put up by

Mantralaya staff which included persons of the level of Under Secretary

and/or Deputy Secretary. After having noticed such type of affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment in the

freedom movement either in Hyderabad freedom movement or the freedom

movement of India and after further realizing the fact that at least five of them

have filed supporting affidavits in abnormally large number of cases namely

Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay Dr. Achyut

Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia the Commission

faced the dilemma as to whether every claimant claiming to be underground

freedom fighter who has sought supporting affidavits from these persons, his

claim should be rejected out right for that reason alone.

The Commission sincerely felt that there could be cases of some

freedom fighters who in fact were underground freedom fighters and had

suffered during the freedom movement but had sought the affidavits of these

persons as the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 made a condition

precedent for consideration of the claim as underground freedom fighter. The

Commission therefore dcided that in cases in which it appears to the

Commission that the case of the underground freedom fighter appears to be

genuine but he has filed their affidavits for mere compliance with the

provisions of the said Government Resolution then for that reason alone his

claim should not be rejected. However, that aspect should also not be treated

either casually or lightly or ignored. Therefore the Commission has

rcommended continuation of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits in cases which

are far and few between in which the supporting affidavits are also of these

persons. However, as a general rule their affidavits specially when the same

were defective in the sense that the entire affidavit was not written or typed in

- 54 -

one stroke and the name, place of residence etc. was added to typed affidavit

which contained almost the similar facts as contained in the other affidavits

filed by same freedom fighters to support others, the cases should be

thoroughly scrutinized and only in exceptional case the defect may be ignored

to avaoid injustice to genuine freedom fighter.

The cases in which there was consistence in the assertion of the

freedom fighter through out or there was some other materials on record to

accept his claim, the fact that he filed affidavits of aforesaid freedom fighters

should not come in his way.

These are general grounds in the cases of underground freedom

fighters and are applicable to the cases of Underground Freedom Fighters

mutatis mutandis. However each case has been considered independently.

These grounds are in addition to other reasons stated in the particular case.

- 55 -

PART – VIII

REASONS IN GENERAL APPLICABLE TO

CASES BASED ON ARREST WARRANTS

As during the relevant period of Hyderabad freedom movement the

only person posted to Patoda as Tahasildar was one Mr. Moinuddin Ali Khan

B.A. LL.B. all the arrest warrants/letters issued from the office of Tahasildar

Patoda are signed by the said person alone.

In the 354+1 cases referred to the Commission claims are based on

arrest warrants issued against them by 203 respondents. In all there are 32

documents styled as warrants or letters which have been relied upon by the

various respondents in these 203 cases.

On behalf of the petitioner Advocate N.L.Jadhav contended that arrest

warrants could have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda and in any case the

Tahasildar could not issue arrest warrant with a direction to produce the said

person before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. However, Advocate Andhale

appearing for some of the Respondents drew my attention to the Hyderabad

Tenancy Act and pointed out that Tahasil Patoda was a “Mahal” tahasil which

was known in those days as “Sarfekhas”. These were special areas, the

income of which was being used for the maintenance of the family of Nizam.

The officers appointed in such areas had special powers and therefore

Tahasildar Patoda was one of the Executive Magistrate having special power

to issue arrest warrants. Advocate Jadhav did not bring to my notice any

provisions of law to substantiate his contention. He also did not contend that

the Tahasildar was not an Executive Magistrate. Thus, apart from the

argument of Advocate Andhale, the Commission is of the view that being an

Executive Magistrate having duty of maintaining law and order, the Tahasildar

in his capacity as Executive Magistrate was competent to issue warrant of

arrest and if the powers of remand were not with the Executive Magistrate

then, naturally the person arrested would be produced before a Judicial

authority having powers of remand. I am, therefore, not at all impressed by

the arguments of Advocate Jadhav that warrant of arrest could never have

been issued by Tahasildar Patoda.

- 56 -

After perusal of the files the Commission noted from the translations

provided by the concerned respondents to the Government that the Tahasildar

issuing the warrant addressed or forwarded copies thereof to all police stations

in Beed district as well as to the District Collector (Talukdar), District

Superintendent of Police and all the Courts of judicial magistrate in the

District. In none of the file any certificate of the Tahasildar was produced.

The copies which can be said at least on the face of it to be certified copies

issued as per the provisions of law and rules pertaining to issuance of certified

copies were found in very few files which can be said to be exceptional. The

number being less than ten, in all other cases what was produced was only a

Xerox copy with translation thereof either in English or in Marathi and the

translation work was done by some person not officially or legally authorized

to provide the translation of a document.

The Commission at the first instance issued summons to all the police

stations, office of Collector, Office of Superintendent of Police and all the

Courts of Judicial Magistrates to secure the original documents or at least

copies forwarded from the office of Tahasildar Patoda to these authorities and

also to Tahasildar Patoda. Although from the various notes and

correspondence found in these files, it was noted that the Tahasildar Patoda

had submitted the record of his office to the Collector Beed vide letter

No.88/Record/Ka/ Vi/ 1984 dated 9th June 1988 and when for the purpose of

verification, report was called from the Tahasildar Patoda, he even intimated

the Collector by letter dated 6th August 1999 that the record had already been

deposited with the Collector office vide letter dated 9th June 1988, however,

surprisingly enough the verification reports regarding the genuineness of the

copies submitted to the Government was being called from the Tahasildar

through the Collector and the Tahasildar being a subordinate officer had to

submit the report and therefore he submitted the report by verifying from the

Xerox copy itself by getting the same translated though some person knowing

Urdu language.

Although the Commission issued summons to all aforesaid authorities,

in response the Commission received, one set of documents from Ambajogai

police station and two sets of documents from the Court of Judicial Magistrate

First Class Georai. The Ambajogai police station forwarded eight warrants

out of which six are concerned with the 354+1 cases referred and Judicial

Magistrate First Class Gevrai forwarded six warrants. There was initially no

response from the Collector office but the Commission brought it to the notice

- 57 -

of the Collector that as per the correspondence contained in the files, the

Tahasildar has already deposited the original record with the office of the

Collector Beed so the Commission be informed whether the same is traceable

and if not whether it has been destroyed according to rules. Only after this

the Commission received two files from the office of the Collector pertaining

to Patoda Tahsil, containing 15 warrants in addition to other confidential

correspondence. Even the warrants were marked as confidential. The record

received from the Collector contained fifteen warrants as well as some

correspondence and some applications for certified copies given by different

persons to the Tahasildar in pursuance of which some copies were in fact

prepared and kept ready for delivery to the concerned applicants but the said

persons who had applied for certified copies never turned up to the office of

the Tahasildar for collecting the copies on payment of fees.

It was contended before the Commission on behalf of the petitioners

that the warrants which are received from these different offices do not contain

any inward numbers and the outward numbers are not as per the chronology of

dates. In order to appreciate these aspects of the matter it is necessary to note

the position of Fasli calendar dates and its equivalent dates according to

English Calendar.

The Government of Hyderabad (Nizam Government) had by an order

made the dates of Fasli Calendar and the English Calendar months uniform

with effect from 1st October 1946 and corresponding English calendar months

Fasli calendar months and year are shown in the following table:-

English Calendar

EnglishCalendar

Months

Fasli year Fasli Months

1946 October 1356 Azur

1946 November 1356 Dai

1946 December 1356 Bahman

1947 January 1356 Isfander

1947 February 1356 Farwardi

1947 March 1356 Ardibehisht

1947 April 1356 Khurdad

1947 May 1356 Thir

1947 June 1356 Amardad

1947 July 1356 Shahrewar

1947 August 1356 Mehir

1947 September 1356 Aban

- 58 -

1947 October 1356 Azur

1947 November 1356 Dai

1947 December 1356 Bahman

1948 January 1357 Isfander

1948 February 1357 Farwardi

1948 March 1357 Ardibehisht

1948 April 1357 Khurdad

1948 May 1357 Thir

1948 June 1357 Amardad

1948 July 1357 Shahrewar

1948 August 1357 Mehir

1948 September 1357 Aban

The Hyderabad freedom movement was during 15th August 1947 to

17th September 1948. Earlier also there were some incidents but the movement

took grave turn only with effect from 15th August 1947. We are mostly

concerned with the corresponding dates which are after the aforesaid order of

Hyderabad Government of making equivalent calendar months as pointed out

in the said table.

The month equivalent to January as per Fasli calendar is Isfander and

the last month December as per the English calendar is known as Bahman as

per the Fasli calendar. The first month of the Fasli calendar is Azur and its

equivalent month as per the English calendar is October. The first three

months i.e Azur, Dai and Bahman are thus equivalent to October, November

and December in the equivalent year. However, since as per the English

calendar the year changes after the month of December, although the Fasli

year continues for 9 months thereafter. Thus so far as Fasli 1357 is concerned

the first three months are the last three months, October, November and

December of 1947 and the next nine months of 1357 Fasli Isfander to Aban

are equivalent to first nine months that is January to September of the year

The 32 warrants with which we are concerned in these files are all in

the Fasli year 1357 equivalent to English calendar year 1947-48.

The following Table contains detailed description of the Warrants i.e.

file number, outward number date etc in the table.:-

- 59 -

Sr. No. File No. Outward

Date (Fasli) English date

1 49/57 227 27 Dai 1357 27.11.1947

2 - 217 2 Bahman 1357 02.12.1947

3 7/1357 Fasli 407 2 Bahman 1357 02.12.1947

4 - 101 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947

5 - 310 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947

6 21/2/57F 406 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947

7 1010 - 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947

8 530 Nil 11 Bahman 1357 11.12.1947

9 10/11 213 12 Bahman 1357 12.12.1947

10 21/57 Nil 13 Bahman 1357 13.12.1947

11 - 101 14 Bahman 1357 14.12.1947

12 101/1357 190 14 Bahman 1357 14.12.1947

13 101/86/1357 F 217 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947

14 21/57 270 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947

15 402 191/1 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947

16 21/57 217 17 Bahman 1357 17.12.1947

17 21/57 201 10 Isfander 1357 10.01.1948

18 21/57 202 11 Isfander 1357 11.01.1948

19 21/57 203 12 Isfander 1357 12.01.1948

20 Nil 205 13 Isfander 1357 13.01.1948

21 201/57 323 14 Isfander 1357 14.01.1948

22 21/57 204 17 Isfander 1357 17.01.1948

23 21/2 490 17 Isfander 1357 17.01.1948

24 21/57 202 21 Isfander 1357 21.01.1948

25 24/01 209 21 Isfander 1357 21.01.1948

26 Nil 205 24 Isfander 1357 24.01.1948

27 205/57 F 209 24 Isfander 1357 24.01.1948

28 21/1 617 17 Thir 1357 17.05.1948

29 10/21/81 221 14 Amardad 1357 14.06.1948

30 21/10 126 16 Amardad 1357 16.06.1948

31 Nil 598 2 Mehir 1357 02.08.1948

32 21/2/57 214 - -

Annexure IV contains list of 18 warrants which were received by the

Commission from three different sources viz, Collector Office, Beed

(pertaining to Tahsildar Patoda), Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Georai and Police Station Ambejogai. These were sent to the hand writing

- 60 -

expert along with undisputed correspondence and office notes signed by the

same officer (Tahsildar Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan)

Annexure III (A), (B), (C) state the details of different warrants out of these

18 warrants received from one of the particular source referred above.

Annexure VII contains list of 14 warrants which are referred in different files.

However, the originals of these warrants could not be made available from any

source and are reportably not available. As per the report of Superintendent of

Police, Beed all the record of warrant for the said period which was at

different police stations has been destroyed as per rules.

In addition also there are some warrants in different files which are not

referred to or relied upon by any of the 354 respondents. These were not sent

to the expert for examination and report.

So far as warrant Outward No. 205 and Outward No. 209 are

concerned some confusion is lightly arise one's in mind. Warrant Outward No.

205 and Outward No. 209 are amongst the 18 warrants sent to the hand

writing expert. However, there is no warrant bearing file No. 205 and Outward

No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948). Warrant Outward No. 209

bears file No. 24/1 and is dated 21 Isfander 1357 F (21.1.1948) and Warrant

Outward No. 205 does not bear any file No. i.e. File No. is NIL and is dated

24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948). Considering that even the respondent freedom

fighter may have given wrong description due to such confusion in the cases

in which either of these warrant is relied upon, the Commission has given

reasons in regard to both the warrants in such cases.

There is also no logic in file numbers given. However, the Commission

is not aware about the procedure and has no comments.

As contended by the Ld. Advocates for the petitioners there are no

inward numbers on any of the warrants received from the Ambajogai Police

Station as well as Judicial Magistrate First Class Gevrai which in the opinion

of the Commission should normally appear on any correspondence especially

when confidential correspondence is received from any other office. Azur

being the first month as per the Fasli year the outward number would start

with the month of Azur equivalent to October. In these 32 warrants there is no

warrant issued in the month of Azur and there is only one warrant issued in the

month of the Dai which is the second month according to Fasli calendar. It is

warrant bearing outward No.227 dated 27 Dai 1357 Fasli equivalent to 27

- 61 -

November 1947. Thereafter there are 15 warrants issued in the month of

Bahman commencing from 2nd Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 2

nd December

1947 to 17 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th December 1947. If one

considers the outward numbers of these warrants, the outward number of

warrant issued on 27 Dai 1357 Fasli (27.11.1947) should not bear a number

higher than the outward number on the warrants issued in the month of

Bahman 1357 Fasli. There are two warrants dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli one

bears outward No. 217 whereas the other bears outward No.407. Apart from

the fact that outward No. 217 is less than 407 it is highly improbable that there

would be so many numbers of confidential letters outwarded from that office

on the same date especially because in those days the entire correspondence

was in Urdu language and mostly in handwriting. On 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli

(4.12.1947) four warrants are allegedly issued, one containing outward

No.101, other containing outward No.310 the third one containing outward

No.406 and fourth bearing outward No.1010. Here also the improbability of

so many number of confidential letters dispatched on the same day creates

doubt in the genuine nature of the document. The outward number of warrant

issued on 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli (2.12.1947) being 217, the outward numbers

of the warrants issued on 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli could not be 101 and would

normally be higher than 217.

There is another warrant issued on 11 Bahman 1357 Fasli (11.12.1947)

which does not bear outward number i.e. the outward number is nil and

immediately on the next day 12th Bahman 1357 Fasli (12.12.1947) a warrant is

issued bearing outward No. 213 which would mean that between 11 and 12

Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 11 and 12 December 1947 as many as 213 confidential

letters were dispatched which is again highly improbable. Thereafter on 13th

Bahman 1357 Fasli (13.12.1947) another warrant is outwarded.(dispatched)

which bears outward No. Nil. Thereafter on 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli

(14.12.1947) there is warrant outward No. 101 allegedly issued which would

mean that between 13th Bahman 1357 Fasli and 14

th Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 13-

12-1947 and 14-12-1947) 101 confidential letters were dispatched which is

also improbable. Again on 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli another warrant which is

dispatched (outwarded) bearing File No. 101/ 1357 Fasli is bearing outward

No. 190 which would mean that on the same date more than 89 confidential

letters/warrants were dispatched (outwarded) from the same office. Warrant

in file No. 101/86/1357 Fasli dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947) bears

outward No.217 and another warrant bearing file No. 21/57 allegedly

- 62 -

dispatched (outwarded) on 15th Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947) bears

outward No. 270 and the third warrant in file No. 402 bearing the same date

15 Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 15.12.1947) bears outward No.191/1. There are

four warrants in the same file Number 21/57 bearing outward numbers 217,

201, 202 and 203 warrants outward No. 201, 202 and 203 are respectively

dated 10th Isfander 1357 (10.1.1948) , 11

TH Isfander 1357 Fasli (11.1.1948)

and 12th Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 13.1.1948). The warrant in file No. Nil issued on

24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948) bears outward No. 205. Although the outward

numbers of warrants issued on these dates from 10to 13 January 1948 upto

No. 204 appears logical, immediately thereafter there is another warrant in

file No. 201/57 dated 14 Isfander 1357 Fasli (14.1.1948) bearing outward

No.323. The difference between 205 and 323 is too large and it is improbable

that so many letters would be dispatched (outwarded) in confidential files

between 13 Isfander 1357 Fasli and 14th Isfandar 1357 Fasli ( i.e. 13 and 14

January 1948).

Thereafter again on 17th Isfander 1357 Fasli (17.1.1948) wherein in file

No. is 21/57 there is warrant outward No. is 204 which is far below 323 and

another warrant issued on the same date 17th Isfander 1357 Fasli (17.1.1948)

in file No. 21/2 bears outward No. 490 and the difference between 204 and

490 is inexplicable. Thereafter on 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli (21.1.1948) in file

No. 21/57 there is warrant bearing outward No. 202 which is far below

outward No.490 issued on 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 17.1.1948).

Warrant in file No. 24/0/1 dated 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli bears outward

No. 209 and even if it is accepted that on 21.1.1948 more than seven

confidential letters/warrants were dispatched. It is not possible to appreciate

how warrant in file No. Nil issued on 24th Isfander (24.1.1948) would bear

lower No. 205.

Warrant in file No. 21/1 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli (17.5.1948) bears

outward No. 617 whereas warrant in file No. 21/10 issued on 16 Amardad

1357 Fasli (16.6.1948) bears outward No. 126, whereas the outward No. of

warrant in file No. 10/21/81 alleged to have been issued on 14 Amardad 1357

Fasli (14.6.1948) is outward No.221 which is not logical. It is however, not

possible to appreciate as to how the outward number reduced on 16 Amardad

1357 Fasli (16.6.1948) to 126 and similarly it is also not possible to

understand as to how warrant in file No. 21/1 alleged to have been issued on

17 Thir 1357 Fasli (17.5.1948) would be so high as 617 when the warrants

- 63 -

issued in the next month 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli and 16 Amardad 1357 Fasli

( 14.6.1948 and 16.6.1948) bear outward Nos 221 and 126. This cannot be

ignored as a mere irregularities and in fact raises serious suspicion in the very

fact as to whether the warrants/letters were at all issued from the same office

under the signature of the same officer with these outward numbers on the

dates mentioned therein and creates doubt regarding the genuine nature of the

documents.

Another aspect of the same matter is that many of these arrest warrants

contained the names of persons who were either not born or were toddlers or

of the age below 10 to 11 years and were just school going boys. If any

warrant of arrest contains the names of persons of such age that itself is

circumstance to doubt the genuine nature of the document because the

warrants were being issued on the basis of information supplied by the village

officers like police patil or patwari who were knowing the residents of their

villages and would report the names of the persons who were involved in

activity against the Government in order that the Government controls their

activities by issuing warrants and arresting them and would not report the

names of children and in no case names of unborn persons. Furthermore if

warrants of arrest are issued against some persons and they are genuine, the

purpose being to arrest those persons and to produce them before the

competent authority, the warrant issuing authority would be serious in looking

to the aspect execution by arresting the person and would keep follow up to

the action taken by the subordinate police officers who were directed to

execute the warrant.

In none of the warrants of arrest issued, there is mention of any date

for report to the authority issuing the warrant. Normally a warrant would be

issued against one individual so that after his arrest or any action on that

warrant a report would be submitted and the same would be returned to the

issuing authority. Here the warrants issued were like open or standing

warrants. None of the warrant gave any date or time for execution and none of

the persons whose names appeared in the warrant was ever arrested nor was

any action taken against him, if he successfully avoided arrest.

In these very files many of the freedom fighters have relied on the

arrest warrants issued against Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap which it is alleged did

mention a period of two years and since he could not be arrested in spite of the

arrest warrant, his property was attached. There is documentary evidence to

- 64 -

show that the arrest warrant was for two years accompanying the affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. No such action was taken in respect of any person,

persons involved in all these warrants. It is also not any body’s case that they

had no property to be attached. Many of them had at least agricultural lands

and even if they had no property, the police would make attempt to visit their

residence and find out whether property worth attachment is available. In one

of the case with which the Commission had to deal, for recovery of fine of

Rs. 30/- the police visited the house of the person sentenced to fine and

reported that no property worth attaching was available.

It is not that the Commission for the first time noticed these

infirmities, and suspected the genuineness of the warrants. It was also the

suspicion of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

On 3rd April 1995 a meeting of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was held. At

that time Shri R.D.Deshpande was Chairman who was not only a freedom

fighter but was also an Advocate by profession and a staunch communist

leader known for his character and integrity in the region of Marathwada. At

that time one of the member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was Smt. Parvaibai

Ramling Swami wife of Ramling Swami who was a renowned freedom

fighter who took leading part in the Hyderabad freedom movement. One of

the subject before the meeting was regarding suspicious arrest warrants and

the claims sanctioned on the basis of such warrants and in the minutes in

Resolution No.2 it was observed “ There are some cases based on suspicious

(dubious) warrants and claims were sanctioned on their basis. The reasons

being as below:-

1) The claim was sanctioned on the Xerox copies of which nobody

had seen the original. It did not bear date and number.

2) Normally there will be one warrant issued against one

accused(individual) but here it is noted that the warrant mentions

names of hundreds of persons.

3) The warrants did not bear the date of return or the name of the

officer who attempted to execute.

4) There is also no report as to what action was taken whether

executed or not, on the warrant.

5) Normally in the police station after a certain period is over,

documents are destroyed and therefore it is not probable that such

warrants would be available in the record of police station.

- 65 -

It is further stated that therefore claims based on such warrants

deserved to be cancelled and if it is proved that a person made bogus claim of

being freedom fighter ( on such warrants), he should be prosecuted.

These being the minutes of the meeting of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti,

were on the record of Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Even though the Chairman and

members changed, the record was available with the Collector office as

Additional Collector was the member Secretary. However, the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti which considered the cases which are referred to the Commission and

are based on arrest warrants did not at any time take into consideration either

these minutes or the aspects highlighted in these minutes by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and in fact in number of cases the Zilla Gaurav Samiti even though not

satisfied with the copy of warrant produced by the Respondent and noted that

it was not trust worthy the Samiti did state that although the copy produced is

not reliable, still Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that the said person has

taken part in freedom movement. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is required to

consider the applications in accordance with the law which include the

Government Resolutions. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti could not take such liberty

to recommend the claim, even after it was convinced that the document

produced to support the claim are not reliable and its recommendation is in

contravention of the provisions of Government Resolution based only on

subjective satisfaction. Reference to such observation in detail are made in

particular cases dealt with by the Commission.

Even the High Power Committee had at some stage realized that such

suspicious or dubious warrants or copies were produced by some persons.

In his note in file Nos. 233 with 186 on 28.05.1997 Sabhapati High

Power Committee Shri Dattaji Salvi referred to the earlier note put up before

the High Power Committee with reference to verification of the warrant of

which copy was produced in that case that the verification could not be done

through the office of Tahasildar Patoda. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

has informed that original record of warrant is available in his office but it

does not contain the name of the claimant and for this reason the Zilla Gaurav

- 66 -

Samiti refused to recommend the case and the Collector also did not

recommend.

The warrant (copy) produced by applicant/claimant appears suspicious

and therefore regular pension should not be sanctioned. Here it is pertinent to

point out that in the two particular cases involved, Keshav Kishan Nagargoje

and Nivruti Ganapati Nagargoje, the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court had

sanctioned pension as interim relief pending decision with direction to take

decision within one year. The Sabhapati observed in his note that the copy of

warrant was suspicious. Tahasildar could not verify it because he had

deposited the original record with the Collector office and the Collector should

have verified.

Why the Collector has not verified from the record in his office is not

explained by the Collector in his report dated 4th March 1997. The Collector

be asked to give explanation of this aspect.

The note further observes that warrant issued from Patoda Tahasil in

many cases could not be verified and if necessary enquiry in this entire matter

or aspect should be done through police.

In any case on the basis of suspicious evidence no person should be

sanctioned pension and Government should not be required to sanction

pension on the basis of suspicious evidence.

In fact action ought to have been taken in this regard earlier, however,

at least now action should be taken with priority so that such type of

suspicious cases coming from Beed District would be controlled/curtailed at

least to some extent. (Underlining is of the Commission).

Surprisingly enough despite this note and despite the earlier proposal

of rejection up to the level of Sabhapati and further directions from the office

of Chief Minister for taking action as per note of Sabhapati, at later stage the

note was twisted by mentioning in the note that there was oral discussion with

Member Secretary and the copy of warrant produced by the applicant was

- 67 -

verified by the Collector whereas in fact there was no verification report from

the Collector.

The note further states that the Tahasildar Patoda had mentioned in his

report that the copy of warrant was obtained from his office in regular course

on payment of fees when in fact what was produced was only a Xerox copy of

the so called certified copy regarding contents of which nobody could verify

by comparison with the original record or even by comparison with the

certified copy issued. Thus with this note it was stated that since the names

are in the warrant the claims of two applicants be sanctioned and the claims

were sanctioned.

Even the Sabhapati who had taken interest in directing enquiry in

respect of such cases accepted aforesaid note of sanction of claim. Thus even

the High Power Committee had come to know regarding existence of

suspicious warrants alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda. But

unfortunately instead of going deep into the matter not only that claims of two

persons involved in that matter but the claims of number of persons based on

such suspicious document styled as true copy of warrant of arrest were

sanctioned from time to time thereafter.

This is only intended to point out that it is not the Commission which

for the first time felt that the alleged warrants were suspicious and copies

produced could not be relied upon as even the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High

Power Committee had realized the same thing but did not logically follow up

the matter further by making appropriate enquiry either through Collector or

Police.

The Commission did make inquiry from the Superintendent of police

by a special letter as to whether at that time there was system of taking entries

in the Station diary, whether such a practice is in force and prevalent to-day

and whether there is any entry made by the officer who is entrusted with the

job of executing the warrant. In reply the Superintendent of Police stated that

at present there is no practice. The earlier practice is not known and all the

documents of relevant period 1947-48 are destroyed as per rules. When

- 68 -

according to Superintendent of police of Beed district all the documents of the

Beed district are destroyed, how can there be some warrants available at police

station Ambajogai and this also creates suspicious in the genuineness of the

documents described as warrant produced by Ambajogai police station.

Further more when even according to the respondents the warrants

were issued by the Tahasildar, very few persons either sought a certificate

from the Tahasil office or applied to the Tahasildar for certified copy of

warrant. A novel method of producing a Xerox copy signed as true copy was

followed. A Xerox copy issued by police station was produced without

getting it certified from the same police station, and the copy showed that it

was prepared from a true copy signed by some police inspector.

The Xerox copies alleged to be copies of certified copies issued by

Gevrai Court or Ashti Court or Tahasildar Patoda, were certified by the

Assistant Superintendent Patoda Court, who had no authority to certify Xerox

copy of certified copy issued by some other Court. He could only certify a

copy of a document which was in the record of Patoda Court. There is also a

reference to action taken against an employee of Court, for certifying such

type of copies without having the original documents on the record of the

Court where he was posted.

In view of such suspicious circumstances coupled with the fact that

even the such Zilla Gaurav Samiti had noted that many of the persons have

made bogus claims on such documents and the same were sanctioned, the

Commission first examined minutely the signatures of the issuing authority on

different warrants. The Commission also found that there was some

correspondence in the files received from the Collector office pertaining to

Patoda Tahasil office which contained either signature on the endorsement or

on the letter of the same officer Mr. Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan.

The Commission tried to contact the Language department and was

informed that no person having knowledge of Urdu language is working and

three persons are approved in the State of Maharashtra by the Government for

translating Urdu documents.

- 69 -

Their names are :-

1. Smt. Julehua Bargir

261, Guruwar Peth, Dhanuraj Apartment,

Block No.6, Pune 42.

2. Shri M.A.Siddiqui

Wasantrao Naik Government Institute of

Arts & Social Sciences,

Near R.B.I.Chawk, Nagpur – 440 001

3. Dr.Mohammad Samiullah,

Near Mehboob House,

Ekbapura Camp, Tapowan Road,

Amravati – 2.

Letters were sent to these persons on the addresses available with the

Government and attempts were made to contact them on phone on numbers

mentioned against their names available in the Government record. None of

them either responded to the letter or could be contacted on the numbers

given. The Commission, therefore while camping at Beed tried to find out

whether any person is available to translate the documents and could be relied

upon. The Commission could contact one retired Deputy Collector Shri Syed

Ibrahim, who helped the teachers knowing Urdu language to translate the

warrants. Some of the warrants were translated in Marathi and some of the

warrants were merely written in Devnagri script in the same language. The

difference in the various signatures on the correspondence and on the different

warrants received were also shown to the persons knowing Urdu to get

satisfied as to whether the suspicion felt by the Commission has any basis and

thereafter when the suspicion was confirmed by person knowing the

language, all the concerned warrants along with correspondence in the file

were sent to the Government handwriting expert and his opinion was sought

which confirmed the suspicion earlier felt. The signatures even on the

different warrants received from the same source were not tallying and none of

the signature on any of the so-called warrant was tallying with the signature of

the said person Mr. Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan Tahasildar on the

correspondence which contains undisputed signature of the said person.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners contended strenuously that if

the law prescribes that a thing has to be done in a particular manner then it has

- 70 -

to be done in that manner or not to be done at all. This principle cannot be

disputed and was not disputed before me by any of the advocates appearing

for respondents. However on this basis what was contended by Mr. M. L.

Jadhav Ld. Advocate for the petitioners was that the High Power Committee

and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti could have relied either on the certificates of the

Tahasildar or on the certified copy issued from that office or from some other

authority to whom the warrants were forwarded officially and in no case

Government could have resorted to the novel method of seeking a report of

verification from various authorities like the Tahasildar, Collector, Judicial

Magistrate or police inspector. The Commission is, however, of the view that

although this procedure may not be prescribed according to any provision of

law, that should not be a reason to suspect the bonafieds of the Government in

seeking the verification report. The documents were as old as of 1947-48 and

if a person produced a Xerox copy which appears to have been initially

prepared from a document issued by some Government office like police

station, court or Tahasildar and if the record from which it is so issued is

available the Government could seek verification report from the said

authority. There was nothing wrong in seeking such verification report.

However, while the method employed was neither dubious nor illegal, it was

the duty to see whether the verification is done at least from the original record

available with the said office. In many cases verification report was sent only

by verifying the Xerox copy by asking some person knowing Urdu to

translate that Xerox copy. This could not be a report of verification and could

not be accepted for relying on the said copy as evidence of the existence of

that document. Surprisingly enough even in cases when Zilla Gaurav Samittee

came to the conclusion that the copy of warrant produced is not reliable, it is

still went on to conclude that in spite of this, the Samittee is convinced that the

said person has taken part in freedom movement and recommended his case.

As pointed out earlier the Tahasildar Patoda had reported to the

Collector that original record is deposited with Collector office, but, even then

the Collector was forwarding reference to the Tahasildar for verification

invariably in all files and the Tahasildar was verifying only on the basis of

Xerox copy sent to him. Many of the verification reports clearly stated that

out of the names referred to in the later of reference by the higher authority

- 71 -

either the Government or Collector, some names were seen and other names

were not in the Xerox copy sent. In spite of this neither the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti nor the High Power Committee felt that for this reason the genuineness

of the warrant becomes doubtful and relied on the fact that the name of the

said person appears. If there are 100 names in the warrant which are referred

to in the list attached to the letter of reference by the higher authority and if in

reply it is stated that out of 100 names 25 names are there then what about the

other names. Can the document be said to be genuine in respect of few names

and forged in respect of other names. It becomes a forged document and

totally unreliable and no claim on the basis of such verification report can be

granted as the document is unreliable and has to be discarded totally.

In view of the fact that all the warrants received from three different

sources bear different signatures and none of the said signature tallies with the

signatures on the undisputed correspondence and as such none of the so called

original warrant is genuine.

When the so called original warrants secured from three different

sources are found to be forged, the question of relying on the copies produced,

even if, certified, does not arise. There arises no question of relying on the

copies of which no record (so called original) is available any where.

In addition to warrants involved in these 355 cases, there are 11 more

so called original warrants in all, in the documents received from three

different sources. The position of the said documents as regards contents and

signatures is not in any way different. They were however not referred to the

Expert as nobody has based claim thereon in these 355 cases.

The reasons apply Mutatis Mutandis to all cases based on arrest

warrant and are in addition to whatever is stated in the particular case.

- 72 -

PART – IX

WARRANT CUM UNDERGROUND CASES

In this part the Commission has considered the cases of the respondent

freedom fighters who have claimed Sanmanpatra and allied benefits specially

pension on two grounds viz:-

1) They were underground freedom fighter

2) Warrant of arrest was issued against them.

These cases are taken up in separate part. If on either of the ground,

the claimant person is found entitled, his claim can be considered even Zilla

Gaurav Samiti as well as High Power Committee has considered the claim on

either or both the grounds in different files. The reasoning given in the part in

general in cases of underground freedom fighters as well as the reasoning

contained in the part of general reasons in cases of freedom fighters claiming

pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against him apply mutatis

mutandis to the cases in addition to the reasons stated in each case.

Sr. No. Case File No.

Name of the Freedom Fighter Page No.

1. 30 Vitthal Pandhari Sanap 71

2. 34 Ashabai Chagan Sanap 75

3. 50 Manik Patilbua Sanap 78

4. 66 Shahadeo Kerba Ugalmugle 82

5. 69 Waman Narayan Bighane 85

6. 80 Raghunath Khandu Wanve 87

7. 82 Babasaheb Kisan Wanve 89

8. 149 Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve 91

9. 170 Jalinder Narayan Bikkad 94

10. 195 Namdeo Bhau Sanap 96

11. 201 Pandurang Aaba Nagargoje 99

12. 231 Narayan Shankar Waghmode (deceased) Represented by Bhagubai Narayan Waghmode

13. 235 Karbhari Shivram Sanap 105

14. 247 Tukaram Keru Sanap 107

15. 252 Ramrao Saluji Sanap 109

16. 255 Bhagawan Dagdu Sanap 112

17. 258 Keru Daji Nagargoje 114

18. 259 Thakaji Genu Sanap (deceased) Represented by Kisanabai Thakaji Sanap

19. 277 Mahadeo Namdeo Vighane 120

- 73 -

20. 299 Nivrutti Bajirao Tambe (deceased) Represented by Prayagbai Nivrutti Tambe

21. 300 Shyamrao Sitaram Jaybhaye 125

22. 313 Arjun Khandu Wanve 128

23. 338 Dattuba Kerabe Wanve (deceased) Represented by Gangubai Dattuba Wanve

24. 347 Deorav Dagdu Sanap 133

25. 349 Pandurang Shankar Waghmode (deceased) Represented by Kalawati Pandurang Waghmode

- 74 -

Shri Vitthal Pandhari Sanap

Vithal Pandhari Sanap filed application for grant of pension on 12th

July 1990 on the basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in

Confidential file No. 121 bearing outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli

i.e. 2nd December 1947, however his claim was processed as underground

freedom fighter as he also stated that he was underground freedom fighter.

In his affidavit dated 12th July 1990 he has stated that he worked in the

freedom movement of Hyderabad State at Domri camp along with 300 to 400

persons and they had burnt the office of Patwari and Karodgiri naka and he

was required to go underground.

He filed affidavits of Ashruba Bapu Sanap and affidavit of Shamrao

Aba Khatal having similar contents. He filed one more application dated Nil

in 1997 in which he has asserted the same facts and has claimed to have

worked under Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath

Telap.

He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 2.7.1997 and affidavit

of Anna Eknath Telap dated 8th July 1997 which are stereo type and his name

is written in handwriting in the already typed contents.

Thereafter again he filed affidavit dated 23-02-1999 wherein he

named Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Tatyaba Bangar, Bhimrao Umaji

Bangar and five others with whom he worked. In the affidavit filed in

pursuance of notice issued, for the first time he stated that he was required to

live away from his house for ten months. However the persons supporting

him at this stage namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule have not stated that he was required to live away from his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting dated 9th July 1997

recommended his case relying upon the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Sona Rama Jaybhay.

High Power Committee accepted the recommendation.

- 75 -

His statement was recorded by Mane Committee wherein he has

stated that he has supplied bread (Bhakari) to persons working at Domri

Camp. He has however stated that he was prevented by the police to stay in

the village but does not explain why. He was not arrested in spite of the

warrant issued against him.

Commission issued him a notice. He filed another affidavit and

referred to the copy of warrant produced by him.

As is clear from the first paragraph his claim was considered and

processed as underground freedom fighter, although it was based on both the

grounds. The supporting affidavits filed by him are of Sona Rama Jaybhay

dated 2.7.1997 and Anna Eknath Telap dated 8.7.1997 which as stated above

contain the same stereo type material as is stated by the same freedom fighters

in other cases and in addition suffer from the infirmity that the name of Vitthal

Pandhari Sanap is added to the typed affidavit in handwriting and after

issuance of notice in the year 1999 he filed additional affidavits of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule.

In the original application he did not describe any particular incident in

which he was involved in the freedom movement. The contents therein are

general. However, in his affidavit dated 12.7.1990 he referred to the incident

of Bhayala, Therala and Wadzari wherein there was a fight with razakars and

there was firing for two hours. He earlier filed affidavits of Ashruba Bapu

Sanap and Shamrao Babu Khatal in support. These affidavits were filed on

12.07.1990 and 18.07.1990 respectively.

However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered the claim in the meeting

of 09.07.1999 that is after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 4th

July 1995 and recommended the same on the basis of supporting affidavits of

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. The infirmity in these two

affidavits is already pointed out. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated

2nd July 1997 in which as in other cases Sona Rama Jaybhay referred to the

incidents of attack on Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil wada and

office and stated specifically that Vitthal Pandhari Sanap was involved along

with him in the said incident in which 50 to 60 persons took part. The

- 76 -

Respondent himself has not stated that he had taken part in this incident and

similarly in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap also the incident of burning

Pachangri naka and Antarvali naka are stated to which no reference is made by

the Respondent in his own affidavit. These affidavits, as pointed out in a

separate part, are not worth the paper on which they are written as there are

additions and alterations which are not signed by any body.

There after he filed an application directly addressed to the Sabhapati

and along with it he filed his own affidavit as well as affidavits of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. The incidents mentioned in

these two affidavits and the affidavit of Respondent himself, are not stated

earlier in any of the affidavits either by him or by the supporting freedom

fighters. In fact the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule described the

incident in which he was involved and for which he was prosecuted and

although he states that Vitthal Pandhari Sanap was along with him in the said

incident, he was not prosecuted and this statement is therefore doubtful and

unreliable.

The further contradictions in his statement when he appeared before

Mane Committee are noteworthy. He stated that the only work that he did was

of providing breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters for two months. This

also shows that he was not living away from his house. He has not quoted any

of the incidents, which are stated in all the four supporting affidavits of

different freedom fighters. Had he been involved in any of them he would

have made reference to some of the incidents as they are all serious incidents

and one cannot forget the same.

In addition he has relied on warrant of arrest issued by Tahasildar

Patoda in file No.Nil Outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent

to 2nd December 1947. He has produced Xerox copy of the warrant. The

Xerox copy shows that certified copy was issued to one Ramrao Madhavrao

by office of Tahasildar Patoda on 17th September 1986 and Xerox bears

endorsement “ certified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by the

Tahasildar Patoda on 17.9.1986” signed as true copy by Nazir-cum-COC of

Patoda Court on 2nd October 1986. The endorsement of Nazir-cum-COC

dated 2nd October 1986 is nearly fifteen days after so-called certified copy

- 77 -

was obtained. Thus on that date he himself could have applied for the

certified copy because the Xerox copy was from a copy alleged to have been

issued fifteen days earlier to Ramrao Madhavrao. Although the note below

the warrant says that his property was attached he has not stated in any of the

affidavits that his property was attached and if so what was the property which

was attached.

The Commission has already stated in detail in the Part relating to the

general reasons of warrant cases that the signatures of Tahasildar on the

warrants found in the file of Tahasildar Patoda does not tally with the

signature of the Tahasildar Patoda on the undisputed documents and

correspondence and the office notes contained in the same file. The signature

also does not tally with the signatures found on the warrants received from

Ambajogai police station and Gevrai Court.

As discussed in detailed in the concerned Part of the report regarding

warrant cases the Commission got these documents examined from the

Government handwriting expert who has also given the aforesaid opinion as

the Commission doubted the signature after tallying the same with the

signatures on the undisputed correspondence or office notes with the

signatures on the warrant received from Gevrai Court and Ambajogai police

station. Since the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee did not go

into the aspect of warrant and its genuineness or otherwise as the case was

treated as one of underground freedom fighter, there are no comments on this

aspect in the file.

Since the warrants allegedly issued by Tahasildar Patoda which were

called by the Commission on the request of the different freedom fighters and

which are found to be forged, there is no question of relying on the so called

Xerox copy or certified copy on, signed as true copy by a person who had no

authority to sign as true copy issued the same issued it making a show as if he

is issuing a copy from the Court record. The Respondent having relied on

such a document is disentitled to any claim made in the application much less

the Sanmanpatra as freedom fighter and allied benefits and the Commission

recommends the same be cancelled forthwith.

- 78 -

Shri Chagan Laxman Sanap (deceased) represented by Smt. Ashabai

Chagan Sanap.

Chagan Laxman Sanap applied for pension on the basis of arrest

warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No. 21/10 bearing Confidential

outward No. 126 dated 16 Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 16th June 1948. Along

with application he has produced Xerox copy of warrant. However, the true

copy is signed by Nazir cum COC Patoda Civil Court, on 27.10.1986 with

endorsement “ it is verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by

the Tahasildar Patoda on 17.10.1986”.

In his affidavit filed on 20.7.1990 he stated that he worked from the

congress camp at Domri under Wamanrao Vaze along with 300 to 400 persons

from his village. Their activities were to obstruct recovery of levy, attack

Nakas etc and therefore warrant of arrest was issued against him by the

Tahasildar. He also filed affidavit of Marotibhau Sanap and Shamrao Aba

Khatal. They were not convicted and sentenced. But they have stated to have

worked along with him and similar averments are there, in his, their affidavits.

A notice was sent to him on 2.8.1996 with reference to his application

dated 20.7.1990 probably in view of the Government Resolution dated 4h July

1995. Thereafter he filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath

Telap who were convicted and in jail for not less than two year.

He has also filed application in the proforma required to be filled in by

underground freedom fighters and in the Proforma A. He has stated that he has

worked against the British regime against Portugal Government as

underground freedom fighter. He worked under the Ramling Swami at

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram, Kharada camp.

In his affidavit dated 13.2.1997 he claims to have worked in the

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Wamanrao Vaze

and filed affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap, in which

to the typed format of affidavit name of Chagan Laxman Sanap is added in

handwriting and similarly is the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

- 79 -

8.7.1997. He has never alleged that he was required to live away from his

house or was beaten by the police.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.7.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension in view of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay.

However, the Additional Collector, Beed in his letter dated 4.7.1998

addressed to the Deputy Secretary communicated that case is not fit for

pension as he does not comply with the 4th July 1995 Government Resolution

paragraph.

The note put up to the High Power Committee referred to the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and to the fact that his affidavit

mentions that he worked as underground freedom fighter and warrant was

issued against him. He has produced copy of warrant and therefore proceeded

to sanction pension. One of the official mentioned that warrant is not verified

and the Member Secretary stated that warrant be verified and if there is

verification report in some other file Xerox copy of that be kept in this file and

application be granted. Thereafter High Power Committee granted pension on

12-10-1999.

As he was dead, Ashabai his widow sent application to Mane

Committee that she is weak, unable to move out of the house and produced

doctor certificate that she is suffering from hepatitis.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated it as a case of underground freedom

fighter and relied on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath

Telap which suffer from the infirmity as stated above and in the general

discussion on cases of Underground Freedom Fighters regarding addition of

name to the typewritten affidavits containing the same incidents, which the

said freedom fighters have repeated and stated in other cases.

The High Power Committee although accepted recommendation of the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti the note placed to High Power Committee does not show

that it considered the case as of underground freedom fighter and even in the

format of the High Power Committee the names of the supporting freedom

- 80 -

fighters do not appear. The warrant was not verified in view of the note

placed by the Member Secretary to the effect that if there is verification report

in another file the same be kept in this file. Thereafter the High Power

Committee sanctioned the claim. However, in the file there is no verification

report whatsoever as per the direction of the Member Secretary in his note,

and the note merely states after the remarks of the Member Secretary that the

claim is sanctioned.

The copy of warrant in file No. 21/10 Outward No. 126 dated 16

Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 16th June 1948 is in the file. The original of this

warrant is not found either in the file received from the Patoda Tahasil or from

the two sources namely Ambajogai police station and Gevrai Court. The

report of Tahasildar, which is found in other file shows that the entire record

was submitted to the Collector office which record does not contain the

warrant bearing such number and date. And even other warrants found in the

said file on which claims are based in the cases dealt with by the Commission

are found to be forged and therefore on no ground the Respondent was entitled

to claim Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him, which

deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 81 -

Case File No.. 50 (Respondent No.50)

Manik Patilbuva Sanap

He applied for the grant of pension on 26th March 1990 and had also

filed an application earlier on 2nd May 1988 claiming that warrant was issued

against him. He took part in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram as an underground

freedom fighter.

He has produced Xerox copy of warrant which is a Xerox copy of copy

claimed to have been issued as a certified copy by Court of Judicial Magistrate

First Class Gevrai. However the Assistant Superintendent of the Court Patoda

who signed on it has made an endorsement on 30th November 1989 “verified

that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court’’ and the

endorsement in Xerox also shows that it was issued by Gevrai Court. The copy

of warrant bears Confidential file No. 21/57outward No.204 dated 17 Isfander

1357 Fasli ( i.e 17.1.1948)

On 3rd September 1997 the District Collector Beed had written a letter

to the Judicial Magistrate Gevrai for verification of the warrant from the

original record including specific queries. A list of 58 names was enclosed

with request to report whether the name of Manik Patilbuva Sanap was there

as stated in the list.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Geveai gave report on 2nd

November 1997 stating that the original record was available and on going

through the Xerox copy it appears that one Shankarrao Shamrao Doke had

applied for certified copy and the copy was issued to Doke.

The Zilla Gauav Samiti treated it as a case of underground freedom

fighter and recommended for grant of pension on the ground that the

application was supported by two freedom fighters viz. Anna Eknath Telap

and Sona Rama Jaybhay, who were sentenced to imprisonment for not less

than two years. Thus the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend his case on

the basis of arrest warrant but as underground freedom fighter.

In his report the Additional Collector, Beed by letter dated 14th July

1998 sent to the Deputy Secretary, informed that the applicant had not

- 82 -

complied with the requirements of provisions of Government Resolution dated

4th July 1995 and therefore even though case is recommended by the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti, it is not fit for grant of pension,

The officer who submitted note to the High Power Committee relied

on the warrant and report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Gevrai to the

Collector regarding verification of the warrant.

However, Under Secretary made endorsement that the Urdu warrant

was not got verified from the original record and the case is not fit for

sanction. Thereafter Member Secretary Advocate Rajabhau Zharkar made

endorsement to sanction the claim and it was accepted by all other members

and Chairman and pension was sanctioned.

He was called by the Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

on 5th February 2003. In his statement recorded by the Mane Committee he

stated that he supplied bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters at Domri Camp

and he clearly stated that he was not required to leave village or go out of

village and no warrant was issued against him and he was not prohibited from

entering the village, and he has not done any other work than providing

breads.

The supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced

to imprisonment for two years namely Anna Eknath Telalp, Sona Rama

Jaybhay show that the affidavits were already fully typed and the name of

Manik Patilbuva Sanap was written in hand in the typed affidavit. Even in his

own affidavit dated 21st June 1997 names of three persons Ramling Swami,

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and deceased Vamanrao Vaze are typed and thereafter

the name of Sona Rama Jaybhay is added in hand writing to the typed

affidavit. There is no reference of the name of Anna Eknath Telap in his own

affidavit. He has produced certificate of one Kashinath Tatyaba Jadhav who

was head of the Pathardi Camp.

Along with application dated 2nd May 1988 wherein he claimed that

warrant was issued against him, he has produced a Xerox copy of warrant

which is not certified copy but is claimed to be Xerox copy of a certified copy.

- 83 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting held on 1st August 1997

recommended his case for grant of pension on the basis of warrant bearing

outward No.204 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli (i.e 17th January 1948 ) It is stated in

the recommendation that the copy of warrant is obtained from Ambajogai

police station and it appears to be in connection with the Hyderabad Mukti

Sangram, and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that he took part in the

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and therefore recommended the case for grant of

pension. However, one Member Pandurang Waman Joshi noted that there was

no verification of the warrant.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the claim.

When he appeared before Mane Committee truth came out from his

mouth that he was only providing breads (bhakari) only to residents of Dombri

Camp and was not required to go out of village.

In his affidavit he has relied on the warrant issued against him and

stated that at present he has no documents and the documents are filed with the

application.

Even the High Power Committee relied on the warrant verification

report. The Additional Collector, reported that the case was not fit for

sanction and even though there was report from the Gevrai court the note

made by the Under Secretary had brought it to the notice of the High Power

Committee that the warrant was not got verified from the original record after

which the Member Secretary endorsed that the verification report be accepted.

The affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap and

Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same infirmity as noted in the general part

of this report. Even in his own affidavit dated 21st June 1997 the name of

Sona Rama Jaybhay is added later on in hand writing after the affidavit is

typed and there is no reference to the name of Anna Eknath Telap which

fortifies the conclusion that their statements in affidavits are not trustworthy.

- 84 -

There is no warrant bearing File No. 21/57 F outward No.204 dated 17

Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January 1948 in the file received from

the office of Patoda tahsildar and the so-called certified copy produced is

Xerox copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on which the Assistant

Superintendent of Patoda Court made endorsement that it is true copy of

Xerox copy issued by Gevrai Court, who had no authority to issue such

certified copy in respect of record of other Court and this endorsement is

therefore meaningless. If in fact he was convinced that the certified copy was

issued by Gevrai Court on 7th September 1988, he could have applied for a

certified copy to that Court but the reason for resorting to get the Xerox copy

of the same certified as true copy from Patoda Court, obviously is that he was

aware of the fact that there was never any arrest warrant against him. Even his

statement before Mane Committee that he only provided breads (bhakari) and

he was collecting breads (bhakari) from his own village for providing it to the

freedom fighters shows that he was not required to live away from his house

and that he did not play any other role in the freedom movement.

The signature of the Tahasildar on the warrant bearing file No. 21/57

outward No. 204 dated 17 Isfandar 1357 F received from Gevrai Court is not

tallying with the signature of the Tahasildar Patoda on the undisputed

correspondence and official notes found in the said file and said signature also

does not tally with the signatures on the warrants received from Ambejogai

police station and Patoda Tahasildar. Thus a warrant of which he produced

copy claiming it to be Xerox copy of certified copy was itself a forged

document. The claim of the respondent can not be granted on the basis of a

forged document. Having failed to make out case on either count, and having

produced a forged documents, the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

him deserve to be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 85 -

Shri Shahadeo Kerba Ugalmugale

The application was filed on the basis of Warrant issued in File No.

10/21/81 bearing Outward No. 221 dated 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli equivalent

to 14 June, 1948.

The copy produced is a Xerox copy of certified copy signed by Nazir

of Patoda Court whereas the warrant is issued by Tahsildar Patoda and as such

Nazir of Patoda could not certify it as true copy. It is a true copy of a Xerox

copy issued by Tahsildar and since it was signed by Court Nazir, it bears seal

of Court and the endorsement on the copy dated 26.6.88 is “verified that this

Zeroz copy is true copy of copy issued by Tahsildar Patoda on 17.10.86” Sd/-

Nazir cum COC Patoda. The case was recommended not as a case based on

arrest warrant but case of Underground Freedom Fighter in view of affidavit

of two Freedom Fighters.

Additional Collector in his letter to Dy.Secretary dated 14.07.98 has

written that there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

The applicant’s affidavit dated 22.06.90 stated that warrant was issued

against him. In his original application he has not stated the names of Anna

Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay whose affidavits have been considered

as the Freedom Fighters supporting him who were sentenced to not less than

two years in the freedom movement.

The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaibhaye shows

that name was inserted in the typed proforma of the affidavit.

The applicant filed another application on 15.06.1999 in which he

included the name of many other Freedom Fighters and also stated for the first

time that he was required to live awary from his house. Affidavits of the the

Freedom Fighters supporting him were sent directly to the High Power

Committee and were not placed before the Zilla Gaurav Samittee.

- 86 -

The note to High Power Committee referred to the copy of warrant,

affidavits of two freedom fighters and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti

and granted the pension.

Applicant appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was

recorded wherein he stated that he worked against British Government and did

mention that he worked in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

He has stated that he worked at Kharda camp and Pachangri naka

without mentioning that he took part in burning of Pachangri naka whereas the

supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap stated that he was involved

along with the respondent in the attack on Pachangri naka and Antarveli naka.

The name of Shahdev Kerba Ugalmugale is added in ink in the blank space

left in the already prepared format of affidavit stating therein that 50 to 60

other persons were involved in the said act. Similar is the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay where in the incident of attack and burning of Daskhed police

patil wada and office is stated to which the Respondent has made no reference

and here also the name is added in ink in the typed format of affidavit. On the

basis of these affidavits the Zilla Gaurav Samittee has recommended the case.

In his application he has referred to the incident of burning Pachangri

Naka and Daskhed police patil wada and office. The affidavits he filed after

receiving notice are of freedom fighters who were neither absconding for two

years nor sentenced to two years imprisonment namely Maroti Bhau Sanap

and Govind Ranoji Sanap. The earlier two affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay

and Anna Eknath Telap, suffer from the infirmity of addition of name. His

contention that he was involved in the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka,

Daskhed police patil wada and office are stated in the application as well as in

the affidavit but not when his statement was recorded by Mane Committee.

He has also relied on warrant in File No. 10/21/81, outward No. 221,

14 Amardad 1357 F of which he has produced Xerox copy and got the same

certified from the Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court though it was not

of a document in the record of Patoda court. The warrant is not available in

record of Patoda Tahsil or record received from Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Georai or Ambajogai Police Station. When the so called 18 origianl

- 87 -

warrants received from Patoda Tahsil, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Georai

and Ambajogai Police Station are found to be forged and false, how can the

zerox copy, original whereof is not available anywhere can be believed to be

genuine and reliable.

The documents of which he produced zerox copy and which he claims

to be arrest warrant issued against him being totally unreliable, his entire

claim is suspicious. This further raises a serious doubt in the affidavits of all

the supporting freedom fighters who swear the incidents in detail and

regarding his involvement in the same along with them as he himself did not

state on oath before the Mane Committee any of the said incident or even his

participation in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. He has produced a copy of

warrant original where of is not available.

The proceedings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti also show that it was earlier

stated that as the original record was not available the copy of warrant could

not be relied upon and Zilla Gaurav Samittee does not recommend. Thereafter,

the word Not (Nahi) is scoured out and written as Yes (Aahe) and it is stated

that as the said document is connected with Hyderabad Movement the Samiti

recommends whereas one member Mr. P. V. Joshi disagreed stating that there

is no verification report of warrant.

The High Power Committee note is vague and all the above stated

defects were not put up in the note. Even the additions and alterations in the

supporting affidavits were not brought to the notice of the High Power

Committee.

Before Mane Committee he orally stated about cutting of Shindi trees

and providing breads (bhakri) to the freedom fighters. None of the incidents

stated in his affidavit and/or the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

are referred. How could he forget such incidents if he was in fact involved.

The Commission therefore finds that he was granted Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits though he failed to prove entitlement and relied on copy of a

non existent document and the same be cancelled forthwith and recommends

accordingly.

- 88 -

Shri Waman Narayan Vighne

He applied for pension in view of warrant issued against him by

Tahsildar Patoda in File no. 205 outward No. 201 Dated 24 Isfandar 1357

Fasli i.e. 24th January, 1948.

True copy of warrant bears stamp of Collector office. True copy is

Xerox copy certified by Lecturer of P.V.T. Arts, Commerce and Science

College Patoda. Xerox copy shows that it is copy of certified copy alleged to

have been issued by Georai Court which could not a certified copy as the

original warrant was issued by the Tahsildar and not by the Court.

Zilla Gaurav Committee in its meeting 31.12.1998 stated that it does

not recommend the case and the word not is scoured out in his own

handwriting, Chairman has mentioned that the case is recommended [by

changing word no (Nahi) to yes (aahe)] stating that his name is in the warrant

and the warrant appears to be about Hyderabad Movement. One of the

members took objection to the recommendation.

High Power Committee considered the affidavits of two Freedom

Fighters namely Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Affidavits of two Freedom Fighters were not filed with original

application. His affidavit dated 15.01.1997 was filed before the High Power

Committee and it was not before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Similarly the

affidavits of two Freedom Fighters Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo

Balwant Aher were not before Zilla Gaurav Samiti but were filed befor the

High Power Committee.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he cut Shindi

Trees and supplied breads (bhakari).

As regards the comments of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti one thing is clear

that the endorsement of the Chairman was made on the date of meeting and

the objection raised by one of the member P.V.Joshi is also recorded on the

same date. Although with his application dated 4th December 1998 which he

- 89 -

sent after he received notice, he has produced additional affidavits of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher.

However, his claim was considered by the High Power Committee as

underground freedom fighter on the basis of affidavits of Namdev Balawant

Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. His statement that he was required to live

away from house has come for the first time in his affidavit dated 4th

December 1998 and same is contradictated by his own statement before Mane

Committee that he used to provide breads (bhakari) to the persons involved in

the freedom movement and doing the work of burning nakas and cutting

shindi trees.

Another aspect of the matter is that the original warrant in file No.

205/57 F outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 Fasli copy whereof is

produced by this respondent is received from the Gevrai Court. The

Commission has already given detailed reasons in the part containing general

reasons in respect of warrant cases in which it is clearly stated that the

signature on the warrants in the file of Gevrai Court does not tally with the

signature on the warrants received from the Patoda Tahsil and warrants

received from in the Ambajogai police station. Moreover the warrants which

were traced in the Gevrai Court file are not in the file of Patoda Tahasil

wherefrom warrants originated nor are they in the file of Ambejogai police

station. The warrant copy issuspicious. He has resorted to produce Xerox

copy of a documents knowing well that the original is not in the file especially

when he was not aware whether arrest warrant was issued against him as

stated by him in his deposition before Mane Committee. It is difficult to accept

the genuineness of his claim to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits. Incidents

narrated by him in his application are not narrated by the supporting freedom

fighters in their affidavits and what incidents they have narrated are not similar

- 90 -

to that what is stated before the Mane Committee as he merely stated that he

had provided breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters. It is claimed that any

other work was done in the freedom movement by him. The Commission,

therefore, recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him

be cancelled.

- 91 -

Shri Raghunath Khandu Wanve

Application filed by Raghoji. He filed affidavit of Abaji Wanve Dated

03.09.1996 alongwith his own affidavit of the same date. He also filed

affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap on dated 03.09.1996.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on 13.01.1999 based on

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters one of whom was absconding for two

years. However, the other person Ahaji Wadju Wanve is not a Freedom

Fighter who was sentenced to two years. Abaji Wadju was sentenced to three

months imprisonment only.

Recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti is defective. Abaji Wanve

was sentenced to three months imprisonment land not to two years.

Additional Collector, Beed by his letter dated 20.03.1999-noted

objection that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

High Power Committee accepted the recommendation in view of two

supporting affidavits, one of lwhom, i.e. Abaji Wadju was not qualified to file

such affidavit. The note also refers to arrest warrant.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he does not know

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Narayan Dagdu Chaure and Thaksen Shankarrao

Dhase.

The Additional Collector had brought to the notice of the High Power

Committee that one of the freedom fighters who filed supporting affidavit was

sentenced only for three months although the name stated in that letter is

incorrect and the name should have been stated as Aabaji Wadaju Wanave

who was sentenced to three months. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti also referred

above said two affidavits. In his reminder letter to the Collector he has also

not made reference to any arrest warrant issued against him nor he has referred

- 92 -

to arrest warrant in his affidavit. However, the High Power Committee

referred to report from Gevrai Court in respect of warrant Confidential File

No. 21/57 outward No. 204 of 17 Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th

January 1948. Before Mane Committee also he did not claim that arrest

warrant was issued against him. However, the report of verification relied

upon is in respect of warrant about which the Commission has discussed in

detail in separate part relating to the general reasoning of warrant cases and

has found that the signature of the Tahasildar on the warrant received from

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court Gevrai does not tally with the signature

of the Tahsildar Patoda on the undisputed documents and also does not tally

with the signature found on the warrants received from the Ambajogai police

station and Tahsildar Patoda. At the cost of repetition it may be pointed out

that the claim is not based on arrest warrant issued against him and the

statement of the Respondent on record does not disclose that any arrest

warrant was issued against him. His further statement before Mane

Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari). The fact that he was

available in the village, providing breads (bhakari) and still was not arrested,

shows that no warrant was issued against him.

He also did not claim that there was warrant against him. For all these

reasons the Commission finds that respondent failed to establish his claim on

either counts as required by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th

July 1995 and failed to prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits and recommends cancellation thereof forthwith.

- 93 -

Shri Babasaheb Kisanrao Wanve

He filed application on 21.11.1998 and claimed pension on the ground

that warrant of arrest was issued against him in file No. 21/ 1357 Fasli

Outward No. 204 Dated 17 Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January

1948. He produced Xerox copy of warrant on which the endorsement is “

verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court,” It

is signed by the Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector, Beed to

Civil Judge , Georai alongwith list of 58 persons making specific queries.

The Civil Judge by letter Dt/- 02.11.1997 reported that original record

is not available and from the Xerox copy it appears that the copy was issued

to Shamrao Doke by the Court. The Civil Judge endorsed ,with reference to

the list received by him that certain names were in the copy of the Warrant and

certain names were not in the copy of the warrant. From the report it is clear

that name of about 33 persons were not in the warrant i.e. in the Xerox copy.

It is thus clear that, even the Xerox copy did not include the names of all the

persons which were referred to by the Collector vide letter dated 10.08.1998.

The Civil Judge also informed the Collector, that the original record of the

warrants outward No. 201,202,203,204,205 and 617 of 1357 Fasli was not

available in his Court.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 08.10.1998 stated that he

has filed affidavits of two Freedom Fighters who were sentenced to

imprisonment for not less than two years and recommended the case for grant

of pension.

However, the Additional Collector by letter dated 13.10.1998

addressed to the Section Officer, pointed out that there was no compliance

with Government Resolution Dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of two Freedom

Fighters and also to the copy of warrant and verification report which was to

the effect that the name of Babu Kisan Wanve was in the warrant and

sanctioned the pension.

- 94 -

The copy of warrant produced is not a certified copy. It is a true copy.

It is not signed by the officer of the same court which is alleged to have issued

certified copy. Moreover , when all the names according to the enquiry made

by the Collector were not found in the copy of the warrant, the copy becomes

doubtful.

The High Power Committee was probably influenced by the

verification report in which it is stated that his name is there in the copy and

also because Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case and sanctioned

pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he does not

have the copy of the warrant and Sahebrao Sanap of Wadzari gave copy to

him. He cannot produce certified copy of warrant. He referred to the meeting

in which the Advocate Wamanrao Waze had given speech and that he was at

Domri Camp for seven to eight months and he was conveying news from one

camp to another. He was not knowing Sahebrao Sanap prior to filing of

application for pension. He categorically stated that no warrant was issued

against him.

Thus in the copy of warrant produced all the names referred by the

Collector to Gevrai Court for verification were not found as per the report.

More over in the general reasons relating to warrant cases, the Commission

has discussed regarding this warrant and found that signature thereon was not

tallying with the undisputed signatures of Tahasildar in the record received

from Collector Beed pertaining to Patoda Tahsil and also with warrants

received from Ambajogai police station and Patoda Tahsil. The warrant is

therefore not only a doubtful document but forged one. The facts stated by

him in his own affidavit are not referred to in affidavits of supporting

freedom fighters namely Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thakasen Dhase and

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. The facts earlier narrated by him were not stated

by him before the Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath.

Considering the fact that he ventured to produce and rely on such a forged

documents the claim should have been rejected outright. The Commission is

therefore of the view that he has failed to prove entitlement for Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits and same granted to him be cancelled forthwith and

- 95 -

Shri Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve

Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve applied for pension on 14.08.1995 and in

the application stated that he worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement

under the leadership of Namdev Balawant Khade, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane .

However, no spcific act has been referrd to in the application.

In the affidavit dated 02.08.1995 he has stated that he worked under

the leadership of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao Vaze

etc. at Kharada Camp and has produced affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Namdev Balawant Khade.

In Form No.8 submitted on 05.08.1995 he has stated in addition to the

other aspects about arrest warrant issued against him. He has produced merely

Xerox copy of warrant which is not even a true copy signed by any authority.

He was issued notice on 10.06.1997 and in response he stated that he is

complying with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and producing

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane.

In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 7.11.1996 his name is

added in ink to the affidavit already typed. Similar is the affidavit of Bhima

Umaji Bangar with the same contents and addition of his name in ink. The

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap is dated 20.1.1997 which refers to 90 to 95

groups working with Wamanrao Vaze and Namdev Khade and instance in

which 50 to 60 persons took part wherein Vishwanat Teli had killed the

Pathan.

He again filed affidavit dated 08.12.1998 in which certain more

instances are added stating that hand bomb was thrown on the Tent of

Tahsildar by Sukhdev Patil, his four brothers and their sons. One girl was

kidnapped by Pathan from Sarni and 200 persons had gone to rescue her, they

fired and got her released.

- 96 -

He further stated that Sahebrao Ganpat Sanap and for addition of one

more name space is left blank and in that blank space nothing has been typed

further.

He filed affidavit dated 8.12.98 of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap who was

absconding for two years. In addition he has stated the incident in which two

persons were killed at Wadzari. He then relied on affidavit of Manik

Tulshiram Anubhule dated 08.12.1998 in which different incidents are quoted.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 1.7.1997 referred to the

affidavit Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended

the case for sanction of pension.

However, the Additional Collector by letter dated 10.07.1997

addressed to the Deputy Secretary stated that there is no compliance with the

provisions of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and granted pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that warrant was

issued against him but no certified copy of warrant has been produced. He

had cut shindi trees and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap etc.

were working with him. He has also named the other persons whose affidavits

were filed by him. He however, stated that he does not know whether his

name is there in the warrant . Hehas not produced certified copy of warrant.

He has also claimed pension on the ground that he was underground

freedom fighter and it has been so considered by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and

High Power Committee. In his application he did not give reference to any

incident and even in the detailed affidavit filed on 2.8.1995 no specific

incident is stated by him. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is vague.

One Bapurao Kedar has also filed affidavit but he was not sentenced to two

years imprisonment. In his application to the Collector dated 30.7.1997 he

referred only to the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay

and later on added the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, He thereafter

- 97 -

produced one more affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 7.11.1999 in

which the name of Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave is added in ink and some

more portion is added in ink to the typed affidavit. Similar is the affidavit of

Bhima Umaji Banger. However he was not sentenced to two years

imprisonment and was absconding for nine months and was not qualified as

per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 to file supporting

affidavits. The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap filed as late as on 20.1.1997

mentions incidents of burning of pachangri naka, antervali naka, claiming that

Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave was also with him along with 50 to 60 persons

which Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave has not stated in his own affidavit. He

thereafter filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant

Aher. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap does not mention particular activity in which

Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave was involved.

Moreover although he claimed pension as underground freedom

fighter, and has also relied copy of on warrant bearing confidential file

No.205/1357 Fasli outward no. 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 Fasli (21.1.1948).

The original warrant is received from Gevrai Court regarding which detailed

comments are made in the separate part regarding reasoning in respect of

warrant cases. The signature thereon is not found to be genuine as not tallying

with the signature of Tahsildar Patoda on the undisputed correspondence and

also with the warrant received from Ambejogai police station and Patoda

Tahsil.

The High Power Committee made passing reference to the arrest

warrant and treated the case as of underground freedom fighter. Having

produced copy of the warrant signature on which is doubtful and not tallying

with undisputed correspondence, the claim does not stand on that count.

Therefore he is not entitle to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the claim is

- 98 -

wrongly granted and the Commission therefore recommends cancellation

thereof.

- 99 -

Shri Jalindar Narayan Bikkad

Applied for pension on 14.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter and

also produced Xerox copy of warrant alleged to have been issued by the

Tahasildar Patoda in file No. 21/57 outward No. 203 dated 12 Isfandar 1357

Fasli equivalent to 12th January 1948.

His case was treated as of the underground freedom fighter. He filed

affidavit dated 11.08.1998 and also produced supporting affidavit of Narayan

Dagadu Chaure dated 29.9.1998 in which name of Jalindar Narayan Bikkad is

added in handwriting in the blank space left in typed affidavit. He also

produced affidavit of Thaksen Shankrrao Dhase dated 24.9.1997 in which also

his name is added in the space left blank in the affidavit which was already

typed. He stated names of Thaksen Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure for

the first time in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997. In his earlier affidavit dated

11.08.1995 although he named number of other freedom fighters he did not

refer to these two freedom fighters.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.12.1997

recommended his case on the basis of affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher

and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector recorded his objection on the ground that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and that

there is no affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap on the record.

The High Power Committee referred to affidavatis of Narayan Dagadu

Chaure and Thaksen Shankarao Dhase and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded on

24.2.2003 wherein he stated that he cut 5-10 Shindi trees at Kalegaon Tahasil

Kaij, dis not pay lavy, Neknoor police issued warrant against him but on

enquiry he was told in 1984-85 that original record was burnt. He further

stated that he statyed in Kharda Camp for 10-11 months and during that period

burnt Pachangri naka, Daskhed Naka but no warrant was issued. However he

was declared abscoding by Neknoor police. There is nothing worth noting in

affidavit filed before the Commission.

- 100 -

Thus the affidavit of the supporting freedom fighter filed by him suffer

from the infirmity that his name is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit

and there is no signature on the addition. The name is added in place left

blank so as to use for any person approaching the said freedom fighter.

His claim has been considered by the Zilla Gaurav Samittee and High

Power Committee on the basis of warrant as well as on the basis of his being

underground in the freedom movement. As regards the warrant bearing

confidential file No. 21/57 outward no. 203 dated 12 Isfandar 1357 Fasli, the

Commission has already made detailed comments in the separate part

regarding reasons in cases of warrants of arrest on which claims are made by

different Respondents. Thus having relied on such a false documents his

claim even as underground freedom fighter becomes suspecious and doubtful

and in any case supporting affidavits which contain addition of the name

which addition has been made at the later stage to the typed proforma of the

affidavit cannot be accepted as genuine and even as a statement on oath. It can

not be affidavit in the proper sense and is not worth the paper on which it is

written.

One of the Member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had mentioned that

warrant is not properly verified because there was no original record available.

The Commission therefore finds that the officers noting on the file that

it is not the case pertaining to warrant but it is a case of underground freedom

fighter, in fact misled the High Power Committee though in fact the case was

on both the counts. The defects in the affidavits which are obvious on a mere

perusal are also not pointed out to the High Power Committee.

As regards the warrant the Commission has already commented in

detail in the reasons contained in the separate part of the report regarding

general reasons for warrant cases. Having produced copy of such warrant he

was not entitled for Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him. The

Commission therefore finds that on the either of the grounds he was not

entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him

deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 101 -

Shri Namdeo Bhau Sanap.

He applied for pension on 20.07.1990 and stated in the application that

he was involved in Freedom Movement and worked under Ramling Swami

and Sahebrao Sanap as underground freedom fighter and also worked under

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap.

He filed affidavit dated 12.07.1990 and thereafter another affidavit

dated 13.2.1997. The second affidavit is detailed affidavit which is stereotype

like many others affidavits in other cases.

He also filed the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 21.06.1997 in

which his name is added in a different type in space left blank for writing the

name and similarly in affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne also his name is

added in differnet type in the proforma already typed.

He filed further affidavit dated 15.09.1999 in which he stated that

warrant was issued against him and in support he filed affidavit of Namdeo

Balwant Aher dated 10.09.1999 and affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule

dated 10.09.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred to the

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne as well as Urdu

warrant copy and verification report of Civil Court Ashti and relying on the

affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years

imprisonment, recommended the case for the sanction of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 15.07.1998

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee however, referred to the warrant and his

own statement in affidavit and sanctioned pension. The under secretary made

an endorsement that the warrant is not verified and his name is not in the

warrant.

The District Collector Beed has addressed letter to the Civil Judge

Ashti enclosing Xerox copy of the warrant in file No. 21/57 Outward No. 202

- 102 -

dated 21 Isfandar 1357 F and list of 16 persons making specific queries on

04.09.1997 to which Civil Judge replied on 01.10.1997 that original record is

not available in his office and the copy is issued from the Court but on page

No.2 at line No.34 in the Xerox copy there appears addition and out of the list

16 persons sent to him none of the names appears in the copy and for this

reason the under secretary has made aforesaid note while placing the matter

before High Power Committee.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that warrant was

never issued against him.

It is obvious that the warrant verification was done from Xerox copy

itself and to ascertain reliability of warrant of which record was called for

from all possible sources in Beed District but original is not traceable

anywhere. It is difficult to imagine as to from where he procured the Xerox

copy. He has also not explained from where he obtained the Xerox copy. He

has only produced Xerox copy of copy issued by Court which cannot be

treated as certified copy and in the absence of availability of original warrant

anywhere such copy is of no help and could not have been relied upon by the

Government.

In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane his

name is added by typing the same on carbon copy. It is obvious that the

affidavit was prepared for some other persons of which a carbon copy was

retained and filed with addition and alteration which is not signed by

anybody.

Thereafter he produced further affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher

and Manik Tulsi Anbhule, both dated 10-09-1999. Later affidavits contain

incidents to which Respondent himself never made any reference in any of the

affidavits nor the persons who filed supporting affidavits earlier made

reference to those incidents.

The verification report shows that Xerox copy sent to the Civil Court

by Collector contained a list of 16 persons and none of the name was found in

the Xerox copy of urdu warrant. In fact it is mentioned in the report that the

- 103 -

name appears to be added at Sr. No. 32 which fact was brought to the notice of

High Power Committee by the under secretary in his note. Thus having

produced a suspicious document to support his claim concerning his activity

in the freedom movement, the entire evidence produced by him become

suspicious. Moreover the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are also

not reliable and therefore on either of the ground he can be said to have made

out case as required by Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

His statement recorded before the Mane Committee is equally vague

and not a particular incident is referred to by him in the entire statement.

Having realized that copy of Urdu warrant produced by him does not even

contain his name, he stated that the said document was not produced when the

application was filed and he was not aware of the contents thereof.

Considering the aforesaid facts the Commission finds that he has failed to

make out his case either as underground freedom fighter or on the basis of

arrest warrant issued and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits could not have been

granted and the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and

Commission recommends accordingly.

- 104 -

Shri Pandurang Aba Nagargoje

Applied for grant of pension on 24.12.1997 as underground freedom

fighter and in his application he stated that he worked at Kharda camp under

Namdeo Khade and Wamanrao Waze.

He filed affidavit dated 23.12.1997 in which he has stated names of

seven freedom fighters with whom he worked which include Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne, Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap.

The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 07.10.1997 is a typed

affidavit and name of Pandurang Aba Nagargoje with further description that

he was beaten by police and was required to leave his house is added in ink to

the typed affidavit and at the end also there is addition of one sentence that he

could not take education. Similarly the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

28.11.1997 also contain the same addition in ink. He also filed another

affidavit dated 13.10.1998 in which he has stated names of Pandhari Ganpati

Nagargoje and has stated that warrant was issued against him and in support

produced the affidavit of Pandhari Ganpati Nagargoje and Raghunath

Pandurang Bade. He has also produced Xerox copy of warrant in File No. Nil

outward No. 101 dated 4 Bahman 1357 F i.e. 04.12.1947. The Xerox copy is

not signed by anybody.

However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 31.12.1997

treated the case as of underground freedom fighter and relied on the affidavits

of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna EknathTelap and recommended grant

of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote to Deputy Secretary on 15.07.1998 that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

In note dated 20.09.1999 put up to High Power Committee it is stated

that he has filed Writ Petition in the High Court and has stated about his

activities against Nizam Government as underground freedom fighter, Zilla

Gaurav Samittee has recommended his case and filed supporting affidavits so

- 105 -

the case is fit for grant of pension and the High Power Committee granted the

claim.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

in which he first stated that there was no warrant issued against him. However

further stated that he has produced zerox of warrant issued by Patoda Tahsil

along with application and will produce certified copy of warrant which he

never produced.

Xerox copy produced by him is of warrant bearing confidential file Nil

outward no. 101 dated 4 Behman 1357 Fasli and the original thereof is not in

the file of Tahasil Patoda or in any other file which the Commission received.

Such a copy cannot be relied upon in any proceedings. It appears that for this

reason his case has been treated as of underground freedom fighter by the Zilla

Gaurav Samittee. The supporting affidavits relied upon suffer from infirmity

of addition of name in the typed affidavit. Thus the supporting affidavits are

not trustworthy as there are material alteration and the original warrant is not

in the file received from the Tahasil office Patoda when the copy appears to

have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda on 17.8.1986 and as claimed by the

Tahasildar thereafter the record was submitted to the Collector office. He has

not explained as to how he obtained Xerox copy of a document which is not in

existence. It can not be relied upon and therefore it is clear that the

Respondent had failed to make out case on either of the grounds. The defects

in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters were not pointed out to the

High Power Committee by the officers putting up notes.

When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was

recorded on oath he referred to the incident of burning of Daskhed police patil

wada and naka which he never stated earlier. He also stated for the first time

that he was living away from house for one month.

The Commission therefore finds that Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him on non existent grounds deserve to be and be cancelled

- 106 -

Narayan Shankar Waghmode (Deceased) Legal Representative Widow

Shrimati Bhagubai Narayan Waghmode.

Narayanrao Shankar Waghmode applied for pension claiming to be

underground freedom fighter on 3.5.90 and in his affidavit of the same date he

has referred to arrest warrant issued against him. He died on 18.3.1996.

He filed Xerox copy ofwarrant in File No. 10/11 Outward No. 1-

90/Conf dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli. The copy is signed by Special

Executive Magistrate as true copy and it shows that it is made from the copy

issued to one Kisan Gunaji on 2.8.1986.

After notice was issued to him on 28.07.1997 one affidavit was filed

by his wife Bhagirathibai Waghmode as Narayan Shankar Waghmode died

on 18.03.1996. Extract of death register was produced by her. However, what

is surprising in this affidavit filed after his death is that she claimed that she

herself is Freedom Fighter and she had taken part in Freedom Movement and

a stereotype affidavits filed stating that she was working at Kharda Camp

under the leadership of Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Waze, Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. All these persons

were working at Pathardi and she has filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

and Anna Eknath Telap as well as Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 26.08.1997 it is stated

that Bhagirathi bai was the Freedom Fighter and her name is added in the ink

to the typed written affidavit which is carbon copy. Similar is the affidavit of

Anna Eknath Telap. This also is a carbon copy and her name is added and it

is stated that she was the Freedom Fighter.

There is one more suprising aspect of this case that on record there is

one affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode dated 07.09.1999 when his wife

had earlier produced record of death certificate showing that he died on

18.03.1996. This affidavit is a detailed affidavit containing various incidents

and names of number of freedom fighters in which Narayan Shankar

Waghmode claims to have worked underground and that he was required to

live away from his house for 09 to 10 months. The thumb impressions at two

places on this affidavit are taken in such fashion that it will be difficult to

verify and even expert will not be able to form any opinion. The Deponent

Narayan Waghmode has been identified before the Awwal karkun before

whom affidavit was sworn by one Adv. L. N. Kulkarni Beed Court.

- 107 -

She also filed affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher dated 07.09.1999

who was also identified before Awwal Karkun by Mr. L.N.Kulkarni Advocate

in which there is repetation of the facts stated in respect of various incidents in

the affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode.

There is one more affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule dated

07.09.1999 wherein he has named Narayan Shankar Waghmode as a Freedom

Fighter who had taken part in the incident of burning of Karodgiri Naka and

Daskhed Patilwada and Office.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1997 stated that it

treated the case as of underground freedom fighter and stated that there is

supporting affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap and

Narayan Shankarrao has filed application in form No.8 and also produced

urdu warrant copy and relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne recommended grant of pension. If the entire

proceeding is seen, it will be clear that this recommendation was for sanction

of pension for the work done by Narayan Shankarrao Waghmode to his widow

Bhagirathibai.

that there are affidavits of two Freedom fighters supporting the case

however,there is no compliance with the Government Resolution. It is

surprising that the Additional Collector also did not notice the glaring

infirmity that when original application was filed by Narayan Shankar

Waghmode claiming to be Freedom Fighter, then how after his death

suddenly his wife became the Freedom fighter and filed an affidavit alongwith

supporting affidavits of two freedom fighters mentioning that she was the

freedom fighter and not mentioning the name of her husband whereas one of

the affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule was to the effect that Narayan

Shankar Waghmode was freedom fighter. The Additional Collector also did

not notice that the Affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode is sworn after his

death which is on the face of it a forged document and in fact the Advocate

who identified him before the Awwal Karkun deserves to be severaly dealt

with and can even be prosecuted.

Before Mane Committee Bhagubai appeared and stated on 5.3.2003

that her husband was getting pension as freedom fighter, he died about 10 to

12 years back and he had applied for pension. She does not know when he

filed application and what documents were produced. She has categorically

- 108 -

stated that she is not Freedom fighter but her husband was the freedom fighter

and at the time of freedom movement she was married but her age was 7 to 9

years.

The above stated facts make out a very interesting case and show to

what extent the supporting freedom fighters who had been sentenced to two

years imprisonment could go. Initially application was filed by deceased

Narayan Shankar Waghmode certificate attached to the application is signed

by Bhiwa Raghunath Sanap who was a freedom fighter to whom he knows as

a person working in the freedom movement. Not only this Narayan Shankar

Waghmode also filed affidavit dated 3rd May 1990 claiming to be freedom

fighter and describing various activities in which he was involved in the

freedom movement. He also relied on copy of warrant in file no. 10/11

outward no. 190 dated 14 Bahman 1357 F (14.12.1947) to show that arrest

warrant was issued against him.

On 20.9.1997 his wife gave application that Narayan Shankar

Waghmode died on 18.3.1996 and she is a legal heir entitled to claim pension

payable to him and she produced affidavits of two freedom fighters along with

her own affidavit dated 20.9.1997. In this affidavit, however, she gave a go by

to the entire case made out by her husband and claimed herself to be freedom

fighter who worked underground along with Ramling Swami, Wamanrao

Vaze, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. She has also produced

extract of death register showing that Narayan Shankar Waghmode expired on

18.3.1996. However what is material is not only that she claimed to be

freedom fighter but the freedom fighters supporting her namely Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap also sung the same song. Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane filed affidavit stating that he took part along with 50 to 60 persons in

the incident of burning of pachangri naka and Daskhed police patil wada and

office and she was working with them. This affidavit dated 26.8.1997 is also

interesting in the sense that initially name of Anna Eknath Telap was typed

and scored out and the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane was substituted in the

affidavit. The affidavit is a carbon copy in which name Bhagirathi Narayan

Waghmode is added in ink in the blank space. Similarly even the affidavit of

Anna Eknath Telap dated 5th September 1997 is also a carbon copy wherein it

is stated that Bhagirathi Narayan Waghmode was involved along with him in

the incident of burning Antervali naka and her name is added in blank space

to the carbon copy of the affidavit which was obviously typed as a common

- 109 -

affidavit which can be used to support any person approaching the said

freedom fighter.

On 7.9.1999 application was sent under the signature Narayan

Shankar Waghmode to the Deputy Secretary claiming that in support he is

filing further affidavit of his own and affidavits of two supporting freedom

fighters dated 7.9.1999.

It appears that having realised that in the earlier affidavits of

supporting freedom fighters Bhagubai wife of Narayan Waghmode is depicted

to be a freedom fighter though in fact she had not applied for Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits, the subsequent affidavits of supporting freedom fighters tried

to corrected the same by stating that she was working alongwith them. The

Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered the application of Narayan Shankar

Waghmode and the High Power Committee treated it as application of

Narayan Shankar Waghmode. In fact Bhagubai was entitled to claim

pensionary benefits as widow of Narayan Shankar Waghmode but when she

and freedom fighters supporting her, the position subsequently claiming that

she was freedom fighter working with them, the entire statement in the

application and in the affidavits become extremely suspicious Even the copy

of so called warrant which is a Xerox copy of certified copy is of no help to

Bhagubai who was admittedly not a freedom fighter.

Thus it is a case in which false affidavits were sworn in by the

supporting freedom fighters even changing the name of freedom fighter and

claiming Narayan’s wife to be the freedom fighter and this was totally ignored

by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as by the High Power Committee. The

notes put up before the High Power Committee were put up by the staff

working in Mantralaya who are responsible officers of the Government and

they have also ignored this material illegalitywhich in fact disentitles the wife

of Narayan Shankar Waghmode to make any claim to Sanmanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits therefore the Commission is of the view that Sanmanpatra

and allied pensionary benefits granted to her as heir of Narayan Shankar

Waghmode deserve to be and be cancelled and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 110 -

Shri Karhari Shivram Sanap.

He applied for pension on 20.07.1996 claiming that he worked as

underground freedom fighter under the leadership of Kashinath Jadhav and

took part in the attack and burning of Karodgiri Naka He has produced

supporting affidavit of Sahebrao Sanap dated 05.07.1996 and Limbaji

Kondirao dated 13.05.1996. Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap is qualified as there was

arrest warrant against him for two years.

After he was issued notice to comply with the requirements in view of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne, Sona Rama Jaybhay. In the affidavit filed on 23.06.1997 the name of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is added at Sr. No. 2 by erasing with the help of

whitener the earlier name written and similarly the nam of Sona Rama

Jaybhay is added by erasing the earlier name by using whitener and there are

no signatures on these alterations. The affidavit of Nivruti Dhakane is dated

23.06.1997 and the affidavit of Sona Rama is dated 26.06.1997. In the

affidavitof Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in the ink to typed affidavit.

He again filed affidavit of Karbhari Ganpati Sanap as well as Bhima

Umaji Bangar and Narayan Keshav Pawar and his own affidavit. In all these

affidavits which are filed after the Government Resolution there is an attempt

to show that there is compliance with the Government Resolutiion by stating

that he was required to leave his house for 9 months and he and his family

members suffered hardships.

He appeared before Mane Committee . His statement was recorded in

which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp for 09 to 10 months and

took part in the incident of burning Daskhed patil wada and office and warrant

was issued for his arrest.

In the affidavit filed before Commission more or less earlier statements

are reproduced.

- 111 -

As stated above the affidavit of Karbhari Shivram Sanap contains

erasures. The affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997 shows that

name of Karbhari Shivram Sanap was added in ink to the type written

affidavit. There is no signature of any person on the alteration.

Probably having realized the defects in the affidavit he filed further

affidavit adding the name of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and narrating

altogether different incidents was filed and in support he produced affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. In this affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated

13.8.1998 while quoting incident in which two persons were killed in the

firing by Nizam police the name of Gunaji Wanave is written and for adding

one more name space is left blank which has never been filled in and the

affidavit was sworn in with the blank space. The question therefore is as to

how one can believe these persons merely because they have suffered in the

freedom movement when they can file affidavits containing statement as is

required to support applicant freedom fighters without least regard for the

truth of the contents.

The arrest warrant produced by him is only a Xerox copy of a certified

copy issued by Gevrai Court of file No. 21/57 F outward No. 204 dated 17

Isfander 1357 F. The so called original of the warrant is received from the

Gevrai court in response to the summons issued by he Commission and there

is observation in respect of all the warrants, in another part of this report

which need no repetition and be considered as part of reasons of this case also.

Even the remarks of the Additional Collector regarding non reliability

of the warrant was totally ignored.

- 112 -

Therefore case of Karbhari Shivram Sanap suffers from serious

infirmity, the affidavits filed in support include forged affidavits and even the

warrant of which Xerox copy is produced is not genuine.

In his statement before Mane Committee he referred to the meeting of

Ramling Swami wherein there was firing a because of firing he ran away and

lived away from his house for nine to ten months, which is a clear

improvement. It is therefore a case in which Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to Karbhari Shivram Sanap deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith

and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 113 -

File Case No.247 (Respondent No.247)

Shri Tukaram Keru Sanap

He applied for pension on 26.6.1989, on the basis of the arrest

warrant issued against him and also on the ground that he was underground

freedom fighter.

He produced Xerox copy of warrant which itself is a copy of copy and

on the copy there is endorsement of Nazir Cum COC , Patoda “verified that

the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Tahasildar Patoda as on

17.10.1990.” Warrant copy shows that it was in file No.10/21/81 Outward

No.221 dated 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 14 June 1948.

He filed affidavit dated 4.2.1997, of freedom fighters Sona Rama

Jaybhay, in which name of Tukaram Keru Sanap is added in the affidavit

already typed. He filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 24.08.1997

in which also name of Tukaram Keru Sanap is added in the typed affidavit

afterwards. In the earlier application he had nowhere referred to Sona Rama

Jaybhay. All these additions are typed in blank space and the difference in the

type and ink is visible to naked eye.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred only

to affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay treating the

case as of underground freedom fighter did not make any reference to the

arrest warrant allegedly issued against him and recommended his case for

grant of pension.

that he has filed affidavits of freedom fighters who were sentenced to two

years imprisonment, however there is no compliance with Government

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation with

reference to his affidavit and two supporting affidavits.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he is not aware

whether arrest warrant was issued against him and he is also not aware whose

supporting affidavits are filed by him and further stated that he had entrusted

- 114 -

the job to Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and said Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

produced the necessary documents.

In the detailed affidavit filed before the Commission, he has made

further improvements by stating the names of renouned freedom fighters like

Swami Ramanad Thirth for the first time.

Thus the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters which are stereo

type containing certain incidents which the said freedom fighters have

mentioned in many other cases are not found in his own affidavit filed as late

as on 4.2.1997. In the statement before Mane Committee and in the affidavit

filed before the Commission he has made similar averment without quoting

any particular incident.

Regarding the copy of warrant produced by him which is alleged to be

a Xerox copy of certified copy signed by the Assistant Superintendent Patoda

Court stating that he has verified the Xerox copy which is true copy of copy

issued by Tahasildar Patoda. This endorsement is dated 26.6.1988 and the

Xerox copy shows that it was issued on 17.10.1986. When he also could have

applied for the certified copy but he chose to secure such a copy which was

signed as true copy by the Nazir-cum-COC of Patoda court who had no

authority to certify a document not forming part of Court record. Even the date

26.6.1986 written above remarks shows that there is erasure and alteration in

the last two figures of year. The Respondent has sworn affidavit on 26.6.1990

before the same Nazir-cum-COC and therefore it appears that he changed the

date to 26.6.1986. The original of this warrant is not found in the file received

from the Patoda Tahasil office and even in record received from Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Gevrai and Ambejogai Police Station. The Commission

has already given detailed comments in separate part of this report regarding

original warrants received from different sources including Patoda Tahsil.

Therefore the Respondent Tukaram Keru Sanap has not only failed to

make out case either as underground freedom fighter or as person against

whom arrest warrant was issued in the movement but has resorted to filing

forged affidavits. The Commission therefore recommends that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him to be and be cancelled

forthwith.

- 115 -

File Case No.252 (Respondent No. 252)

Ramrao Saluji Sanap (Deceased) represented by wife

He filed application for grant of pension on 22.06.1990 claiming

pension as underground freedom fighter and also on the basis of arrest warrant

issued against him in file No. 21 Outward No. 202/1357 Fasli dated 11

Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 11th January 1948 and produced Xerox copy

signed as true copy by one Chartered Accountant and the said copy appears to

be a copy of copy originally issued by the Ashti Court on 12.04.1990. The

endorsement of Nazir COC of Patoda Court appearing in the Xerox copy is

”verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on

12.04.1990”.

He also filed detailed affidavit dated 9.2.1999 wherein he named

number of freedom fighters working at Domri Camp and stated that he worked

underground and was helping the freedom fighters and made further

improvement showing compliance with Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995, that he lived away from his house for 9 to 10 months and was

suffering from hardship.

In support he produced the affidavits of Vishwanath Devrao Rakh and

Bhagawan Ambaji Rakh dated 09.02.1999.

Thereafter he again filed further improved affidavit on 07.09.1999

stating the names of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher

which were not stated earlier and that he was required to live away from house

for 10 to 11 months

the copy of warrant. It is stated in the minutes that in the warrant copy his

name does not appear and word not is scored out and it is thereafter written in

different ink that name appeares in the warrant and it is further written in the

Marathi translation of the copy there is name of the applicant. The copy is

secured from the Civil Court but the Court did not certify it and original

record is not available and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not

recommend. Here again the word not is scored out and stated as yes ( Nahi

- 116 -

converted to Ahe). However, one of the Member P.V.Joshi recorded that he

does not agree.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 20.3.1999 to the Section

Officer stating that the original record is not available and the copy could not

be believed, and he has also not complied with the provisions of Government

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation as

the note referred to his activities against the Nizam Government and held that

there is compliance with Government Resolution and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that no warrant was

issued against him. He was required to live away from his house. He does not

know Namdev Balawant Aaher.

When the Commission issued notice he was no more and his wife filed

affidavit. She has no personal knowledge.

The affidavit dated 22-06-1990 of Ramrao Saluji Sanap shows that

initially it was prepared as affidavit of Dnyanoba Rama Nagare and later that

name was erased and name of Ramrao Saluji Sanap was added with change in

age and residence. The said affidavit is not only signed by Dnyanoba Rama

Nagare but it was also verified and below that there is stamp of Judicial

Magistrate, Beed and thereafter signatures of Dyanoba at two places were

scored out and Ramrao Saluji Sanap signed in place of it.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated it as a case based on arrest warrant and

relied on the copy of the warrant. Additional Collector rightly pointed out that

original record is not available and so the copy is not reliable.

In his further affidavit a totally new case was made out disclosing

names of some freedom fighters not referred to earlier as he had to file

supporting affidavits of those freedom fighters. He filed affidavit of Namdev

Balawant Aher dated 7.9.1999 who was identified before the Avval Karkun on

30.7.1999 though the stamp paper of affidavit was purchased on 31.7.1999

- 117 -

and Advocate identified him on 30.7.1999 i.e. one day before purchase of the

stamp paper. Similar defects are found in another affidavit of freedom fighter

Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 7.9.1999 wherein also Advocate Shinde

claims to have identified him on 30.07.1999. The date of swearing the

affidavit and identification creates doubt about entire document styled as

affidavit which loses all scantity of statement on oath.

Regarding the warrant in confidential file no. 21/57 Outward no. 202

dated 11 Isfandar 1357 Fasli i.e. 11th January 1948 copy whereof is relied

upon in this file, the Commission has already commented upon in another part

of this report which needs no repetition.

He appeared before Mane Committee and in his statement on oath did

not refer to the name of any of the supporting freedom fighter stating that he

does not remember their names and stated that he was required to live away

from his house for two to four months. He has referred to the names of

Vinayakrao Deshmukh and Bhaiyyasaheb Deshmukh resident of Dombri

which names are no where stated by him earlier. Thus obviously he had come

up with a false and concocted case and produced documents and affidavits

which on the face of it are false or totally unreliable. Unfortunately the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti did not notice it and in the note put up before the High Power

Committee the defects were not pointed out by the concerned staff of the

Mantralaya. However, under secretary had mentioned that the warrant has not

been verified.

The Commission therefore finds that Ramrao Saluji Sanap was not

entitled for Sanmanpatra and allied benefits on the basis of such evidence

which contained forged affidavits and false documents and the Commission

therefore recommends that Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be

cancelled forthwith.

- 118 -

File Case No.255(Respondent No. 255)

Shri. Bhagwan Dagadu Sanap

He applied for grant of pension on 03.06.1991 on the basis of warrant

issued against him bearing confidential Outward No. 101 1357 Fasli dated 4

Behman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 4th December 1947. He has also produced

another copy of warrant in file No.21/2/ 1357 Fasli, Outward No. 406 dated 4

Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 4th December 1947.

He filed one affidavit dated 4.4.1990 wherein he merely stated that he

worked underground in the freedom movement along with Trimbak Ganapati

Sanap, Wamanrao Vaze etc.

He filed another affidavit dated 21.06.1990, after notice was issued to

him in view of the new Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. It is a

stereotype affidavit in which the names of number of freedom fighters are

included namely Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna

Eknath Telap.

In the supporting affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 31.05.1997

name of Bhagwan Dagadu r/o Wadzari Taluka Patoda is mentioned in ink in

typed affidavit and similarly in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

17.7.1997 the name is mentioned in ink to the typed affidavit.

The warrant copy was sent for verification to the Police Station

Ambajogai by the Section Officer General Administration Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai and in reply dated 21.09.1999. Police Inspector reported

that in the copy the name of Bhagwan Dagadu Sanap is mentioned as

Bhagwan Dagadu Wanzara.

the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and also to the

Urdu copy of warrant mentioning that warrant is not verified but there are

affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years

imprisonment and recommended the grant of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 15.7.1999 to the Deputy

Secretary stating that the warrant is not verified and there is no compliance

with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 119 -

The High Power Committee however stated in the note that the

warrant is verified from the original record by Police Station and accepted the

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he stated that he cut shindi trees and has not done any other work in

the freedom movement. He specifically stated that he was residing in his

house only but warrant was issued against him. Sahebrao Sanap and Bhanudas

Sanap asked him to apply for pension and filed their affidavits in support. He

does not know Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has not stated the

names of two freedom fighters referred above who have filed supporting

affidavits.

Regarding the warrant in file received from Ambejogai police station

bearing no. 21/2/1357 Fasli outward no.406 dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli

(4.12.1947), copy whereof is relied upon in this case, the Commission has

already commented in other part of this report. He has also produced copy of

another warrant issued on same date bearing outward no.101 original whereof

is not available anywhere. The affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane as well as Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity

of addition of name in ink to the typed format of affidavits containing

repetition of the same incidents and claiming his involvement in the said

incidents whereas in his affidavit dated 4.4.1990 he claims to have worked

with Trimbak Ganapati Sanap.

The supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters qualified to file such

affidavits are defective and unreliable because of the additions pointed out

above and the warrants are also not reliable as stated in the separate part of

this report with necessary details.

Before Mane Committee he specifically admitted that he was residing

in his house which falsifies his contention that arrest warrant was issued and

pending against him.

The Commission therefore finds that claim based on such type of

affidavits and documents could not have been sanctioned by the Government.

The Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to him deserve to be

and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 120 -

Keru Daji Nagargoje

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 20.07.1997

and stated in his application that warrant was also issued against him and

stated names of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna

Eknath Telap. He filed affidavits dated 30.6.1997 which are stereotyped

affidavits.

In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the name Keru Daji

Nagargoje is added in hand writing and similarly in the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 8.7.1997 the name of Keru Daji Nagargoje is added in

hand writing.

He again filed affidavit dated 26.3.1999 in which he disclosed further

names of freedom fighters Bhima Umaji Bangar, Karbhari Tatya Bangar,

Namdev Balawant Aaher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and further stated that he

was required to live away from his house for ten months. He filed affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 20.2.1999 and one more affidavit of Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule which is also stereotyped.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 9.7.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay

The Additional Collector, however, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on

10.7.1995 that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation of

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

in which he stated about the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and he cut shindi

trees. He does not know that warrant was issued against him and he was away

from his house for 10 to 12 days. He stayed in the hills due to fear of

- 121 -

Razakars. He does not know who filed affidavits in support of his case and he

does not know what documents are filed.

However in the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated all

the facts with all particulars.

In addition to the claim based on being underground freedom fighter

he has also relied on arrest warrant issued against him in File No. Nil outward

No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2.12.1947. He filed another affidavit

dated 30.06.1997 which also appears to be a typed format already prepared

and his name and names of his heirs were added afterwards. The affidavit of

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the infirmity pointed

out above stating the very same incidents i.e. burning of Pachangri Naka,

Daskhed Police Patil Wada and office and Antarwali naka and his name is

added in ink to typed format. He filed further affidavit dated 26.3.1999

probably after notice was issued to him and in this affidavit it is stated that he

had to live away from his house. In this affidavit dated 26.3.1999 there is

sufficient improvement and the fact which were not stated earlier as well as

the names of other freedom fighters are also mentioned herein. He has filed

supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram

Anbhule dated 23.2.1999 in which Manik Tulsiram Anubhule stated the

incident in which he was sentenced for three months. He further stated that

there were 160 persons with him including Keru Damu Nagargoje. However

it is obvious and admitted that Keru Damu Nagargoje was not sentenced and

was not accused in the case in which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap claims to have

been convicted. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap has not stated involvement of Keru

Damu Nagargoje in the incident.

The affidavit is prepared in the name of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule

and the Advocate has identified Manik Tulshiram Anubhule before the Awal

Karkun before whom the affidavit was sworn but on the affidavit there are

thumb impressions of Keru Damu Nagargoje at two places specifically

mentioing that it is thumb impression of Keru Damu Nagargoje. This affidavit

cannot be treatedas affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule as it bears the

thumb impression of Keru Damu Nagargoje and merely because the authority

- 122 -

before whom it was sworn has stated that Manik Tulshiram Anubhule was the

deponent. In that case thumb impression of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule ought

to have been taken on the affidavit. Thus at least three of the affidavit of the

supporting freedom fighters cannot be treated as affidavit as in earlier two

affidavits there are additions which are not signed by anybody as pointed out.

In addition he produced arrest warrant in File No. Nil Outward No 217

2 Baheman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2.12.1947. Regarding this warrant received from

Patoda Tahsil the Commission has already commented in detail in separate

part of this report and found that the same is not genuine and, therefore, those

comments are not repeated. He appeared before Mane Committee. He simply

refers to the meeting of Wamanrao Waze and did not narrate any incident in

which he was involved in the freedom movement. He does not know who has

given supporting affidavits as all the work of affidavit was done by Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap. Before Mane Committee he did not state on oath that he was

required to live away from his house. Thus, on both the grounds he had failed

to make out case as per the requirements of the Government Resolution and in

fact supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters are defective to such an

extent that they cannot be treated as affidavit and the sanctity attached cannot

be said to be in existence in the case of same affidavit.

The Commission is therefore of the view that he failed to prove his

entitlement on either of the counts and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserves to be and should be cancelled forthwith and

- 123 -

Thakaji Genu Sanap (Deceased) represented by wife. Kisnabai

Applied for grant of pension on 24.7.1990 as underground freedom

fighter and also claimed that warrant was issued against him. He filed

affidavit dated 20.7.1990 in which he stated that he worked from Domri Camp

under Wamanrao Vaze Advocate and warrant was issued against him.

In support of his claim he filed affidavit of Shamrao Aabaji Khatal

dated 20.7.1990.

He filed another affidavit dated 4.2.1997 which is stereotype affidavit

in which the name of Thakaji Genu Sanap is added to carbon copy by typing

and later on. He filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 25.2.1997 in

which his name is added afterwards in different type and similar is the case of

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 25.2.1997 in which his name is added by

typing afterwards.

He again filed affidavit dated 27.2.1998 in which he added the names

of Sona Rama Jaybhay , Namdev Balawant Aaher and Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and in support filed affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated

27.2.1998 in which his name is added in the blank space in different type and

the affidavit itself is a carbon copy.

He thereafter filed another affidavit dated 3.3.1999 in which he added

the name of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and filed supporting affidavits of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 26.3.1999 affidavit of Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule dated 9.3.1999. In his affidavit dated 3.3.1999 he stated for the first

time that he was required to live away from his house for 10 months.

his case relying on the affidavits.

The Additional Collector, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 5.7.1997

that here is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim first. However,

thereafter further note was put up that he has filed affidavits in compliance

- 124 -

with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the note further stated that

claim is rejected by the Chairman and Member Secretary and has not been

rejected by the Chief Minister. Whereas the earlier note signed by the

Secretary to Chief Minister that the recommendation of the department

rejecting claim is accepted by the Chief Minister and surprisingly in spite of

such a clear endorsement, a misleading note was put up that the Principal

Secretary to Chief Minister has neither stated that it is sanctioned nor stated

that it is rejected.

It is further stated that he has produced documents as required by the

Government Resolution. He worked underground. He filed affidavits of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Dagadu Chaure and

Thaksen Shankarrao Dhase and has stated that the police has burnt his house

and there was firing for one and half hours at the freedom fighters at Daskheda

and he was one of them and therefore in view of the new evidence his claim is

sanctioned.

How note was put up to mislead the High Power Committee that the

claim has not been rejected by highest authority i.e. Chief Minister who is the

Chairman of the High Power Committee is beyond comprehension and it

appears that in order to see that his claim is considered again this misleading

note was mischievously put up by the Mantralay staff. The note however

states that he has filed affidavits of Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thaksen

Shankarrao Dhase. In fact on record there are no affidavits filed by these two

freedom fighters that is Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thaksen Shankarrao

Dhase and with such note it was proposed to sanction his claim.

Thereafter the under secretary mentioned in his note that there is

contradiction in the affidavit of Respondent and the incidents mentioned in the

affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Namdev Balawant Aher and the name

of the respondent is added to the affidavits which were already prepared and it

was recommended that the claim should be rejected. The Member Secretary

as well as the Sabhapati also agreed with this and again there was endorsement

by the Chief Minister’s Secretary that the recommendation rejecting the claim

is accepted by the Chief Minister and he was also informed by letter regarding

rejection of his claim. This endorsement is of 5.3.1999.

- 125 -

There after further note was made on 23.9.1999 that he has filed copy

of warrant and has explained his sufferings during the freedom movement. His

name is seen in the warrant and he was required to live away from his house,

he was also recommended by Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and the claim be

sanctioned where after again the under secretary mentioned that the warrant is

not verified. However, the higher authorities of the rank of Member

Secretary, Sabhapati , State Minister sanctioned the claim.

The claim was rejected for the second time on 5.3.1999.

On 10.3.1999 one Government Resolution was issued by the

Government to the effect that the decision of the Government is final and is

not open to appeal or review and after the issuance of this Government

Resolution further note dated 23.9.1999 was put up and the claim was

sanctioned without bringing to the notice of the High Power Committee the

Government Resolution dated 10.3.1999 which was the duty of staff.

How the approached changed from time to time. Why it changes to

radically, remains a mystery. However, it is clear from the above discussion

that even the Government was convinced that he is not entitled to the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and that decision was reviewed after the

Government Resolution prohibiting such review was issued by the

Government.

Furthermore the Commission has already made its observation

regarding the warrant in File No. 21/57 outward No. 201 dt/- 10 Ispinder 1357

Fasli i.e. 10.01.1948 copy whereof has been produced in this file by the

respondent. The said comments need no repetition here as they are to be

applied to all the cases based on the said warrant. The said warrant is found to

be forged.

For all these reasons the Commission is of the view that he was not

entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him

deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 126 -

File Case No. 277 (Respondent No. 277)

Shri. Mahadeo Namdeo Vighne

He applied for pension on 22.06.1990 on the basis of warrant and also

claimed that he was underground freedom fighter.

He produced a Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli

Outward No. 202 dated 11 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 18th January

1948. The xerox copy is attested by the Chartered Accountant. He filed

affidavit dated 22.06.1990 in which he claimed to have worked underground

and also claimed that arrest warrant was issued against him.

He filed further affidavit on 20.1.1997 giving reference to the warrant

and stating the names of number of freedom fighters.

The copy of warrant produced is itself a copy of copy with the

endorsement on the Xerox dated 21.6.1990, “verified that the Xerox copy is

true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on 12.4.1990.” It is signed by Nazir

of Patoda Civil Court.

He filed further affidavit dated 9.2.1999 stating the name of Bhima

Umaji Bangar in addition to other names and stating for the first time that for

9 to 10 months he was required to be away from his house.

In support he produced the affidavit of Bhagwan Aabaji Rakh.

However he was not sentenced to two years imprisonment. He produced

further affidavit of Devrao Rakh who was also not sentenced to two years

imprisonement.

Thereafter again he filed affidavit of himself dated 7.9.1999 in which

he added further names of freedom fighters viz. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap,

Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aher.

copy of warrant and stated that it is issued by Civil Court Ashti and

recommended his case for sanction, wherein one of the member P.V.Joshi

observed that the recommendation is improper. As noted earlier it is not a

certified copy issued by Gevrai Court.

- 127 -

The Additional Collector and Member Secretary on 20.3.1999 pointed

out that the original record is not available and copy of warrant is not reliable.

Furthermore he has not complied with the Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995.

Before the High Power Committee note was put up that he has stated

in affidavit that warrant of arrest was issued against him. He has filed

affidavits of four freedom fighters and pension be sanctioned to him which

was also sanctioned in view of the note, though the Under Secretary pointed

out that warrant was not verified as original record was not available.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he attended

the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze, warrant of arrest was issued against him. He

stated he will produce certified copy of warrant within 8 days but did not

produce the same.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has filed further

improved affidavit and has referred to the warrant in file No. 205 outward No.

209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 24.01.1948 and produced Xerox copy

thereof.

The copy of warrant of arrest produced by him bearing the

endorsement stated in detail above shows that it is not a certified copy but a

Xerox copy issued by Ashti Court which has been verified by Assistant

Superintendent, Patoda Court. This endorsement is dated 21.06.1990 whereas

the copy of which the Xerox copy is prepared was issued on 12.04.1990

therefore on 21.06.1990 he could have applied straightway to the Court of

Ashti for issuance of certified copy but he resorted to produce Xerox copy of

document. The Commission has received the original warrant from Gevrai

Court copy whereof is produced in this file. The Commission has examined

the aspect of the warrants received from Georai Court and from other two

sources i.e. Patoda Tahsil and Ambajogai Poice Station and has commented in

detail in a separate part of this report which need not be repeated here. The

Commission has found that the warrant received from the file of Georai Court

is not genuine warrant and therefore on the basis of the copy of such a warrant

no claim can be sustained by.

- 128 -

He had earlier filed affidavit of supporting freedom fighters who were

not having necessary qualification in the sense that they were neither

sentenced to two years nor was there arrest warrant against them for two years

and thereafter he filed affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo

Balwant Aher and for the first time he stated in his own affidavit dated

7.9.1999 that he was required to live away from his house for 9 to 10 months.

The names of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and

Namdeo Balwant Aher were stated by him for the first time in the affidavit

dated 07.09.1999 as he wanted to produce affidavits in support.

In his statement recorded by Mane Committee he has referred only to

the meeting of Wamanrao Waze where there was firing and he has not even

referred to the names of Manik Tukaram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

He clearly stated that he had not worked alogwith the persons whose

supporting affidavits are filed by him whereas in his own affidavit he had

clearly mentioned to have worked with them and said supporting freedom

fighters also stated that he worked with them in the freedom movement and

the only incident he quoted before Mane Committee is of hoisting tricolour

flag on Tahsil Office which was no where stated by him earlier. He also stated

that for this act he was arrested, he was in custody for two days. If such

incident had taken place as a result of which he was arrested and kept in

custody, he would not have forgotten to mention it in his affidavits. Thus,

neither his affidavit nor the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are

trustworthy and even as underground freedom fighter, he failed to make out

case. He even did not state before Mane Committee that he was required to

live away from his house which fact normally would have been stated by him

if he had to live away from his house.Even otherwise the fact remains that he

produced copy of a forged document which vitiates the entire proceedings.

For all these reasons the Commission is convinced that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled

- 129 -

Shri Shamrao Seetaram Jaybhay

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 11.10.1990.

He filed affidavit dated 21.07.1997 in which he stated that he worked from

Domri Camp as per direction of person in-charge and took part in burning

Karodgiri Naka etc. He was required to go underground for this work.

Notice was sent to him on 06-07-1996. Thereafter he filed another

affidavit dated 4.2.1997 stating the names of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane which were not stated earlier.

He filed supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 03.02.1997

in which name of Shamrao Seetaram Jaybhaye is added in ink to the typed

affidavit. He also filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane 29.1.1997 in

which also the name is added to typed affidavit and the typed affidavit is a

carbon copy.The contents of the affidavits of these two freedom fighters are

practically same as in other cases in which they have filed supporting

affidavits.

He again filed affidavit dated 12.05.1999, in which he has added

number of incidents not stated earlier and the names of Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap, Namdev Aaher, Manik Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar etc. and also

stated that he was required to live away from house for 9 to 10 months. This

statement was also made for the first time.

He filed supporting affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aaher on

17.08.1999 in which there is no statement that he was required to live away

from his house. He also filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated

17.8.1999 in which also it is not stated that he was required to live away from

his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred to his

affidavit and the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap

who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and recommended sanction of

pension.

- 130 -

that there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case and in the note put up

reference was made to the statements in his affidavit and to recommendation

of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and claim was sanctioned.

It is stated in the note that arrest warrant was issued against him.

There is no reference of the affidavits of freedom fighters supporting. In the

note put up before the High Power Committee, however, on page 1 the names

of freedom fighters supporting him are mentioned viz. Anna Eknath Telap,

Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he attended the

meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and thereafter he stayed in temple for 12 months.

He used to collect and provide bread (bhakari) to the persons staying at

Kharda camp. He specifically stated that he does not know Nivruti Fakira

Dhakne, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher and Anna

Eknath Telap.

He filed affidavit before the Commission making further improvement

and adding names of famous freedom fighters. However there is no reference

to arrest warrant issued against him in this affidavit.

Although in his affidavit dated 21.07.1990 he referred to arrest

warrant and produced translation of warrant in file No. 24/1(Confidential)

outward No. 209 dated 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 21.1.1948, he did not

produce any copy of warrant even a Xerox copy much less certified copy.

The original warrant, translation whereof produced by him is on

record, was received from Ambajogai Police Station and as discussed in

separate part of general reasons for warrant cases the said warrant is found to

be forged. The High Power Committee has relied on this warrant and also

considered the case as of underground Freedom Fighter.

- 131 -

As he has relied on a forged document he is not even otherwise entitled

to claim on the ground of being an underground freedom fighter. The affidavit

of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane are suffered from the

infirmity of addition of names. The same can not be even treated as affidavit.

The facts stated in his latter improved affidavit and those of the other two

freedom fighters supporting him viz Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule contain a totally improved version not earlier stated by

him. He has not stated before Mane Committee that he was working

underground in the freedom movement. He was only collecting breads

(Bhakari) from nearby villages. He even stated that he does not know the

supporting freedom fighters whose names are stated in his affidavits and who

filed affidavit stating various incidents in detail. Thus the latter affidavits are

also not reliable and instead of curing the defects they further falsify his claim.

Had he been underground freedom fighter he would not have

forgotten to state it when examined on oath by the Mane Committee. At the

cost of repetition, having produced forged documents to support his claim the

same fails on all counts and the Commission recommends that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled.

- 132 -

Shri Arjun Khandu Wanve

Arjun Khandu Wanve filed application on 22.8.1995 for grant of

freedom fighter’s pension on the ground that he worked as underground

freedom fighter. In support of his application he placed on record his own

affidavit dated 22.8.1995 and affidavit of Babu Nana Gite and Aba Wadju

Wanve of the same date.

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve filed another application dated

3.7.1997 and additional affidavit of same date in typed proforma in which his

own name is filled in ink in blank space left for that purpose. He also placed

on record affidavits dated 2.7.1997 of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama

Jaybhaye wherein the name of Arjun Khandu Wanve is added in ink to the

already typed affidavit.

Thereafter the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated Nil relied on

the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

recommended application of Arjun Khandu Wanve for grant of pension.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 10.07.1997 stated

that as there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995

it was not a fit case for grant of pension.

The High Power Committee rejected the application vide order dated

10.12.1997 on the ground that there was no compliance of Government

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve filed affidavit dated 29.1.1998 of

Thaksen Shankarrao Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure to substantiate his

claim.

On the basis of these two affidavits further note was put up before the

High Power Committee to reconsider the application and sanction it. As the

Additional affidavits fulfilled the requirements of Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995. The High Power Committee further held that there is no

- 133 -

compliance so it is not a fit case and consequently the application came to be

rejected on 23.4.1998.

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve placed on record Xerox uncertified

copy of warrant issued in file No.21/1357 Fasli outward No.204 dated 17

Isfandar 1357 Fasli i.e. 17th January 1948 and Xerox copy of letter dated

19.12.1997 issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai. He also

placed on record additional affidavit dated 10.12.1998 wherein he mentioned

the names of all supporting freedom fighters and also placed on record the

affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

Thereafter he filed his own additional affidavit dated 11.5.1999 and

affidavit of Padurang Balawant Wanve dated 11.5.1999.

There are two recommendation letters dated 14.5.1999 and 5.6.1999 of

Deputy Chief Minister for grant of pension to Arjun Khandu Wanve.

Thereafter relying on the additional affidavits placed on record by

Arjun Khandu Wanve and in view of recommendation of the Deputy Chief

Minister, the High Power Committee sanctioned application on 4.10.1999.

On 17.03.2003 statement of Arjun Khandu Wanve was recorded before

Mane Committee, wherein he stated that he worked under Kashinath Jadhav.

He does not now remember the names of freedom fighters who supported his

claim and in what work he was associated with them.

So far as the arrest warrants is concerned the Commission has already

commented upon in detail in another part of this report finding that the said

warrant is not genuine for the reasons stated therein. The affidavit of

supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne are

defective in view of the addition of names and cannot be treated as affidavits

as they lose all sanctity in relation to the addition of the names to the type

format of the affidavits.

There is one more important aspect of the matter. His claim was

rejected by the Government on 18.2.1998 and had been communicated also on

- 134 -

20.2.1998 and letter was sent to him regarding the rejection of his claim.

Thereafter the claim was reconsidered in view of a note dated 23.06.1999. In

the meantime on 10.03.1999 the Government has issued a Government

Resolution that the claims rejected by the government shall not be

reconsidered on any count and the decision shall not be reviewed. However,

this Government Resolution was not referred to in the note dated 23.06.1999.

Thus the claim rejected on merits could not have been reconsidered even if

there was a letter from Lokayukta.

Before Mane Committee when examined on oath he stated that he used

to provide breads (bhakari) to the persons working on Domri Camp and he

was at the camp only for two days and thereafter Kharda camp for about 4 to 5

days after which he was residing in his village and he was providing food to

the freedom fighters from his village. There was no arrest warrant against him

and he was providing breads to the freedom fighters Gitte and Wanve and

therefore he knows them. He did not come in contact with other freedom

fighters and he does not know the names of the freedom fighters who have

filed supporting affidavits. Thus the statement also falsifies his earlier

statements in the affidavit.

Thus, on merits he has failed to prove his entitlement, the claim was

rightly rejected yet was reconsidered after the issue of Government

Resolution dated 10.03.1999 and as per the said Government Resolution the

decision of rejection could not have been reviewed by the Government and

therefore the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends

accordingly.

- 135 -

Dattuba Kerba Wanve (deceased) represented by wife Gaubai Dattoba

Wanve.

Dattuba Kerba Wanve died on 28.12.2000. His wife is representing

him in respect of the application he filed on 28.08.1995. He filed affidavits of

Genba Kashiba Gaikwad and Gundiba Bangar.

He filed another affidavit dated 09.07.1997 where in he stated for the

first time names of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as

Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and also filed supporting affidavit of

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 17.07.1997 in which his name is added in blank

space left for that purpose in the tryped proforma by ink and similar is the case

in affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.07.1997 and the contents of the

affidavits are practically similar.

his case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

that he does not comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned pension on 26.6.1999 relying

on the verification of the warrant by Gevrai Court and not as underground

freedom fighter as considered by Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

He did not claim pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against

him and did not produce any copy of warrant. It appears that the report in

respect of verification of warrant in file No. 21 Outward No. 204 Dated 17

Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January 1948 was relied upon for grant

of pension in view of the fact that in the report sent by the Georai Court to the

Tahsildar dated 02.11.1997 in reply to Collector’s letter D/- 03.09.1997

reference was made to this warrant and in the list provided for verification

report the name of Gaubai Dattoba Wanve [ Bawane] R/o Vanjarwadi

appeared. The name is not mentioned as Gaubai Dattoba Wanve whereas in

- 136 -

cases of some of the other persons the name Wanve appears. Here it is

pertinent to note that application was not of Gaubai.

The High Power Committee did not treat the case as underground

freedom fighter but relying on the warrant, verification report of Gevrai Court,

from some other file sanctioned the pension mentioning therein that Zilla

Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case without mentioning the basis on

which the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended the case.

His wife appeared before Mane Committee she has no personal

knowledge and also before the Commission affidavit filed by her is of no

assistance.

Thus the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the infirmity of addition of

names to the typed format of affidavit bearing no signature or initial on the

addition and cannot be treated as affidavits and the sanctity to the affidavit as a

statement on oath loses all significance in view of such additions and

alteration.

So far his claim based on arrest warrant in Confidential file

No. 21/57 F outward No. 204, dated 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 17th January

1948) is concerned the original warrant received from the Gevrai Court on the

summons issued by the Commission has been considered by the Commission

and the Commission has commented upon it in detail in a separate part of this

report and has found that the same is not genuine.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and

- 137 -

Shri Deorao Dagdu Sanap

Deorao Dagdu Sanap applied for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension

on 22.06.1990 as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated

26.06.1990 stating that he was working from Domri camp under the leadership

of Wamanrao Vaze and also stated that since he was absconding his property

was attached by the Government. He filed affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap Dated 22.06.90 and Ashruba Bapu Sanap Dated 25.06.90.

Thereafter, he filed affidavit dated 08.02.1997 wherein he referred to

the name of Ramling Swami, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap

in addition to the earlier names. He filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

dated 05.03.1997 in which name of Deorao Dagdu Sanap is added in different

type in the already typed affidavit, in the space left blank for that purpose. He

also filed affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap Dated 12.02.1997.

He thereafter filed further affidavit dated 03.01.1999 in which he stated

for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for nine

months and also added number of incidents not stated earlier. He filed

suporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap Dated 06.02.1999 and Manik

Tulshiram Anbhule dated 08.02.1999 in which he stated that for three to four

months Deorao Dagdu Sanap was required to live away from his house.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 05.06.1997 recommended his

case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of two supporting

freedom fighters namely Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik Tulshiram

Anbhule and accepted the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and granted

pension on 18.1.2000. It is also stated in the note to the High Power

Committee that there is name of respondent in the warrant and many other

persons whose name appears in the warrant are already sanctioned pension.

- 138 -

He has produced only Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli

Outward No. 201 dated 10 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 10-01-1948 and therefore

the case appears to have been considered even on the basis of warrant even

though no certified copy was produced and no verification report was called.

He appeared before Mane Committee referred to the affidavits of

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and stated that he does not know other persons who

have filed supporting affidavits. He provided Bhakaries by remaining

underground. He provided “Bhakari” from his village Wadzari.

Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits at least one of the

supporting freedom fighter is defective in view of additions and alterations

which are not signed by any body and cannot be treated as affidavit.

As regards the arrest warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli outward No. 201

dated 10 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 10th January 1948) is concerned the original

warrant received from the Gevrai Court on the summons issued by the

Commission is examined and has been commented upon in detail in the

separate part of this report and it is found that the same is not genuine for the

reasons stated therein. He further falsified his claim when he appeared before

Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on oath, he stated that he

attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze where there was firing and he ran

away. He used to provide breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters in the camp

after collecting the same from Wadzari. He is resident of Wadzari and

therefore he was residing in his own house and providing breads (bhakari) to

the freedom fighters. He has not referred to any incident and has not claimed

to have taken part in anyother activity against Nizam Government in the

freedom movement.

The Commission therefore finds that he has failed to prove his

entitlement and even the warrant relied upon by him is not genuine and the

forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 139 -

File Case No. 349(Respondent No.349)

Pandurang Shankar Waghmode (Deceased) represented by wife

Shrimati Kalawati Pandurang Waghmode.

Pandurang Waghmode filed application for grant of freedom fighter

pension on 19.06.1990 on the basis of warrant of arrest issued by Tahasildar

Patoda against him in file no. 402 Outward No. 191/1 Dt/- 15 Behman 1357

Fasli i.e. 15.12.1947.

He filed affidavit dated 23.04.1990 stating that he was underground

from 16.08.1947 to 17.09.1948 and he was working as underground from

Domri camp under leadership of Wamanrao Vaze etc.

He filed further affidavit dated 24.09.1997 in which his name is added

in the place kept blank for writing his name and he has referred to the freedom

fighters’ namely Ramling Swami, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Wamanrao Vaze as

well as Sona Rama Jaibhaye. He filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne Dt/-

26.06.1997 in which his name is added in ink to the already typed affidavit

and similar is the case with the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap Dt/-

19.09.1997.

He filed further affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule dated

17.02.1999.

In its meeting dated 29.12.1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the

copy of warrant and stated that the warrant is not verified but he has filed

affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and anna Eknath Telap and relying on

these affidavits recommended his case for pension. The Additional Collector

wrote to the Deputy Secretary that there is no compliance of Government

High Power Committee sanctioned his case stating that warrant was

issued against him and he has complied with the Government Resolution.

- 140 -

Before Mane Committee his wife appeared. She has no personal

knowledge.

Before Commission she has filed affidavit but she has no personal

knowledge.

The warrant in confidential File No. 402 outward No. 191/1 dated 15th

Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 15-12-1947) is not found in the file received from the

Patoda Tahasil. He has only produced Xerox copy and no claim can be

considered only on the basis of a Xerox copy especially when the file of

Tahasildar Patoda does not contain any warrant containing such outward

number and date.

His claim was therefore considered as underground freedom fighter

and supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap

suffer from the same infirmity where the name of Pandurang Shankar

Waghmode is added into the typed format of affidavit and there is no

signature or initial. The affidavit cannot be said to be an affidavit and loses all

the sanctity of statement on oath when there are such additions and alterations.

He filed further affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram

Anbhule but they are subsequently improved versions to fill in the

requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee relied on the warrant without referring to

any verification report. Merely because the name of the respondent appears in

the xerox copy of warrant case could not have been sanctioned by

Government. The Under Secretary has mentioned that the warrant copy cannot

be relied upon, still the claim was sanctioned on the basis of such Xerox copy

of warrant.

For the aforesaid reasons the Commission finds that he has failed to

prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and

the same granted to him deserve to be and should be cancelled forthwith and

- 141 -

PART – X

DATE OF BIRTH DISPUTED

Cases of persons whose date of birth is disputed. These cases include

the cases of underground freedom fighters as well as cases of persons claiming

pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against them.

This part consists of the cases of freedom fighters whose claim for

pension sanctioned by the government was challenged by the petitioners in the

PIL on the ground that during the time of freedom movement some of them

were either of extremely tender age that it is improbable to accept that they

could have taken part in the freedom movement and there are also cases of

some persons who were not even born when the Hyderabad freedom

movement took place. The Supreme Court in the judgment of SLP reported in

2005 AIR SCW 4094 which petition was filed against the judgment of the

Division Bench of Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has made following observation in para 2 :–

“It is a sad reflection on the moral values of the citizens of our

country that a large number of cases have surfaced where it has

been established that people who were not even born when the

freedom fight was on the country got independence or were

toddlers when the country got independence have applied for and

managed to get “Sanmanpatra”, pensionary and other allied

benefits. The appeals at hand deal with such allegations. This is

“Asanman” (disrespect) to the whole country and such

dishonourable ventures have to be dealt with sternness to send

out a message that they are not freedom fighters, but are traitors

sullying the name of freedom fight”

In fact such cases create a doubt in respect of genuineness of the

documents and other evidence (oral) i.e. affidavits produced by such persons

in support of their case. When the claim is based on arrest warrant and it is

found that the names of persons are there in the warrant who were either not

born or were toddlers when the warrant was issued, the entire warrant

becomes suspicious. Similarly the affidavit not only of the concerned freedom

fighter but even the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters become

- 142 -

extremely unreliable or for want of better terms can be said to be false to the

knowledge of the persons swearing such affidavits and filed with ulterior

motive of securing or getting secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as

freedom fighters with the knowledge that the person concerned had nothing to

do with the freedom movement of the Hyderabad State. The Commission

decided to treat such cases in one part.

All these respondents (except one) have not produced any reliable

evidence of their dates of birth even after the petitioners in the PIL produced

documentary evidence of public record like school admission register or

school leaving certificate.

Initially with the application almost all respondents have produced

certificate of age. This was probably for the reason that at that time there was

requirement of the Government Resolution that the age of the freedom fighter

should not be less than 16 years and there was controversy raised afterwards

whether this age limit is to be applied as on the date of application or on the

date on which he claims to have taken part in the freedom movement. The said

controversy was set at rest by the Court in judgment reported in case of

Bhalchandra Trimbakrao Vaidya 1995 (3) BOM.C.R. wherein the Bombay

High Court observed in paragraph No.8 at pg. 372

“ 8. We therefore, hold that the persons below 16 years of age at the

time of their participation in the Freedom Movement cannot be

denied the benefit of Freedom Fighter’s Pension under the Scheme of

the State Government on the ground of age.”

In pursuance of this judgment Government of Maharashtra issued

Government Resolutions (1) No. POS 1092/CR 105/V dated 5th September

1992 (2) POS-1195/1542/3 138/95 dated 2nd November 1995. As per these

Government Resolutions the condition of age limit of 16 years was deleted.

In view of the fact that there was such condition almost all freedom

fighters whose cases are to be considered have produced along with their

application one medical certificate of their age issued either by some

Government Medical Officer or Private Medical Practitioner and these

certificates are to say the least totally useless as no data or examination

conducted by the Doctor on the basis of which such certificates are issued is

- 143 -

indicated and surprisingly enough in many of these certificates the doctor or

medical practitioner has stated that on the basis of the say of the concerned

person, his age is found to be so and so. This is required to be stated in order

to show that along with application no proper and reliable evidence of age was

produced by any of the freedom fighter and when in the PIL allegations were

made and supporting documentary evidence of copies of school record of the

concerned of freedom fighter was produced showing that he was either of

extremely tender age or a toddler or was not even born, the concerned freedom

fighter has not produced any evidence either before the High Court or before

the Commission to counter the documentary evidence of public record except

in one case, Ashruba Nivruti Rakh , which will be dealt with at appropriate

stage.

CASES OF APPLICANT WHOSE

DATE OF BIRTH IS DISPUTED

Sr. No. Case File No.

Name of the Freedom Fighter Page No.

1. 16 Vishnu Nivrutti Rakh 140

2. 33 Vilas Dajiba Rakh 144

3. 64 Tukaram Gopalrao Jadhav 147

4. 68 Ashurba Bhaurao Rakh 151

5. 88 Lobha Shahaji Patole 155

6. 89 Maruti Ranganath Mundhe 159

7. 90 Trimbak Pandharinath Chate 164

8. 115 Govind Balaji Bhondwe 168

9. 141 Gorakh Anandrao Tarte 171

10. 155 Ramrao Gunaji Wanve 173

11. 161 Govind Dynoba Rakh 176

12. 184 Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh 178

13. 191 Shrirang Narayan Rakh 181

14. 197 Pandurang Ganpati Nagre 184

15. 200 Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar 186

16. 217 Vikram Kisan Wanve 189

17. 218 Tukaram Salba Ghuge 191

18. 219 Limbe Nivrutti Rakh 194

19. 222 Narayan Kisan Rakh 197

20. 275 Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad 200

21. 288 Vitthal Rakhmaji Gopal Ghare 202

22. 319 Dadasaheb Sonaji Bhople 205

23. 329 Maroti Ganpati Misal 207

24. 330 Dadarao Waman Misal 209

- 144 -

Case file No. 16 (Respondent No.16)

Shri Vishnu Nivruti Rakh

He applied for grant of pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued

against him, bearing file No.21 1357 Fasli outward No.202 dated 11 Isfander

1357 Fasli (equivalent to 11th January 1948).

In the application he stated that he worked under Wamanrao Vaze

Advocate at Domri and arrest warrant was issued against him.

In the affidavit dated 23rd January 1991 he has stated that in the

congress camp at Domri there were four to five hundred persons working with

him and they were working against Nizam Government by going to different

villages. As a result of warrant, he was required to go underground he has

produced Xerox copy of warrant issued by Tahasildar Patoda.

The endorsement on the copy of warrant is to the effect, “verified that

the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Ashti Court on 12th April

1991 (which should have been 12th April 1990)”.This endorsement is by

Nazir cum COC Court Patoda.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meting dated 21st January 1999 clearly

stated that he has filed copy of Urdu warrant in which his name is not included

and the copy is given by the Civil Court Ashti and as original record is not

available and pension cannot be sanctioned. However after this clear

statement there is addition in ink by deleting the word no (Nahi) and writing

yes (ahe) in its place and adding that therefore it is proper ………One member

P.V.Joshi differed with the recommendation.

In letter dated 13th September 1997 written by the District Collector,

Beed to the Civil Judge, Ashti a list of 16 persons was forwarded requesting to

verify the copy with original record. The accompanying list was of 60

persons.

In reply dated 1st October 1997 Civil Judge, Ashti informed that

original record is not available in the Court and the copy has not been issued

from Ashti Court in regular course by charging fees and in the Xerox at pg.3

two lines No.34 appear to have been added. During verification no name out

of the list of 16 persons sent to the Civil Judge by the Collector was found in

- 145 -

the Xerox copy of warrant itself. He has filed further affidavit stating

additional names of Namdev Balavant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule

both of whom were sentenced to not less than two years.

After the remarks of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Additional Collector

Beed wrote letter to Section Officer on 20th March 1999 informing that the

copy produced is not issued by the Ashti Court and original record was not

available and as he has also not fulfilled the other provisions of Government

Resolution dated 4th July 1995, case is not fit for pension.

The High Power Committee referred to the copy of warrant and his

affidavit and stated further in the note that in the warrant his name appears in

the English copy and he states to have worked as underground freedom fighter

and how he suffered while working underground and therefore he complies

with Government Resolution provisions dated 4.7.1995 and senior freedom

fighters Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule have supported

his case. There is also recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and his

case be sanctioned. Below that endorsement there is further note by the Under

Secretary that in the Urdu warrant applicant’s name does not appear as

informed by the District Collector and the claim be rejected.

However below that Member Secretary of the High Power Committee

Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar made endorsement that the claim be sanctioned

and hence his application was granted.

In his application he did not mention that he was underground and

warrant was issued against him for arrest. After the report of warrant

verification that his name appears to have been added subsequently he filed

affidavits of two freedom fighters, who were sentenced to not less than two

years imprisonment namely Namdev Balavant Aher and Manik Tulsiram

Anbhule and in his affidavit also made out a case that he was required to live

away from his house for ten to eleven months and he was working under

ground. However, subsequent affidavit of Namdev Balavant Aher does not

state that he was under ground nor Manik Tulshiram Anbhule made that

statement and in fact their affidavits are stereo type.

In the statement recorded by Mane Committee Vishnu Nivruti Rakh

stated that he was supplying breads, he has not done any other work in the

- 146 -

freedom movement and further admitted that no warrant was issued against

him and he was also not declared absconding. He was also not beaten by the

police. He was living in his house and used to provide breads (bhakari) to the

freedom fighters. Dyanoba police patil Yeola and one Mahadev have filled in

the form and he does not know what is mentioned in the application. He only

put his thumb mark and he is not aware that warrant was issued against him.

He could not tell the full names of the persons who filed supporting affidavits.

He further stated that he has not even met the persons who have given

affidavits in his support, he does not know them and he also did not work with

Petitioners have produced the evidence of his date of birth by

producing certified copy of School Admission and School Leaving Register

maintained by Zilla Parishad Middle School Therla Taluka Patoda, wherein

his date of birth is mentioned as 5th May 1958. It would show that he was

born ten years after the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram was over. According to

entry he was admitted on 10th July 1964 in Balwadi (Primary) and he was

removed from the school on the ground of continuous absence on 28th

February 1967. The School issued this copy on 15th March 2002. There was

no statement made regarding age or date of birth, in any other affidavit but in

the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that his age is 66 years

on 17th November 2005 and has further ascertained that his parents were

illiterate and he was admitted to School at late age and since at the time of

admission age of the student admitted was required to be six years the date of

birth was mentioned in the School register and his date of birth is in fact

different. There is no entry of the date of birth in the Gram Panchayat Record

and the date of birth mentioned in School register is wrong. He has, however,

not produced any documentary evidence. In fact he admitted that he was a

student of that School and his affidavit is sworn making this assertion

purposefully to show that the date of birth as claimed by the petitioners is

wrong which is clearly after thought.

On summons having been issued by the Commission to the Education

Officer, (Primary School) Zilla Parishad Beed he produced the original record

of the admission register of the school and verified Xerox copy of the same is

retained. The entry of the name of Vishnu Nivruti Rakh is at Sr.No.231. He is

shown to be resident of Therala and date of birth mentioned as 5th May 1958.

- 147 -

In view of the fact that Vishnu Nivruti Rakh does not dispute that he was a

student of this school, his explanation about date of birth mentioned in the

school register, is not the actual date of birth as his parents were illiterate and

he was admitted at late age to school and as at the time of admission age was

required to be shown less, the said date of birth was mentioned, is after

thought and totally unacceptable. It is obvious that having been confronted

with the school record, he had no explanation to offer and has therefore come

up with such illogical explanation, which is not acceptable. There was no

reason for anybody to make wrong entry of date of birth and he has failed to

produce any evidence to counter this entry in the school record. As already

stated he could have produced evidence of date of birth entry of birth register

or voters list or any other public document or the entry made in the record of

Census. The first Census was in the year 1950. The entry of his name would

have appeared in the Census record along with approximate age if he was born

prior to 1950. The fact he made no attempt to produce any evidence to counter

the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner’s shows that he is aware

that no such record could be available and the date entered in the school

register is the correct date of his birth.

Even after notice issued by the Commission he did not produce any

evidence and merely stated in his affidavit that the date of birth mentioned in

the school record and school leaving certificate is incorrect.

The warrant, whereon he based his claim initially by producing xerox

copy, is proved to be a forged document as discussed in general remarks on

warrant cases in separate part of this Report as such on either count he was not

entitled to pensionary benefits.

Thus a person who was born in 1958 has attempted and also succeeded

in the said attempt of securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which is

“Asanman” to the nation and specially to those who were given valuable years

of their prime youth in the movement and have suffered heavily.

For all these reasons Vishnu Nivruti Rakh was not entitled to the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserved to be

and should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 148 -

Shri Vilas Dajiba Rakh

Vilas Dajiba Rakh applied for pension on 7.10.1987 (19.8.1986) on the

basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in Confidential file No.

101/1357 F bearing outward No. 191 dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 14th

December 1947. In his application he has addressed a letter on 19.08.1986,(in

Hindi)stating that he has worked against Nizam Government and he had

already applied earlier.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector, Beed to

the Tahasidlar Patoda and the Tahasildar submitted report on 19.9.1998. In

the report he has mentioned that it is concerned with activities of congress

goondas in Taluka Patoda and has mentioned names of 30 persons which

appear in the copy and that it includes the name of Vilas Daiba Rakh.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 19.3.1999

recommended his case for grant of pension stating that the Tahasildar Patoda

has stated in letter dated 12.11.1997 that his name appears in the copy of

warrant. The original record is not available, as it is sent to the Collector

office. It is further stated by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that as the original

record was not available, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend the

case for grant of pension and thereafter the negative word no ‘Nahi” is scored

out and it is added that in the verification report his name is mentioned and

therefore the case is fit for sanction of pension.

Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed in his letter dated 30.3.1999

addressed to the Section Officer pointed out that he has not complied with the

provisions of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution and warrant has not been

verified and as original record is not available and the copy cannot be relied

The High Power Committee stated in its note that the District Collector

had got the warrant verified from Tahasildar. The original record was not

available but the copy is verified from another copy which was obtained on

payment of proper fees. His name appears, in it, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has

therefore recommended his case. However, the Under Secretary noted that

original record is not available and the warrant copy cannot be relied upon yet

the High Power Committee accorded sanction on 13.10.1999.

- 149 -

He was called by the Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

on 4.2.2003 in which he stated that his elder son was born in 1970 and he was

married at the age of 36 . He was studying in village school up to 1st standard

and in the year 1947-48 school was closed. Thereafter he got admission in

Government School in the year 1950. He passed forth standard examination

in the year 1956 from that school. He studied in Government School at Domri

upto 7th standard and left the School in the year 1960. He produced the extract

of register of admissions and school leaving of Therla Zilla Parishad School,

in which his date of birth is mentioned as 3.2.50 F and date of leaving school

is stated as 11.11.1358 F. There is over writing in the letter (3) in 1358 F.

After notice was issued by the Collector, Beed he filed additional

affidavit, copy of letter addressed by the Tahsildar Patoda to the District

Collector and on issue of notice by Mane Committee, he filed affidavit of

Vishwanath Devrao Rakh stating that Vilas Dajiba Rakh is closely related to

him. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat issued a certificate that he is cousin of

Babu Dhondiba Rakh who died in freedom movement.

The petitioners have also produced copy School Register issued by

Education Officer, Beed wherein as against Vilas Dajiba Rakh resident of

Patoda date of birth stated is 3.2.1941.

In the public interest litigation the Education Officer Zilla Parishad

produced a list after collecting information from the school record and

verifying the dates of birth. ( Exh.12 ) The date of birth of Vilas Dajiba Rakh

is mentioned as 03.02.1950.

It is from the record of Domri Central Primary School that original

register was produced by the Education Officer on summons being issued by

the Commission and Xerox copy of the concerned pages of the register is

retained after verifying with the original record. The entry of the name of

Vilas Dajiba Rakh is at Sr.No.210. The date of birth is written as 03-02-1941.

In another register of Zilla Parishad Middle School produced by the

Education Officer before the Commission of which also verified Xerox copy

is retained, there is entry at Sr.No. 4/8 and date of birth is mentioned as

03.02.50F. The entry in Middle School record should be as per primary

school record and this entry of 3.2.50F is doubtful. In any case it can not be

1957 F and would be 1350 F which will mean the date of birth to be 3.2.40

- 150 -

and his age at the time of Hyderabad freedom movement would be 7 to 8

years. It cannot be 1950F which is equivalent to 2540AD. He has produced

certified copy of extract of this register which is also not correct as serial

number mentioned is 04 and not as 4/8. There are erasures. The correct date

of birth is therefore 3.2.1941. He was aged either 6 to 7 years or 7 to 8 years

and in no case he could have taken part in the freedom movement and

specially in the activities stated in his affidavit dated 22.9.1999.

There is one very interesting aspect of this affidavit. It is handwritten

in black ink and on first page after three paras there is signature of ‘Vilas’

(Ilas) and after that para four starts and the contents continue on next page

(overleaf) wherein it is stated that he never took admission in school.

However at the end of the contents on second page there is no signature of the

deponent. It is below the rubber stamp.

Warrants of arrest were normally being issued on the information

about the name and particulars collected from the village police patil or

patwari and there was no reason for police patil or patwari to give the name of

child aged 6 to 8 years. Further more the warrant xerox copy whereof is

produced on record is held to be forged document as stated in a separate part

of this report while dealing with warrant cases in general. So his claim is

based on warrant proved to be false and forged. In such a serious case the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti changed the stand taken and the High Power Committee

ignored the important aspect brought to their notice by the under secretary in

his note.

In any case he has failed to counter the evidence of public record

produced by the petitioners before the Commission as well as before the High

Court and has even gone to the extent of getting the entry forged. The

Commission, therefore is of the considered view that the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and

- 151 -

Shri Tukaram Gopalrao Jadhav

The facts of the case are similar to Bhanudas Gopalrao Jadhav file

Case No. 63 Bhanudas and Tukaram are real brothers.

The claim is based on warrant of arrest issued in File No. 21 Outward

No. 203 dated 12 Insfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 12 January 1948 .

He also claims to be Underground Freedom Fighter.

Along with the application Xerox copy of warrant signed by Notary

was produced. However, it is not a notarized copy in the sense that original

was not before the Notary while signing this copy as true copy in as much as

no original document was available in the record of Ashti Court even at that

time. Tukaram and Gopal had filed writ petition in High Court bearing No.

2575/94 and there was direction to decide their cases within fixed period of

four months.

The endorsement that is seen in one of the Xerox copy is, “this photo

copy is true and correct as per original record” and it is signed by the Assistant

Superintendent Civil Court Ashti on 24.4.1990 on which date original warrant

was not in the file of Civil Court Ashti. The Superintendent of Police Beed

had written to the Collector letter dated 26.5.1995 pertaining to the cases of

Bhanudas and Tukaram that Urdu copy of warrant is illegible and no report

can be given.

In view of this the Zilla Gaurav Samiti refused to recommend the case

and found that the copy of warrant was not reliable.

The cases of Tukaram and Bhanudas were rejected even by the High

Power Committee and they were informed that their claims have been

rejected.

Thereafter Writ Petition 2575/97 came to be filed in the High Court

and further note was put up in view of the petition in the High Court that

- 152 -

decision will have to be taken in the time prescribed by the Court. The claims

were rejected earlier as no evidence was produced.

However, now they have produced evidence. Further note was put up

to send the document (warrant copy) to the District Collector for verification

and take decision on merits.

Further note was put up that the Collector had given report as per letter

dated 1.2.1997. The Claimants have produced copy of warrant signed by the

Assistant Superintendent Civil Court Patoda and in the English translation

their names appeared. Here it is noteworthy that the photocopy was bearing

the endorsement of Nazir Ashti Civil Court and only the translation was

signed as true copy by the Assistant Superintendent Civil Court Patoda. The

photocopies were not certified by the Court, no comparing fees was paid in

respect of the said copy and the copies produced in both the case are not

certified copies. The Assistant Superintendent has signed thereon hurriedly

and made endorsement thereon as true copy hurriedly and therefore the copies

were sent to Tahasildar Patoda and the verification report was called by the

Collector from Tahasildar. The Tahasil office has informed that original

record is not available with the said office and the copy cannot be said to be

true and correct and the contents thereof cannot be verified.

In view of this Zilla Gaurav Samiti had refused to recommend the case

and the Collector has also not recommended. The claim was liable to be

rejected.

It was further stated in the note that in view of the discussion with the

under secretary the report is being called from the Collector and after the

report of the Collector further decision will be taken.

Surprisingly further note was put up that in view of the petition in the

High Court and the direction to take decision within the prescribed period, the

warrant was sent for verification to the Civil Court, Ashti and in the

verification report sent by the Civil Court it is stated that the copies were

obtained from Civil Court Ashti in 1990-91, therefore the copies obtained are

- 153 -

proper and legal and the claims be sanctioned and thereafter the claims of

Tukaram Bhanudas were sanctioned.

Thus although no new documents were produce, on the basis of the

same evidence, the note put up was altogether different than the original note

and the claims were sanctioned on the basis of such note.

There was no copy in the file before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti or the

High Power Committee which could be relied upon as copy certified by the

Court from the record of the Court. It is therefore clear that Zilla Gaurav

Samiti rightly refused to recommend the case and High Power Committee had

rightly rejected the claim earlier. However, thereafter the note was modified

and in view of the modified note the claims were sanctioned. The verification

report could be given only by Tahasildar Patoda where the original record

could be available but no record was available with the Tahasildar Patoda and

as such copies produced were not reliable.

The case depends on reliability of warrant in file No.21/57 Outward

No. 203 dated 12 Isfander 1357 Fasli (12.1.48) the alleged original warrant

which was sent to all the Courts in the district was received from the record of

Gevrai Court. The signature thereon is only like initial and is entirely different

from the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same

Tahasildar and the signature also does not tally with the signatures on the

warrants received from the file of Police Station Ambajogai or from the file of

Patoda Tahasil. The Commission has already given detailed reasoning in a

separate part of general reasons of warrant cases and has also stated therein

that the warrants received from all the three sources and the undisputed

documents bearing signature of the same Tahasildar were sent to the

handwriting expert who has given opinion that the signatures neither tally with

undisputed correspondence nor do they tally interse with the other warrants

received from the two other sources nor with other warrants contained in the

same file. The Commission therefore finds that the base of the claim being

warrant of arrest and the same having been found to be false and forged, he

was not entitle to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits .

- 154 -

Apart from this so far as Tukaram is concerned there is also dispute

regarding his date of birth and the petitioners in PIL produced record

collected from Education Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed and Education

Officer also produced the original register before the Commission of

which verified Xerox copy is retained by the Commission. The name of

Tukaram is after the name of Eknath at Sr. No. 61 but No. 62 is not

appearing in the Xerox copy, his date of birth is mentioned as

17.04.194…further portion of the original register is torn and not

available. However, taking his case at its best the date of the birth could

be at the most 17.04.1940. The dates mentioned in respect of other

candidates on the said pages are of the year 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944

In the High Court the Education Officer had produced list of dates of birth

of certain candidates from the record in which the name of Tukaram

appears at Sr.No.13 wherein the date of birth mentioned is 17.07.1944.

This list is marked as Exhibit 12. It is obvious from the list that his birth

was in the year 1944 the last digit 4 was torn after this list was produced

by the Education Officer in the High Court. Even without blaming the

concerned person i.e. Respondent, if it is presumed that it is accidentally

torn, the year of birth could not be less than 1940 and even if it so accepted

his age would be 7 to 8 years at the time of freedom movement making it

highly improbable that he could have taken part in the freedom movement.

The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be

cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 155 -

Shri Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh

His first application is of 23.03.1990 in which it is stated that he burnt

Karodgiri nakas and claimed pension as Underground Freedom Fighter. He

also filed affidavit dated 09.03.1990 claiming to be Underground Freedom

Fighter. In his original application and in this affidavit no statement was made

that arrest warrant was issued against him.

Thereafter, he filed another application on 27.01.1997 claiming that

warrant was issued against him by Tahsildar Patoda in confidential File No.

205/1357 F Outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. equivalent 24th

January 1948.

Thereafter he filed affidavit dated 4.9.1998 referring to various

incidents not mentioned earlier and also stated for the first time that he was

required to live away from his house for nine months. The incidents stated in

later affidavit are contained in the supporting affidavits of Namdev Balawant

Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The copy of warrant produced is a Xerox copy certified as true copy by

some Professor of College. Collector also by his letter dated 31.12.1998

pointed out the infirmity.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti had refused to recommend his claim on

31.12.1998. The following parts of the Zilla Gaurao Samiti’s minutes are

worth pointing out :-

On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the original record of

the Urdu Warrant was not available and therefore the copy cannot be relied

upon and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend the case. However,

thereafter the word “not” is scored out in different ink and in handwriting

Chairman Shri Bangar made endorsement that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommends the case as the name is included in the warrant and the warrant is

in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement, as copy is given by

Tahsil office on payment of fees and therefore, the claim be sanctioned. Since

- 156 -

the endorsement of the Chairman is in different ink the entire proceeding

becomes doubtful and it appears that after the endorsement that case is not fit

for recommendation, the Chairman signed. The signature appears on the

endorsement. The other members also signed and obviously thereafter the

Chairman added this sentence indicating that it is a fit case for

recommendation and put second signature below it.

The affidavits of these two Freedom Fighters, who were sentenced

not less than two years imprisonment, are of 04.12.1998. The Zilla Gaurav

Samiti also referred to the two affidavits in addition to the copy of warrant. In

the affidavits of the respondent freedom fighter dated 04.12.1998 for the first

time he has stated that he was required to live away from his house for nine

months.

After the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Collecter pointed out in his

letter that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case from both the angles.

It was first considered as case in which warrant of arrest was issued

and it is stated that his name appears in warrant. Reference is also given to

two affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and

the case was thus considered even as of Underground Freedom Fighter.

He appeared before Mane Committee. In the statement recorded by

Mane Committee he clearly stated that no warrant was issued against him, he

did not take part in any activity against Nizam Government except providing

bread (bhakari) to Domri Camp resident and he has not done any act against

the Nizam Government.

There being dispute regarding his date of birth summons for

production of original school record was issued to School authority. On

production of original record, xerox thereof was retained after verification

from original. The school record of Therala school shows that against the

name of Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh date of birth mentioned is 5th March 1951.

- 157 -

He however, stated that there is another persons of the same name Asarba

Bhaurao Rakh in the same village and he studied in school of Therla and the

said person is at present working as Talathi. Thereafter summon was issued to

the said person Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh . The said person produced his service

record showing that his date of birth is 5th March 1951. There is therefore no

reason to disbelieve the contention of the Respondent that the date of birth

mentioned by the petitioner 5th March 1951 is not his date of birth and

therefore on the ground of age petitioners have not been able to produce any

evidence to show that he was not a born at the time of freedom movement.

The incidents narrated in later affidavits are not in his application.

Although earlier he filed one affidavit along with his application, he had not

stated the incidents which are later on stated by him and the supporting

freedom fighters in their affidavits.

Even these infirmities and contradictions could have been overlooked

but there is another serious infirmity.

He has produced copy of warrant in file No. 205/57 Fasli Outward No.

209 dated 24 Isfindar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948 . The

Commission has already observed in regard to the warrants of which record

was received from three different sources that the signature of the Tahasildar

on the warrants coming from three different sources were not tallying and the

same were also not tallying with the undisputed correspondence signed by the

Tahasildar as well as with the other warrants received from the same source.

In view of this suspicion the said documents were referred to handwriting

expert to find out whether the suspision, felt by the Commission in view of the

difference in the signatures appearing on different warrants has any basis and

the report of the handwriting expert confirmed that the signatures of the

Tahasildar found on the record of warrant received from Gevrai Court,

Tahasildar Patoda and Ambajogai police station do not tally with each other

and also do not tally with the signatures on undisputed correspondence of the

Tahasildar Patoda at the relevant time. He only produced true copy of warrant

of arrest and as earlier noted even the Zilla Gaurav Samiti felt that the warrant

copy was not reliable and was not recommending his case which

- 158 -

recommendation appears to have been later on changed under the signatures of

the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Shri Bangar, who has signed on the

note twice first on the negative note and then on the positive note by deleting

word “No”.

The High Power Committee did not consider this aspect of the matter

seriously and it is merely stated that there is recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and there are affidavits of two freedom fighters and his name

also appears in the warrant. It was the duty of the officials to bring this serious

lacunae in the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti to the notice of High Power

Committee.

Since the original warrant copy whereof is produced in this file is

proved to be forged, his claim can not be sustained on any court.

The Commission, therefore, finds that on either of the grounds he

failed to make out the case of being entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits. The Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and

allied pensionary benefits granted to him be cancelled and recommends

accordingly.

- 159 -

Shri Lobha Shahaji Patole

He filed application on 01.10.90 stating that he is under ground

freedom fighter. In his affidavit he referred arrest warrant issued against him

and produced zerox copy of warrant in File No. C.C. 205/ 1357 Fasli outward

No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948. The

xerox copy produced by him bears the following endorsement. Endorsement,

“28.9.90 verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by

Georai Court on 20.09.1990.” This endorsement is dated 28.9.1990 when

Gevrai Court had issued certified copy on 20.9.1990, similar copy could have

been secured from that Court on 28.9.1990 also. However, this endorsement

was made by Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court who had neither

authority nor any business to certify Xerox copy of copy issued by Gevrai

Court. The reason for securing such endorsement from another Court is

obvious and reflects how attempts were being made to creat a show that the

copy produced appears as a certified copy issued by the Court.

He had filed Writ petition No. 4833 of 1993 in the High Court and

direction was given to dispose of his application within 6 months.

The District Collector addressed a letter to the Civil Judge Georai on

26.08.97 for verification of the warrant making specific queries and enclosing

a copy of the warrant and the list of 175 persons whose names probably

appeared in the warrant.

The Civil Judge sent his report on 21.11.1197 that the original record is

not available in his office. However, copy appears to have been issued to

Advocate Shri V.T. Chavan. He has no doubt stated that it appears to have

been so issued from the original record which means the record pertaining to

issuance of certified copies. As in the earlier part hehas stated that the original

record of the warrant was not available in his office. In his reply he stated by

mentioning the names in the list sent to him stating against each of them

whether the name was or was not in the warrant. A perusal of the same shows

that the said copy was including number of names. Number of names have

- 160 -

been stated in reply by mentioning against them that they are not in warrant.

Again a report was called from the Civil Judge whether the warrant is in repect

of Hyderbad Freedom Movement, to which affirmative reply was given by a

letter dt. 26.03.1998 the Civil Judge reported about 12 names pertaining to

different writ petitions which were in the warrant which contain the name of

Lobha Shahaji Patole connected with petition No. 4833/ 1993 and that the

warrant was in respect of Hyderabad Freedopm Moverment.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.04.1998 referred to the

warrant and fact that the Original record was not available but copy was

issued to Advocate Chavan and could not be stated positively to be connected

with Hyderabad Freedom Movement and Committee therefore cannot give

positive recommendation.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Government on 29.07.1998 that

the case was not fit for grant of pension and warrant cannot be positively

stated to be connected with the Hyderbad Freedom Movement in the absence

of original record.

The note of High Power Committee is not in the file.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation have produced record date

of birth of respondent which shows that his date of birth is 09.06.1946. This

record was produced in the PIL with copy of the school record received from

the School. The respondent has not produced any evidence in respect of his

date of birth before High Court or before Mane Committee or this

Commission.

In view of the dispute regarding the date of birth the Commission had

issued summons to the Head Master Zilla Parishad School.

Before the High Court in the Public Interrest Petition the Education

Officer had produced list of 26 persons whose date of birth was disputed.

Lobha Sahaji Patole is at Sr. No.8 and against his name the date of birth

mentioned is 9th June 1946.

- 161 -

The Commission also issued summons to the Education Officer to

produce the said record. The Head Master had given report to education

officer and inquiry was made by him in which the entry regarding date of birth

of Lobha Sahaji Patole is clearly stated as 9th June 1946. However when the

Commission called for the record the authorities found that from the original

register concerned pages containing the entries at Sr. No. 14 to 39 were torn

and the entry of the name of Lobha Sahaji Patole was on the concerned pages

which were torn. The Education Officer has taken a detailed report from the

Head Master which he has produced and in this report given to the Education

Officer Head Master Raghunath Kale has stated that on 26th January 2005 he

was beaten by the members of the village education committee and therefore

he had sought transfer. He was on deputation from 27.1.2005 and in his

absence Smt. Kawade was incharge and in the said period the pages

containing serial No. 14 to 39 of school register containing admissions and

school leaving entries for the year 1953 to 1964 were torn and caused to

disappear.

The teacher incharge of the school during relevant period had not taken

any action. The said teacher had issued certificate to Lobha Shahaji Patole

that there is no entry of his date of birth in the school record. The said teacher

had also refused to handover charge and filed false complaint against the Head

Master. On 12th July 2007 he joined the said school again and when he made

inquiry regarding the said register, he found that pages containing entries of

Sr. No. 14-39 were torn and entry of name of Lobha Shahaji Patole with his

date of birth was on these pages. He had already submitted copy of said record

to higher authorities prior to disappearance of those pages. The Commission

has retained the Xerox copy of original register and other documents which

shows that the pages containing entries No. 14 to 39 are missing from the

register.

The only person interested in tempering with the record was Lobha

Shahaji Patole as his date of birth was mentioned in the entry contained on

these pages. Considering his date of birth as 9th April 1946, it is clear that he

was just a toddler during the freedom movement of Hyderabad and his entire

- 162 -

claim as freedom fighter on any ground is totally false and concocted and in

fact even the warrant on the basis of which he had made his claim is

suspicious as no arrest warrant would normally be issued against a child of 1

or 2 years. His attempt of securing Xerox copy and getting it certified as true

copy from the Assistant Superintendent of another Court is inconsonance with

his conduct. The involvement of this person in the act of tempering with the

record of school shows that he can go to any extent in order that his claim

which has been granted and the benefits which he is enjoying should continue.

The certificate of age produced by him along with his application clearly states

that the opinion is given without any examination having been carried out and

is also based on the statement of the said person. At the cost of repetation it

needs to be stated that the only person interested in tempering with the record

of date of birth, being Lobha Patole, the needle of suspension points only to

him and therefore, also this is also a clear case of fraud and as explained by

the Supreme Court vitiating the entire proceedings and on the ground of fraud

the entire claim fails. The original warrant, copy whereof is relied upon being

forged one as observed by the Commission in part dealing with warrant cases

separately. The entire claim must fail.

The Commission therefore finds that Lobha Shahaji Patole is not

entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and the same deserves

to be cancelled and recommends accordingly.

- 163 -

Shri Maruti Rangnath Munde.

Maruti Raghunath Munde filed application for grant of pension on the

basis of warrant issued against him and a Xerox copy of warrant alleged to

have been from file No.21/1357 Fasli Outward No.270 dated 15 Behman

1357 Fasli equivalent to 15th December 1947, was produced. He has also

produced zerox copy of another warrant in File 21/1357 Outward No. 530

dated 11 Bahman 1357 F equivalent to 11.12.1947. The copy is signed by

Notary as true copy. However, it is obvious that this is signed by the Notary

without having opportunity to have seen the certified copy alleged to have

been issued by the Civil Court Ashti.

copy of warrant and stated that from the English translation it appears that his

name was included in the warrant but the original record is not available. The

warrant appears to be connected with Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. The Zilla

Gaurav Samiti did not give any positive recommendation and requested

Government to take decision at the higher level.

In the note put up to the High Power Committee it was stated that he

suffered by remaining underground in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement

which is clearly stated in his affidavit and the affidavits of two supporting

freedom fighters Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.

Arrest warrant was issued against him and the District Superintendent has

certified the copy of warrant. What was produced was only the copy certified

by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Beed which is copy of a true

copy issued by the Civil Court Ashti. The statement in the note to the High

Power Committee to the effect that copy is certified or by District

Superintendent is therefore incorrect.

In view of the fact that he also claimed to have worked underground,

he produced affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two

years imprisonment in the freedom movement. In his own detailed affidavit

filed at later stage on 21.1.1999 he stated that he worked from Domri camp

- 164 -

and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was the person under whom he was working.

He referred to the instance in which one Yadav Patil Buva Sanap and Limba

Bappaji Sanap were killed by the Nizam Police. He also stated that for 9 to 10

months, he was required to live away from his house and that he never

attended any school. The incident in which the aforesaid two persons became

martyr is also referred to in the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and

Namdev Balawant Aher.

However, there is one serious infirmity in the claim of Maruti

Ranganath Munde as his age is in dispute. Before proceeding to refer to the

age dispute, it is necessary to point out that during the course of cross

examination of PW 1 Ramrao Awargaonkar, it was attempted to bring on

record that there is personal enmity between Ramrao Awargaonkar and Maruti

Ranganath Munde because of which Ramrao Awargaonkar has falsely

included the name of Maruti Ranganath Munde and has pressurised the

Education authority and the School Authority to issue false copies of

documents showing the date of birth of Maruti Ranganath Munde to be 06-08-

1942 which according to him is 06.08.1932.

In the Public Interest Petition (PIL) copy of admission register of

Government Middle School Dharur was produced, wherein the name of

Maruti Ranganath Munde is shown. It was marked therein as Exhibit 10 and

entry of his name is at Sr.No.5 on that page wherein the date of birth shown is

06.08.1942.

In view of this original record was called from the Police Station,

Dharur by issuing summons. The original register containing the forged entry

was produced by the police inspector, Dharur as per summons and its verified

Xerox copy has been retained, in view of the pendency of criminal case the

original was returned to concerned police station. Maruti Ranganath Munde is

prosecuted for forgery of School record and the case is said to be pending.

The police Inspector produced the copy of the same admission register

which was also produced in the public interest pitition by the Petitioners and

in this copy against the name of Maruti Ranganath Munde the date of birth

- 165 -

although appears as 06.08.1932, a close perusal of this entry produced by the

police shows that in the figure 06.08.1932 the number 4 in the year 1942 is

over written and 4 is converted to 3. Similarly in the date of birth written in

words, the word forty is over written and changed to thirty in order to show

the date of birth as 6th August 1932, which was earlier written as 6

th August

1942. However in the same register there are two entries of his admission as

he had taken admission in the same school twice in the same year. He was

first admitted as per entry at Sr.No. 293 in Vth standard on 29.6.1954 wherein

the date of birth is clearly mentioned as 6th August 1942 and said entry further

narrates in later columns of the register that his name was struck off from

school register due to non attendance/irregular attendance and this entry is

marked in red ink by the Investigating Officer and he has signed under this

entry. The Xerox copy of the same is retained on record. The readmission

entry is at Sr. No. 594 dated 8th December 1954. The person who forged the

entry at Sr.No. 594 by changing the number 4 in the date 6.8.1942 and

converting it into 6.8.1932 and in the date of birth written in words by

changing the word forty to thirty in order to show the date as 6.8.1932 may not

be aware of the earlier entry No. 293 dated 29th June 1954. The later entry is of

his admission in the Class Vth on 8.12.1954 i.e. in the same year in the month

of December and in the last column it is clearly stated that he is from the

same school and reference is given to entry No. 293 which is referred to

above. As per record he was admitted to the school on 29th June 1954 in Vth

standard and if the date of birth was 06.08.1932 then he would be aged 22

years on the date of admission and normally a person of age of 22 years would

not be admitted in Vth standard whereas a person aged 12 years is most likely

to seek admission and would be given admission in Vth standard. It is

therefore clear that in order to produce record before the Commission, he

obtained a certificate showing his date of birth as 6.8.1932 on the basis of this

entry at Sr. No. 594 wherein the date in number and in words is forged.

Fortunately there being entry of earlier admission of 29th June 1954 in the

same class the correct date of birth is found in the same register.

This evidence clearly exposes the respondent because he was the only

person interested in getting the date changed from 6.8.1942 to 6.8.1932 in

- 166 -

order to support his claim as he was conscious of the fact that once the date of

birth 6.8.1942 comes on record, the falsity of his claim would be obvious and

case will not be even defendable as his age according to the date of birth

6.8.1942 would be just 5 to 6 years during the freedom movement in which

age he could not have taken part in the freedom movement.

In the documents produced by the school authority there is one Xerox

copy which was even certified and was prepared for issuing to him in which

the date of birth was mentioned as 6th August 1932 but the copy was

ultimately not issued with the endorsement that there is over writing in the

date of birth.

In view of this the case of Maruti Ranganath Munde suffers from

serious infirmity. He was aged hardly 5 to 6 years. In order to justify his claim

the School record was forged (tempered with). The only person interested in

tempering the entry of date of birth in school record being Maruti Ranganath

Munde, the needle of suspicion points only to him and therefore this is also a

clear case of fraud vitiating the entire claim. This person has gone to the

extent forging the school record and is not entitled to any benefits.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Commission

without any hesitation records findings that Maruti Ranganath Munde was

aged about 5 to 6 years at the time of freedom movement and therefore even

the so called warrant alleged to have been issued against him becomes entirely

suspicious.

No arrest warrant would normally be issued agaist a child of 4-5 years.

The entire document which includes his name becomes suspicious. The

Commission has stated in detail in a separate part regarding general reasoning

in respect of warrant case. The Commission having found the signatures on

the warrants received from three different sources and on the undisputed

correspondence in the file of the Tahsildar to be totally different and not

tallying with each other and even not tallying with differents warrants

contained in one and the same file, referred the documents to Government

- 167 -

Handwriting Expert and his opinion is on record as stated in the part of

General Reasoning.

Another aspect of the same is that not only his affidavit but even the

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters Namdeo Balwant Aher and

Manik Tulshiram Anbhule describing the detailed incidents in which he was

involved in freedom movement along with them also become unrealiable and

causes serious doubt regarding the said freedom fighters who have filed

affidavits in number of cases.

In fact, he tried to support his claim by fraudulent means and caused

the record to be forged and the fraud vitiates the entire proceedings.

The Commission recommends accordingly that the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith.

- 168 -

Case No. 90 (Respondent No.90)

Shri Trimbak Pandharinath Chate

Application was filed on 01.10.1990 on the basis of arrest warrant

issued against him by Tahsildar Patoda in File No. 205/ 1357 Fasli Outward

209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January, 1948. In support

he produced Xerox copy of warrant bearing endorsement “verified that the

Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai Court on

20.09.1990”. It is dated 28.9.1990. It is signed by Assistant Superintendent

Civil Court Patoda.

In his affidavit dated 05.08.1997 he referred to arrest warrant issued

against him.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.08.1997 referred to the

Urdu warrant copy and also to the report of the Civil Judge in respect of

verification of the said warrant. In his report to the Collector, in pursuance of

enquiry made the Civil Judge reported on 28.08.1997 with reference to the list

submitted to him that the original record is not available. The copy has been

issued from his court on payment of fees wherein he refered to the

endorsement on original certified copy and it is pertinent to point out here only

that the copy produced is not signed as true copy by any staff memberof the

Georai Court and Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court had no authority to

make such endorsement on Xerox copy produced before him and Patoda Court

could not have issued any certified copy of the record pertaining to Georai

Court. The list accompanying the aforesaid letter shows that there were names

of 175 persons. In another letter dated 27.11.1997 the Civil Judge reported to

the District Collector that the alleged certified copy from which Xerox is said

to be prepared was issued to one Chavan Advocate. The warrant copy was not

got verified from the office of Tahsildar which authority issued the said

warrant. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court by some persons

including the respondent therefore, enquiry was made from Georai Court by

Collector as number of petitions were pending in the High Court. The Civil

Judge informed that his name was in the warrant which is obviously with

- 169 -

reference to the copy of warrant sent to him because on his own statement the

original record was not in his office. The report shows that all the 135 names

referred in the letter of Collector were not in the copy and raises suspicion

regarding genuineness of the copy.

On this background and on the above facts the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in

its meeting held on 24.04.1998 observed that the Civil Judge had given report

stating that the name of Freedom Fighter was in the warrant. However, it is

stated that original record was available with the Civil Court which as stated

by the Civil Judge in his report and Committee further observed that since the

warrant could not be stated to be positively connected with the Hyderabad

Freedom Movement it cannot give any positive recommendation.

There are two letters written by the same Civil Judge Shri S.N. Shelke

in respect of this warrant copy. In letter dated 21.11.1997 he has stated that

original record was in his office and in letter dated 28.8.1997 he has stated that

original record was not in his office. If it was not, on 28.08.1997 , it is not

possible that it would be there on 21.11.1997. Further Zilla Gaurav Samiti did

refer to the aspect that the Civil Judge has reported that original record was in

his office and the warrant copy was verified from that record and further

observed that the connection of the warrant with Hyderabad Freedom

Movement has not been established and therefore no postive recommendation

was given.

The note put up to High Power Committee stated that the name of the

Freedom Fighter was in the warrant, it was in connection with Hyderabad

Freedom Movement. Although the Civil Judge has not stated that it was in

connection with the said Movement, the matter was subjudice and the time

limit given by the Court was coming to an end, since the name was in the

warrant and the Civil Judge had given report , pension deserves to be granted

and so his claim was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was working

at Kharda Camp under direction of Ramrao Bhange, Kashinath Mukadam and

stayed there for two three months. When police came to arrest him, he ran

- 170 -

away. He does not know what record was filed alongwith application. He has

specifically mentioned that he has not done any work in Patoda Taluka but he

worked in Kaij Taluka.

The warrant, copy whereof is placed on record in this file, is proved to

be forged as observed in the part of general reasons on warrant cases and as

such claim on the ground of warrant cannot sustained.

There is one more serious aspect of the case of the present respondent.

Petitioners had produced a list of 26 persons along with their records dates of

birth and the name of present respondent is at serial No.12. This document is

marked as Exh.12. The copy is issued as certified copy by the Education

Officer and it shows that the date of birth of Trimbak Pandharinath Chate in

the school record was 10 Aban 46 Fasli equivalent to 16 September, 1937.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer to produce

original record and on production thereof verified it and Xerox copy is

retained showing his date of birth as 10 Aban 1346 Fasli. He was admitted to

school on 2nd Isfandar 1350 Fasli equivalent to 8

th January 1941 and left the

school on 24th Amardad 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24

th June 1948. This would

show that in the year 1947-48 he was studying in school probably in 3rd or 4

standard and his age was about 10 to 11 years. It is highly improbable that a

boy of 11 years would take part in freedom movement. It is also unlikely that

arrest warrant would be issued against a boy of such tender age and thus the

entire document become suspicious. The original warrant, copy whereof is

relied upon in this case is proved to be forged as pointed out in a separate part

of reasons for warrant cases. So claim fails even on this count.

In his statement before the Mane Committee he stated that he was

working at Kharda Camp under the direction of Ramrao Bangar and stayed

there for 2 to 3 months. The statement contained in his own affidavit dated

5.08.1997 that he was working underground along with Ramling Swami,

Babasaheb Paranjape, Ramanand Tirth, Narayanrao Joshi and Shriniwas Khot

and used to attend secret meetings and was taking part in objecting to the

Nizam Government in the work of recovery of levy and took part in burning

- 171 -

Karodgiri Naka at Pachangri can not be believed and obviously he has made

entirely false statements in the affidavit with a view to securing Sanmanpatra

and allied pensionary benefits.

The Commission is therefore of the considered opinion that by making

such a claim the said person in fact committed fraud in as much as at such a

tender age he could not have taken part in the freedom movement and could

not have been involved in the activities mentioned in his affidavit and the

Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him be cancelled forthwith.

- 172 -

Shri Govind Balaji Bhondve.

He applied for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension on 19.01.1991. He

was joined as Respondent in S.L.P. before the Supreme Court probably for the

reasons that there was dispute regarding date of birth.

He claimed pension as underground Freedom Fighter and in the initial

application mentioned to have worked under Kashinath Jadhav as

underground Freedom Fighter. He filed affidavits of Uttam Patil Gavhane and

Devidas Nana Kadam in support dated 23.02.1995 and in his own affidavit of

23.02.1995 he has referred only these two persons and Kashinath Jadhav as

persons with whom he worked. He received notice dated 09.07.1996 as there

was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 04.07.95 and

thereafter he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 10.07.1997. His

name is inserted in ink in the blank space left in typed proforma and similar in

the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 16.07.1997 wherein his name is

inserted in ink in blank space left.

the case on the basis of two affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna

Eknath Telap. However, Additional Collector noted his objection by letter

dated 10.07.1997.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension. He appeared

before Mane Committee and stated that at that time he was 17-18 years old.

This statement was made about his age for the first time and he also stated

that no warrant was ever issued against him.

In his affidavit dated 18.01.1991 there is nothing in particular. After

he received notice dated 09.07.96 he filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Anna Eknath Telap in order to comply with the Government Resolution.

However, in his affidavit he has not named Anna Eknath Telap.

The Affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 21.01.1997 as well as

Anna Eknath Telap suffers from infirmity pointed out above.

- 173 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. He stated that except supplying

breads he did nothing and Vishwanath Rakh R/o Therla told him to apply for

the pension and promised that he will do the rest and accordingly obtained

the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap, however, he

does not know at which camp they were working.

Before the Commission in rebuttal of date of birth 01.04.1946 he has

not produced any other evidence.

After notice was issued to him by the Commission he merely referred

to the earlier documents produced by him in his affidavit but has not produced

any evidence though he was aware that his birth date is challenged.

As pointed out earlier he was made respondent in the S.L.P. before the

Supreme Court because of the dispute regarding his date of birth. In the list

produced by Education Officer before the High Court in public interest

petition his name appears at serial no.26 and the date of birth mentioned

against his name is 1.06.46. He has not adduced any evidence to counter this

entry in the public record. The Commission issued summons to the Education

officer to produce original record. The Commission retained Xerox copy of

said record after verification from original wherein the entry of his date of

birth in the school record is at serial no. 111. The date of birth is mentioned as

1.6.46. He took admission in school on 10.07.1952 and left the school on

20.10.1961 when he was in 7th Standard. Thus, according to entries in the

scholl record, he was aged hardly one and half to two years at the time of

Hyderabad Freedom Movement and has claimed Sanmanpatra, allied

pensionary benefits admissible to Freedom Fighte. His case is also a clear case

of fraud. Probably because of the record produced in the High Court showing

his date of birth, he made statement before Mane Committee that he was aged

17 to 18 years at the time of Freedom Movement. The entire statement made

by him on oath before Mane committee as well as his statement in the affidavit

filed by him is totally unreliable and deserves to be rejected. Similarly, the

statements in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters namely Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane dated 27.01.1997 and Anna Eknath Telap dated 27.01.1997

that he was working along with them in the freedom movement and took

- 174 -

active part in the incidents of attack of Antarwali Naka along with 50 to 60

persons and also in the incident in which Vishwanath Teli stabbed one Pathan

are also on the face of it is false statements. Other defects in the affidavit are

there like insertion of name by ink to typed affidavit without any signature or

initial are as in other cases and discussed at length in the general reasons.

The Commission therefore recommends that Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith.

- 175 -

Case File No.141 (Respondent No.141)

Gorakh Anandrao Tarte

Gorakh Anandrao Tarte applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension

on 9.6.1989 as underground freedom fighter and in support he filed affidavit

of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. In his application he stated

that he was working from Mirajgaon Camp under the leadership of Asraji

Raoji Jagtap. In his affidavit dated 28.05.97, he made improvement by adding

the names of Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and further stating that he

took part in the incident of burning of Pachangri Naka. In the supporting

affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 15.05.1997, the name of Gorakhnath

Tarte is added in ink to the typed affidavit and similar is the affidavit of Anna

Eknath Telap dated 5.4.1997. The affidavits of both these supporting freedom

fighters are practically in the same language stating the same incidents.

The petitioners in the public interest petition produced through the

education officer Zilla Parishad, Beed, a list of 26 persons whose date of birth

were disputed by the petitioners. His name appears at serial No.3 and the date

of birth mentioned against his name is 5.4.1937 which means at the time of

Hyderabad Freedom Movement, he was admittedly 10 to 11 years old.

The Commission issued summons to the education officer to produce

the school record regarding his date of birth. The record was produced and

Xerox copy of the admission register of primary school Doithan is retained.

The name of Gorakh Anandrao Tarte is at serial No.239 and the date of birth

mentioned is 5th April, 1937. He was admitted to School on 18.09.1967 in 8

standard and left the school on 29.11.1968. He has not produced any evidence

to counter the evidence of public record showing his date of birth and mere

statement that he did not attend any school and therefore the public record

should be disbelieved, can not be accepted. If he did not attend the school

there was no reason why his name should appear in the school register. The

arguments advanced on his behalf that the head master of the school should

have been examined and the admission form should have been called also

deserves to be rejected as it is not possible to call Head Master working in the

school in that year. Moreover, the Commission is also not expected to call

- 176 -

witnesses and the freedom fighters have also expressed in their own

application and it was also argued that the Commission is not directed to call

witnesses and therefore, they have refused to appear as witness when they

were called for cross-examination on request of the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances apart from the other

defects pointed out earlier, the case of Gorakh Anandrao Tarte deserves to be

rejected on the mere ground that he was not of such age that he could have

taken part in the freedom movement. He was 10 to 11 years old and was a

school going boy. This also clearly shows that the supporting affidavits of the

freedom fighter showing his involvement in various incidents are also not at

all worthy of credence and deserves to be rejected as unreliable.

In view of this Commission finds that the Gorakh Anandrao Tarte is

not entitled pensionary benefits. He fraudulently attempted to secure

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits when he was aware that he had no role to play

in the freedom movement as he was then only a school going boy.

forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 177 -

File Case No. 155(Respondent No.155)

Shri Ramrao Gunaji Wanwe

He filed application for grant of pension on the ground of arrest

warrant issued against him for his participation in the Hyderabad freedom

movement and he filed Xerox copy of warrant bearing file No.101/1357 Fasli

outward No.190 dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 14th December

1947. The warrant copy is signed as true copy by the Notary. In his affidavit

dated 1.1.1997 he has stated that he had taken active part in the freedom

movement and has quoted various incidents without specifically stating what

was the role he played.

The Collector, Beed wrote to the Tahasildar on 3.9.1997 for

verification of warrant making specific queries and attaching to the xeroc

copyof warrant a list of 31 persons and the Collector was informed by letter

dated 23.12.1997 that original record is already submitted to Collector office,

therefore , verification is done from the copy received. It is further stated that

name of Ramrao Wanve appeared in the copy.

In his affidavit dated 27.07.1998 he stated that the record being more

than 50 years old, original is not available but he had worked in Hyderabad

freedom movement. His father was killed in the freedom movement and he

worked at Domri camp and took part in burning karodgiri naka. He was

present in the meeting of Wamanao Vaze and there was firing in which his

father was killed and therefore he left village and was absconding for about 9

months and therefore warrant was issued against him. The copy of warrant

filed by him has been issued by the concernd office by charging necessary

the verification report of Tahasildar that name of Ramrao Wanve was not in

the warrant and original was not available, therefore, copy cannot be relied

upon but in his second affidavit he has stated that his father was killed in the

firing and he was providing food to the persons in the camp and was

absconding for 9 months and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended

grant of pension.

- 178 -

However, the Additional Collector objected on ground stated that he

has not produced evidence as per the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution and he

does not agree with the recommendation.The Additional Collector, informed

the Section Officer by letter dated 29.10.1998 that the respondent did not

comply with the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension for the aforesaid

reasons only. However, the Under Secretary mentioned that warrant copy is

not reliable.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated the he has filed Xerox

copy of warrant and would produce certified copy.

After notice was issued by the Commission, he filed affidavit repeting

the same facts and produced one copy as certified copy. He produced true

copy of the warrant signed by notary showing that the certified copy was

issued to him on 12.08.1986.

Before the Commission petitioners in the PIL have produced record

showing his date of birth as 01.07.1944 which was contained in the list, it was

submitted in the High Court in the PIL by the Collector.

Before the Mane Committee he stated that he was aged 10 to 15 years.

It appears that because evidence of his date of birth was produced, he made

this statement. His date of birth being 1.7.1944 at the time of freedom

movement he was hardly 3 to 4 yeas old and his entire claim is doubtful as he

could not have taken part in the freedom movement at the age of 3 to 4 years.

In the list of dates of birth secured from school produced by the

Education Officer before the High Court Exh.12 his name is at Sr.No.25 and

against the same, the date of birth mentioned is 1.7.1944. This list is

produced under the signature of Education officer before the High Court. The

Commission had issued summons to the Education Officer to produce the

school record. However by that time the record containing his name could not

be traced and ultimately the Commission was informed on 1.11.2006 that the

record does contain the entry of his name. He has no doubt produced certified

copy of warrant, however in the record received from the Tahasil office there

is warrant bearing No.110 outward No.10 dated 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli

- 179 -

(14.4.1947) On examination of the said document and on its comparison with

the undisputed signatures on the undisputed correspondence of same

Tahasildar marked as A1 to A10, the difference in the signature is so obvious

that even a lay man or a person not knowing Urdu language can say that the

same are totally difference and cannot be signatures of one of the same person.

As stated in part relating to reasons regarding Warrant cases, the signatures on

the warrants received from three different sources i.e. Patoda Tahsil Office,

Georai Court and Ambejogai Police Station, do not tally with each other and

also with signatures of the Tahasildar Mir Moinuddin Alikhan on the

undisputed correspondence found in the same file and even with signatures on

other warrants contained in the same file. The Commission having suspected

the signatures to be totally different got the suspicion confirmed by sending

the documents to the Government handwriting expert who has given opinion

to the same effect.

Therefore it is a clear case of fraud as the list produced in the High

Court shows the date of birth to be 1.7.1944. If after production of list in the

High Court, the record is misplaced or lost, the respondent can not derive any

benefit. The list produced in High Court in support to establish that his date of

birth is 1.7.1944 has not been contraverted by this Respondent by producing

any documents. Therefore, at the age of 3 to 4 years he could not have taken

part in freedom movement.

No arrest warrant would normally be issued against a child of 3 to 4

years.

He was fully aware that he had no role to play in the freedom

movement of Hyderabad State and inspite of that he ventured to apply for and

secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which amounts to fraud. He has

produced copy of a warrant which the Commission found to be forged. The

copy even if certified can be of no avail, if original document is found to be

non existent or forged. The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled.

- 180 -

File Case No. 161( Respondent No.161)

Shri Govind Dnyanoba Rakh

He applied for grant of pension on 28.8.1986 on the ground that in

Hyderabad freedom movement arrest warrant was issued against him bearing

file No. 10/10 Outward No.101 dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 4th December

1947 Xerox copy whereof was placed on record.

The Zila Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.1.1999 relied on copy

of warrant and recommended sanction of pension, but one of the members

P.V.Joshi disagreed.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 20.3.1999 reported to the

Government that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995, warrant is not reliable as it is not verified.

The High Power Committee relied on the recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned pension on 15.10.1999.

The Petitioner PIL have produced evidence of his date o birth showing

the same to be 11.07.1944. However, he has not produced any evidence. In

the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he was 17, 18

years old at that time of Hyderabad freedom movement.

Govind Dnyanoba Rakh appeared before Mane Committee and stated

that he took part in the incident of burning Nakas and destroying the bridge at

Rohatwadi. He has not attended any school and he does not possess any

documentary evidence. He does not remember the names of persons who

recommended his case for grant of pension. He has however produced the

copy of warrant along with his application.

In the public interest petition, petitioners produced through the

education officer a list of 26 persons whose date of birth were disputed. In this

list, the name of Govind Dnyanoba Rakh appears at serial No.17 and the date

of birth mentioned against his name is 11.07.1944 Fasli.

the school record. The original school record was produced and after

verification Xerox copies are retained by the Commission. The name of

- 181 -

Govind Dnyanoba Rakh is at serial no.10 and against his name the date of

birth is mentioned as 11.07.53 Fasli i.e. 1353 Fasli which is equivalent to

11.07.1944. Thus, the case of Govind Dnyanoba Rakh is obviously a

fraudulent attempt to secure Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits.

Being a boy age of 4 and 4 ½ years at the time of freedom movement, he was

obviously not concerned and not involved in any activity against the Nizam

Government and being fully aware of this, he ventured to move an application

seeking Sanman Patra and pensionary benefits which amounts to fraud and

such fraud vitiate the entire proceeding. In the language of the Supreme Court

this is “Asanman” to the nation and also to the freedom fighters who have

given their all for the freedom of the Hyderabad State.

The original warrant bearing No . 101, dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli

(equivalent to 4.12.1947) is not traceable anywhere. He has not explained

from where he obtained the xerox copy. The zerox copy was relied upon in the

absence of original record in spite the Additional Collector’s letter 20.3.1999

that in the absence of original record the copy can not be relied upon.

Moreover no warrant could have been issued for arrest against a child of 3 to 4

years. When all the 18 original warrants available are found to be forged how

can it be believed that the warrant, copy whereof is produced but original is

not traceale was a genuine document.

For all these reasons the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and

- 182 -

File Case No. 184 (Respondent No.184 )

Shri Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh

Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh applied for grant of freedom fighter’s

pension on 21.1.1991 on the basis of warrant of arrest alleged to have been

issued by the Tahasildar Padoda in Confidential file No.205 of 1357 Fasli

bearing outward No.209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th

January 1948.The Xerox copy of warrant produced by him is signed by

Notary. But from the endorsement on the copy from which Xerox is taken is,

” “verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai

Court on 20.09.1990”. It is signed by Nazir Patoda Court.

The District Collector Beed sent Xerox copy of warrant for verification

along with letter to the Civil Judge and Civil Judge sent reply on 2.11.1997

stating that original record is not available in his office and from the record it

appears that the copy was issued to one V.T.Chavan, Advocate. He enclosed a

list of 175 persons stating that these were the names in the warrant which

include the name of Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh at Sr. No. 89.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.1.1999 stated that

original record is not available in Tahasil office but in the copy his name

appeared, from which it appears that it is in connection with Hyderabad

Freedom Movement. No positive recommendation was given and one of the

members Shri P.V.Joshi observed that original record is not available hence

improper.

The Additional Collector had written to the Section Officer on

20.3.1999 that original record is not available in Tahasil Office but the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case in the absence of original record.

The copy cannot be relied upon and he has not complied with the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the verification report of the

Collector from another file as it contained observations that the original record

was available with the Civil Court as stated in that file and the name of

applicant is in the warrant and sanctioned pension.

- 183 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in

which he stated that he attended the meeting in which there was firing but he

ran away.

In his affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he has

learnt that from the School record some dates of birth are obtained (by the

petitioners in PIL) and from School record also, the evidence of his date of

birth is obtained, but since the Zilla Parishad had started school recently and

they wanted to show more number of students in the register of School

teachers entered the names of some students who were of higher age by

mentioning their age and date of birth wrongly and there is no connection with

the date of birth mentioned in the School register and his actual date of birth.

This statement has been made for the first time after his date of birth was

challenged in the PIL and evidence was put forth of his date of birth (22.10.51

F). The petitioners in the PIL had produced before the High Court evidence of

Respondent’s birth date from School record.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer calling the

record of school register in order to ascertain his date of birth as mentioned by

the petitioners in P.I.L. In the record produced by the education officer in the

High Court, wherein his name appears at serial no.16 and against his name his

death of birth is mentioned as 22.10.51Fasli (1351 F), i.e. 22.7.1942. The

original record produced was verified and xerox copies are retained. The date

of birth mentioned therein is 22.10.51F i.e. 22.7.1942. It means that at the time

of freedom movement he was aged 5 to 6 years and could not have taken part

in the freedom movement. This also clearly shows that even the copy of

warrant produced by him is false and concocted as no arrest warrant could

have been issued against the child of 6 years. The original warrant copy

whereof is placed on record in this file is found to be forged as discussed in

general reasons of warrant cases in a separate part of this report.

His statement was recorded by Mane Committee. He tried to explain

that the name appears in the school record as Zilla Parishad has started new

school and they wanted to show more number of students in the register of

school and therefore, the teachers entered the some names of students of

- 184 -

higher age by mentioning their wrong dates of birth. This is a futile attempt to

explain the date of birth in the public record. The act of Bhanudas Vithoba

Rakh in making application to seek benefit of pension as freedom fighter is

obviously fraudulent attempt as he was fully aware that he was not at all

concerned with the freedom movement and was only a boy of 5 to 6 years who

may not be then aware of the freedom movement going on. His further attempt

to give false explanation when statement was recorded by Mane Committee

lends assurance to the inference drawn above, and apart from any other

reason, for this reason alone the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

him deserve to be cancelled forthwith as fraud practiced vitiates the entire

proceeding for securing Sanmanptra and allied benefits and the Commission

- 185 -

Shri Shrirang Narayan Rakh.

Applied for pension on 30.12.1994 as underground freedoom fighter

stating in application that he worked under Ashruba Raojai Jagtap. He filed

affidavit dated 17.01.91 wherein he stated that arrest warrant was issued

against him but did not claim that he was working underground . He produced

Xerox copy of warrant alleged to have been issued by Tahsildar Patoda in File

No. 205/1357 Fasli Outward No,209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent

24th January, 1948. The Xerox copy shows that the document from which this

copy is prepared was signed / intialed by Assistant Superintendent of Civil

Court Georai and there is remark of the Nazir Patoda Civil Court “ verified

that this Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai Court on

20.09.1990” . The Xerox copy also shows that one Xerox copy signed by

Special Executive Magistrate was used and the present Xerox copy is of the

said Xerox copy.

He filed another affidavit dated 13.07.1999 after notice was issued to

him in which many details are given which were not stated in the earlier

affidavit. He has named Wamanrao Waze, Ramling Swami, Namdeo Khade,

Nivrutti Dhakne , Ganpati Sanap, Bhima Umaji Bangar and Raosaheb

Patwardhan as the persons under whose guidance he worked and he stated

that he will produce affidavits of Bhima Umaji Bangar and Dnyanoba Jijaba

Bangar however, these affidavits are not produced by him.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated nil observed that in the

absence of original record the copy of warrnat cannot be relied upon but since

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that he worked in the Freedom

Movement against Nizam Government his case is recommended for grant of

pension. One of the members P.V.Joshi observed that there is no verification

of the warrant.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation.

The under Secretary made a note that in the absence of original record the

copy cannot be believed, however, pension was sanctioned.

- 186 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he stated that he was arrested and imprisned and he was in jail for 1 to

1/2 month and at that time he was 20 to 21 years. He was earlier declared to

be absconding and was required to live away from his house for two and half

months. He stated that he will produce document on 13.03.2003 but did not

produce any document.

He filed affidavit before the Commission but there is nothing in

particular to be noted in the said affidavit.

The petitioners in the public interest petition produced through

education officer record of date of birth of 26 persons including Shrirang

Narayan Rakh wherein his name is at serial No.18 and against his name the

date of birth mentioned is 22.08.40 Fasli However, when the original record

was called by the Commission through the Education Officer and the same

was perused the entry of the name of Shrirang Narayan Rakh at serial No.10

showed that the date written as 22.08.48 F was converted to 22.08.40F by

over writing. This over writing can be seen by the naked eye. Moreover, all

the dates written before and after this entry are of the year 1348 to 1353 F and

admission is in same class “primer” on 11.11.58 Fasli. If his birth date is held

as 22.8.1340 F (22.5.1931) then at the time of his admission to primer on

11.11.1358 F (11.8.1949) his age would more than 18 years which is not

probable. On the other hand like other students the Respondent born on

22.8.1348 F (22.5.1939) could be admitted to primer on 11.11.1358F.

Therefore there is obvious attempt of forgoing, the original record. The date

written against his name was 22.08.1348 F equivalent to 22.5.1939 which

shows that he was just 8-9 years old when the freedom movement was going

on and could not have taken part in the freedom movement. He may not be

then even aware of the freedom movement. This is also a case of fraud

vitiating the entire proceeding of the application for grant of Sanmanpatra and

pensionary benefits. Such overwriting appears to be in ten other entries in the

register. The attempt was probably to justify the claim. No warrant could

have been issued against a boy aged 8-9 years.

- 187 -

The warrant, copy whereof is relied upon in this case is proved to be

forged as discussed in general observation on warrant cases in separate part.

The existence of name of Shrirang Narayan Rakh, who was not even born

when said warrant was issued further confirm the fact that said warrant is false

and forged.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case not on being

convinced by the evidence produced but on subjective satisfaction. The High

Power Committee ignored the note of the under secretary as it was not

convenient.

The Respondent, therefore, was not only not entitled to Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted to him but was guilty of fraud.The Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith. The

- 188 -

Shri Pandurang Ganpati Nagre.

He applied for grant of pension on 29.01.2004 on the basis of arrest

warrant alleged to have been issued by theTahsildar Patoda in File No. 205 of

1357 Fasli outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 24.01.1948. He

produced Xerox copy of the warrant which is itself is a copy of true copy.

He filed affidavit on 15.01.1991 in which he stated that he took part in

vairous activities against Nizam Government and warrant of arrest was issued

against him.

He filed another affidavit dated 24.03.1999 in which he has named

number of freedom fighters working with him namely Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap, Karbhari Tatya Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdeo Balwant

Aaher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Sona Rama Jaybhay,

Manik Tulsiram Anbhule etc. This affidavit is stereotyp like many other

improved affidavits in other cases in which he stated for the first time that he

was required to live away from his house for 10 months and was working

underground. He filed supporting affidavit of Baburao Govind Rakh dated

24.03.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.04.1999 observed that

the original record of the warrant is not available with the Tahasil office and

stated further that the case was fit for sanction. One of the members Mr.P.V.

Joshi observed that warrent is not verified. Thus the recommendation was not

based on evidence but subjective satisfaction.

The Additional Collector in letter dated 15.09.1999 wrote to the

Section Officer that the case was not fit for sanction although recommended

by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as the Urdu warrant was not verified.

The High Power Committee further stated that the warrant copy is

verified in another file wherein there is verification report and the Civil Court

Gevrai had informed as per that report that the original record is with the

Court and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended, therefore , pension was

sanctioned.

- 189 -

He appeared before Mane Committee but there is nothing worth noting

stated by him and similar is the case of affidavit filed before the Collector.

The petitioners in public interest petition produced list of 26 persons

whose date of birth was disputed by the petitioner. The name of Pandurang

Ganpati Nagre appears at serial no.20 and against his name the date of birth

mentioned is 7.4.1948, which means that he was just born when the freedom

movement was going on and it came to an end after five months of his birth.

The Commission issued summons to the education officer and called the

original record of which verified Xerox copy is retained on record. The entry

of his name is at serial no.35 and the date of birth mentioned against his name

is 7.4.1948 . He was admitted to school on 1.1.1954 in the 1st standard and it

is obvious that the date of birth mentioned is correct as he was aged about 6

years when admitted to 1st standard. To counter this evidence he has not

produced any document or record. However, he has tried to explain the same

in his affidavit by stating that the teachers were introducing the names of

students in the school register in order to show more strength i.e. more

number of students than actually admitted and studying. He never attended

any school and he is not concerned with the entry in the school register. This

explanation on the face of it is untenable. Thus, he was fully aware that he had

no concern with the freedom movement and in spite of that he attempted to

make an application for securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as freedom

fighter which act is obviously fraudulent vitiating the entire proceedings

regarding his application and its scrutiny and Sanmanpatra and pensionary

benefits granted to him deserves to be cancelled and be cancelled for this

reason alone.

The warrant, copy whereof is relied upon in this case, is proved to be

forged as discussed in general reasons of warrant cases in separate part.

Furthermore existence of name of Pandurang Ganpati Nagare, who was not

even born when said warrant was issued fortifies the conclusion that said

warrant is false and forged.

The Respondent, therefore, was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits. He produced a forged document to support his case. The

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith. The

- 190 -

Shri Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar.

He filed application for grant of freedom fighter,s pension on

19.10.1995 claiming to be underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavit dated 18.10.1995 stating that he worked with

Raosaheb Gavhane and also filed affidavit of Raosaheb Gavhane and

Sahebrao Konduke in which the only statement is that he took part in the

freedom movement.

After notice was issued to him on 06.06.1997 he filed affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane who were sentenced to two

years imprisonment.

He filed further affidavit dated 3.6.1997 stating that his case is

pending for long.

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in affidavit dated 03.06.1997 stated that

Jagannath Dhondiba Pawar worked with him alongwith 50 to 60 others and

the similar is the statement of Anna Eknath Telap in the affidavit dated

03.06.1997.

He again filed one more affidavit dated 17.02.1999 making further

improvements and naming number of other freedom fighters like Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap, Karbhari Bangar, Bhima Bangar, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdeo Balwanta Aher and also stated for the first

time he was required to live away from his house for 11 months and produce

affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

his case for grant of pension based on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

The Additional Collector and Member Secretary wrote to the Deputy

Secretary on 14.07.1997 that there is no compliance with Government

- 191 -

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavit and sanctioned

pension on 04.10.1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee . His statement was recorded in

which he stated that warrant was not issued against him and one Kashinathrao

Jadhav recommended his case for pension. He does not know who are other

persons who gave recommendation. He further stated that at that time his age

was 10 years and he was not doing any work. He does not know who are the

persons who were convicted and sentenced and who have filed affidavit in his

support.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation have produced evidence of

his date of birth from School record wherein his date of birth is shown as

16.05.1941, according to which his age would be hardly 06 years at the time

of Hyderabad Freedom Movement. This evidence was produced before the

High Court however, till this date he has not produced any other evidence of

his date of birth and on the contrary he made statement that he did not attend

any school when he was appeared before Mane Committee.

The Commission also issued summons to the Education Officer and

called the original record from the school. The school head master had issued

certified copy of school register extract showing his date of birth as

16.05.1941. He was admitted to school on 07.07.1953 in ivth standard. The

same date appears in the extract of the register.

This raises a serious doubt about the statement contained in his own

affidavit as well as the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Bangar,

Bhima Umaji Bangar, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and

Namdev Balawant Aher. The statements in the affidavits filed on 17.2.1999

wherein there is improvement that he was required to live away from his

house, is on the face of it a false statement made in order to show that he has

complied with the provisions of the Government Resolution. Thus these very

freedom fighters who have been consistently filing affidavits in innumerable

cases are found to be persons making statement on oath without bothering that

- 192 -

even ex-facie it would appear false and fortifies the conclusion drawn earlier

that they were indiscriminately signing and swearing affidavit to support any

person approaching them for reasons which can be anybody’s guess and they

are not at all reliable.

Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar claimed Sammanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits when he was fully aware that he was not at all concerned

with the freedom movement. He was a school going boy and was not involved

in any activity against the Nizam Government and obtained the Sanmanpatra

and the allied benefits fraudulently and this fraudulent act vitiates the entire

proceedings in respect of his application for pensionary benefits. The

Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him be cancelled forthwith.

- 193 -

Shri Vikram Kisan Wanve

He filed application for pension of freedom fighter stating that he was

underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavit of Babu Nana Gite. In his own affidavit dated

22.8.1995 and another affidavit of Baba Vadaju Wanve his name is added

after the affidavit was written and similar addition appears in the affidavit of

Babu Nana Gite. He has then filed affidavit of Narayan Chaure dated

26.9.1997 in which his name is added in ink to the typewritten affidavit. In

the affidavit of Thaksen Shankar Dhase dated 28.9.1997 his name is added in

ink, to the typewritten affidavit. He filed further affidavit dated 11.9.1998 to

show that the conditions of Government Resolution are fulfilled stating that

he was required to live away from his house for 10 months and added the

names of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane for the first time.

In support he filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting heldl on 8.11.1998 considered

his case and referred to the affidavits of Thaksen Shankar Dhase, Namdev

Dagadu Chaure and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 23.11.1998 pointed out that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension on the basis of

affidavits of freedom fighters Dhase , Chaure and Sanap.

He stated that he was aged 10 to 11 years and because of his young age he did

not go to camp of freedom fighers. Even his father did not go. He alongwith

his mother was providing bhakari (bread) to the freedom fighters. He was not

in a position to understand what is Nizam Government and why it should be

removed.

- 194 -

The Petitioners in PIL produced record of his date of birth before the

Commission which shows that he was born on 3rd September 1958 and he has

not produced any evidence to counter this documentary evidence.

Summons was issued to the Education Officer to produce register of

school containing the entry of his admission in the school and the same was

produced on 4.11.2006 and the Commission retained Xerox copy after

comparing with the original. Entry of his name appears at Sr.No. 16 wherein

the date of birth is mentioned as 3rd September 1958. He was admitted to

school on 3rd September 1964 and was removed from school on 26.6.68 when

he was in IInd standard, as a result of continuous absence. It is natural that at

the age of 6 to 7 years he would be admitted to 2nd standard. There is no

reason to suspect genuineness of the birth date and there is no substance in the

argument advanced that the school head mater should have been examined or

admission form should have been called by the Commission.

This evidence fully falsifies his claim and shows that the entire case is

vitiated by fraud. It is not necessary for the Commission to go into the aspect

as to who committed the fraud. He ventured to claim Sanmanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits for the freedom movement of 1947-48 when he was not

even born and was born 10 years after the freedom movement came to an end.

This also shows that the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap ,

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Thaksen Shankarao Dhase and Narayan Choure have

gone to the extent of supporting such a false claim. The entire case of this

respondent having been vitiated by fraud is required to be thrown over board

and the Commission is of the considered view that Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the

- 195 -

Shri Tukaram Salba Ghuge

He filed application for grant of pension as freedom fighter on the

basis of arrest warrant alleged to have been issued against him by Tahasildar

Patoda in file No. 21/1 Outward No.617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli equivalent to

17th May 1948.

He filed petition in the High Court bearing No.5112/95 and directions

were given to decide the case within six month.

the copy of warrant and stated that it is not reliable as the Civil Court Gevrai

has informed that the original record is not available in his office and the copy

cannot be relied upon. The copy produced by him was a mere Xerox copy

signed as true copy by the Assistant Government Pleader and the copy from

which this Xerox copy was prepared had the endorsement “ verified that the

Xerox Copy is true copy of Original Copy issued by Gevrai Court on 20th

September. 1990”. This endorsement is by Assistant Superintendent (Nazir)

Patoda Civil Court. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the case.

In the note put up before High Power Committee it is stated he has

produced copy of warrant but the original record is not available and the copy

is not reliable and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give positive

recommendation.

It is further stated stated in note of Sabhapati that normally when

Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not give positive recommendation the Government

does not sanction the claim even then since persons from Osmanabad district

whose names are included in this warrant have been granted pension and there

were such 19 cases and after this note of the Sabhapati, he further stated that

reference be made to the file of Kamalabai Baburao Ahire bearing No. POS

- 196 -

1298/Court-Beed FF-2, CR No.3031/98. Later on copy of said proceeding

was placed on record wherein it is mentioned that the original record of the

warrant appears to have been received by the Collector and Civil Judge Gevrai

has informed accordingly and the Tahasildar has provided Marathi translation.

The Chairman of Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti has requested the

Sabhapati that the cases not recommended by the Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti

are sanctioned and this appears to one of such case. However, when the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti does not receive documents and such documents are made

available to the High Power Committee, action is taken by the Government

and accordingly note should be put up.

In pursuance of this, further note was put up that the warrant has been

verified by the Tahasildar and other 19 persons whose names are in the

warrant and who are from the Osmanabad District have been sanctioned

pension and if the court has stated that original record is available and there is

name of applicant in the said warrant, it is not necessary to go in to further

details and the refusal to recommend by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in such cases

would be wrong.

It was further stated that similar cases are of Raosaheb Vishwanath,

Abasaheb Giri Rakh, Girishrao Ahire, Tukaram Salaba Ghuge and Smt.

Kamalabai Baburao Shinde. All such cases be considered by putting similar

note on the file . Thereafter the Member Secretary made endorsement for

sanction and pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he had gone to

Kharda camp in 1947 and from there to Patoda Tahasil office for hoisting flag.

He was arrested and released. He then collected donations for the Kharda

Camp residents continuously for 10 to 12 months and he was away from his

house as there was warrant issued against him. He will produce certified copy

- 197 -

of the warrant which he never produced. The detailed reasons for not relying

on the said warrant are stated in a separate part of this report relating to

general reasons for warrant cases.

Thus the original warrant of which copy is relied upon in this case, is

found to be forged and false document. Existence of name of Respondent aged

5 years in said warrant further falsifies the said document.

His birth date having been disputed, the Commission issued summons

to the Education Officer for production of the school record of which Xerox is

retained showing his date of birth as 22.06.1943. Record is also produced by

the petitioners showing his date of birth to be 22.06.1943. The original is in

Urdu and Commission got it translated from are retired Deputy Collector,

Beed and is included in the Commission file Exhibit 11. He has not produced

any evidence to counter this. From this evidence it is clear that at the time of

freedom movement, he was hardly aged 5 years and it is not at all probable

that he could have taken part in the freedom movement. Thus the entire

statement contained in his affidavit as well as in the supporting affidavits of

the other freedom fighters are ex-facie false. His statement before Mane

Committee is also equally false. It is obvious that being aged five years in

1947-48, he had no concern with the freedom movement. He claimed

Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits which was a fraudulent act on his part.

The affidavits of convicted freedom fighters who support such a claim are also

obviously false and this fraud vitiates entire proceedings of his application

for claiming Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him be

cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 198 -

Shri Limba Nivrutti Rakh

He applied for pension on 30.10.1990 claiming to be undeground

freedom fighter and although no referrence to warrant of arrest against him in

his application was made he produced Xerox copy of arrest warrant alleged to

have been issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No. Nil outward No. 205

dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948.

However in his affidavit dated 22.9.1997 he made reference to the

warrant, the copy of warrant which appears to be copy of certified copy

issued, which bears endorsement dated 28.9.90.”Verified that this Xerox copy

is true copy of original copy issued by Gevrai Court on 20.9.90”.

He filed affidavit dated 22.1.1997 in which he named number of

freedom fighters with whom he worked.

The copy of warrant was sent for the verification by the District

Collector to Civil Judge Asthti enclosing a copy of warrant and list of 112

persons making specific queries. However, there is no report of verification.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 27.9.98 pointed out that

his name is not in the warrant and original record is not available with the

Court therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend grant of pension.

The Additional Collector informed the Desk Officer on 29.10.1998

Before the High Power Committee incorrect note was put up that his

case was recommended by Zilla Gaurav Samiti. The note further discloses that

there was discussion with the Member Secretary and the copy of warrant is

signed by the Collector, Latur, as true copy and in that warrant name of

applicant appeared and since there is recommendation by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti the High Power committee Sanctioned the pension though in fact the

Zilla Gaurav Samittee had declined to recommend.

- 199 -

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he referred to the activities of cutting shindi trees and giving slogans

and stated that he was required to live away from his house.He cannot say who

recommended his case for grant of pension.

He filed detailed affidavit before the Commission. But there is nothing

worth noticing.

In the public interest petition the petitioners produced through

education officer, Zilla Parishad Beed record of date of birth of 26 persons.

The Education Officer produced list of 26 persons in which the name of

Limba Nivruti Rakh is at serial No.19 and against his name the date of birth

mentioned is 08.04.1944. The original record was called by Commission and

after verification zerox copy of admission register is retained. Entry in the

original record shows his date of birth 8.4.1944 and he took admission in the

pre-primary class on 28.06.1951. Had the date of birth been in 8.4.1934, he

would have been aged 17 years and could not have sought admission and

would not have been admitted to preprimary class at such a mature age.

From the original register called by the Commission through the

Education Officer copy where of is retained after verification with the

original, there appears a clear attempt to forge the entry of date of birth by

attempting to convert 44 into 34 by overwriting the digit 4 and converting it to

This was an unsuccessful attempt of forgery. This evidence also

creates doubt regarding the reliability of warrant on the basis of which he has

claimed pension. The entire warrant bearing outward No. 205 dated 24

Isfander 1357 Fasli (24 January 1948) thus become a suspicious document and

that is why the copy was obtained from Patoda Court which is in fact a copy of

copy issued by Gevrai Court. The Gevrai court issued copy on 20th September

1990 and this copy was issued by Patoda Court Assistant Superintendent-cum-

Nazir on 28.09.1990 on which date certified copy could have been obtained

even from Gevrai Court. The Assistant Superintendent who signed it as true

- 200 -

copy was obviously conscious of the fact that the said document is not a part

of the Court record where he was posted and he had no authority to certify the

copies of copy issued by another court. The original warrant, copy of which is

produced in this file, is found to be forged as disucussed in separate part of

this report on warrant cases and existence of name of this Respondent therein,

who was of 3 to 4 years old in that period further falsifies the genuineness and

truthfulness of said warrant. The respondent who made all these attempts was

aware of the fact that during the freedom movement he was not of such age

that he could be a part of the freedom movement. He was aware that he had

not taken part in freedom movement and has not done any activity whatsoever

against the Nizam Government and inspite of that he ventured to swear

affidavit and concocted evidence to support his claim and thus the fraud is

obvious and therefore the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits secured by him by

such fraudulent means deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the

- 201 -

Shri Narayan Kisan Rakh

He applied for grant of pension as freedom fighter on the basis of

arrest warrant alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda in file No. Nil

Outward No.205 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24 January 1948.

He produced Xerox copy of warrant signed by Notary. He filed

affidavits dated 27.07.1990 and second affidavit dated 22.1.1997 and in the

second affidavit is full of improvement. Number of names are added as

persons with whom he worked in the freedom movement and number of

incidents are quoted which were earlier not stated.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector Beed to

Civil Judge Gevrai enclosing copy and list of 112 persons making specific

queries and the Civil Judge reported on 9.9.97 that out of the list submitted

only 8 names are in the warrant copy and the original record is not available in

his office. This was in fact a reason to suspect the genuineness of the warrant

or copy produced.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 31.12.1998 noted that

the original record is not available, the copy cannot be believed and there is no

positive recommendation from the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 20.3.1999 to the Section

Officer stating that his name is not in the warrant and original record is not

available. He has not complied with the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

Before the High Power Committee a note was put up that in respect of

same warrant the District Collectors, Latur and Osmanabad signed copies of

the same in another file and the Member Secretary has orally informed that the

Xerox copy was got verified in that case and his name was found in the

warrant and claim be sanctioned and the pension was sanctioned. The under

secretary mentioned just below the note that the Collector has reported that

name Narayan Kisan Rakh is not in the warrant. The over anxiety of the

Member Secretary and oral instructions are beyond understanding and create

doubt. A copy of the said report should have at least been kept on record.

- 202 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded,

wherein he stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his

house for 11 months He attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and cut

shindi trees and hoisted tri colour flag on Tahasil office and Dyanoba Patil,

Dhondiba Jadhav informed him that his name is there in the warrant. He

assured that he will file certified copy of warrant which he never filed

thereafter.

He has filed affidavit before the Commission referring to the earlier

evidence produced by him. According to the petitioners in Public Interest

Litigation his date of birth is 4-2- 1948. However in the register (original)

there is erasure in the year and attempt is made to change 48 to 38 but there is

over writing in the year. However, he has not produced any evidence of his

date of birth.

On summons being issued by the Commission the Education Officer

produced the original record and verified Xerox copy is retained on record and

in the entry of date of birth the overwriting in the year is obvious. An attempt

is made to convert the year 48 into 38 but this attempt of forgery is

unsuccessful as overwriting is obvious. He was admitted in the pre-primary

school on 01.07.1954 which confirms that his date of birth must be

04.02.1948. Had the date of birth been in fact 4th February 1938 he could not

have been admitted to pre-primary class at the age of 16 years. This

unsuccessful attempt of forgery in entry of date of birth in the record of school

vitiates the entire proceeding of application for claiming Sanmanpatra and

pensionary benefits. It also raises serious doubt regarding truthfulness of the

warrant on which he has based his claim and shows that the statement made in

his own affidavit is false to his own knowledge. Similarly his statement

before Mane Committee that he was required to live away from house for 11

months is also false.

Even accepting that he was born on 4.2.1938 his age on the

commencement of Hyderabad freedom movement would be less than 10

years. Normally no arrest warrant would be issued against a boy of 9 to 10

years age.

- 203 -

The warrant is relied upon in this case is proved to be forged as

discussed in general reasons of warrant cases in separate part Further more

existence of name of Narayan Kisan Rakh, who was not even born when said

warrant was issued confirms the fact that said warrant is false and forged.

The Respondent, therefore, was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him. He was fully aware that he was not involved in

Hyderabad freedom movement. Inspite of this he ventured to claim

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as freedom fighter which deserves to be and

be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 204 -

Shri. Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad

He applied for grant of pension on 29.1.1999 and although in

application there is no reference to warrant issued against him he produced a

Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 24/1 Outward No. 209, 21 Isfander 1357

Fasli. He has filed affidavits of Ashruba Babarao Rakh and Viswanath

Devrao Rakh along with his affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29.06.1999 considered

his case and it is observed that in the absence of original record the warrant

copy cannot be relied upon but Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced about his

participation in freedom movement and recommended his case. However one

of the member P.V.Joshi observed that the copy of warrant is not verified.

The recommendation was based on subjective satisfaction and not on

evidence.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 15.09.1999

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 the

warrant is not verified and is not reliable.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension.

His statement was recorded before Mane Committee when he

appeared on 11.3.2003 in which he stated that he used to provide breads

(bhakari) to the freedom fighters and he used to give slogans moving from

village to village with tricolour flag and stated that no warrant was issued

against him and he was aged 15 to 16 years.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that the

petitioners produce the evidence of his date of birth but he never attended the

school and forged document is produced. When he inquired with the Head

Master, he was told that there is no record since he was not in the school. He

- 205 -

was serving in Siemens Engineering Co. Ltd. . How could he be appointed,

if he was of such tender age. He has produced Xerox copy of letter dated

29.9.1967 issued by the Siemens Company with reference to his appointment

dated 15.4.1967.

In the public interest petition the petitioners produced through the

Education Officer a list of 26 persons whose date of birth was disputed. The

entry of his name is at Sr. No. 20 and date of birth mentioned is 5.3.1954.

the school record regarding date of birth of Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad on

productin of which zerox was retained after verification wherein the entry of

his name is at Sr.No. 83 and his date of birth is mentioned as 05.03.1954. He

was admitted to the school on 18.07.1960 and his name was deleted from the

school record on 20.08.1962 due to continuous absence. Thus Kaduba

Nivrutti Gaikwad wasnot even born when the Hyderabad freedom movement

took place. His claim of Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits is totally false.

It is false to his own knowledge. He has attempted to secure Sanmanpatra and

pensionary benefits in respect of freedom movement when he was not even

born. The warrant on the basis of which he has made the claim is also

therefore a totally false and fabricated. The detailed reasons for not relying on

the warrant are stated in a separate part of this report.

This is a clear case of fraud which vitiates the entire proceeding and is

in fact in the words of Supreme Court is “Asanman” to the nation as well to

the real freedom fighters and the freedom movement and the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the

- 206 -

Shri Vithal Rakhmaji Gopalghare

Applied for pension on 17.9.1990 and in the application he has stated

that he cut shindi trees, worked in congress camp and burnt karodgiri naka

and office of police patil.

He claimed pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against him in

file No.21/1 Outward No. 617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli i.e. 17th May 1947 and

produced Xerox copy of warrant which itself is a true copy of copy and Xerox

copy shows that true copy was signed by Assistant Superintendent Civil Court,

Gevrai on 10.11.1989 and the endorsement on the said Xerox copy dated

19.9.1990 IS “verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by

Tahasildar, Patoda on 6.11.1989.”

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector Beed to

Civil Court Gevrai on 16.12.1997 enclosing copy of warrant and list of 17

persons making specific queries and the Civil Judge Gevrai reported on

10.8.1998 that the original record is not available and since it was issued by

the Patoda Tahasildar, his report be called.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 23.7.1998

that there is a petition in the High Court filed by the persons claiming pension

and it is necessary to report compliance. The Tahasildar has issued the

warrant copy and the same is required to be verified from the original record.

The report has been called from the Tahasildar but it is not received.

The Tahasildar Patoda had written to the Section Officer on

18.1.1993. The copy of that letter is in this file and as per the said letter

Tahasildar had enclosed a translation of the copy of warrant and in the

translation name of Vitthal Rakmaji appears.

report of Civil Judge, Gevrai and in view of the fact that the original record

was not available stated that the copy is not reliable and decision be taken at

higher level. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the case for grant of

pension.

- 207 -

The High Power Committee considered the matter. Note was put up

before the said committee that original record is not available and copy cannot

be relied upon and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti has not recommended.

However, it appears that earlier this warrant was verified and the verification

report is kept in the file at pg. 45-49 in which name of the person appears and

his claim be sanctioned. The Under Secretary mentioned that copy cannot be

relied upon. However the High Power Committee sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he had taken

education in private school and when he left the school his age was 40 to 45

years and he will produce the school-leaving certificate. He does not know

who has given affidavit in his support.

There is controversy regarding the date of birth of Vitthal and the

petitioners have produced evidence of the School Register record, which

shows his date of birth as 18.1.1951.

Respondent filed affidavit before this Commission in which he has

stated that this evidence is not trustworthy, as he did not attend the school. He

was underground freedom fighter and was absconding for 13 months, as there

was arrest warrant against him. He has produced medical certificate of age in

which there is a same statement that his age is 70 years. No data is given nor

does the certificate state what tests were carried out.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation had produced the extract of

admission and school leaving record issued by the Education Officer, wherein

the date of birth is mentioned as 18.01.1951 and he took admission in school

on 14.06.1968 in IXth standard and left school on 31.07.1968 as he was

continuously absent. The Commission had also issued a notice to the

Education Officer for production of the original record. The record was

produced and after verification of original record the Xerox copy thereof is

retained which mentions date of birth as 18.01.1951. Thus this person was

not even born when the freedom movement took place and fraudulently

moved application for claiming Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits by

producing false documents and affidavits. The warrant on which his claim is

based alleged to have been issued on 17th May 1947 bearing outward No. 617

- 208 -

including the name of person born on 18-1-1951 thus becomes suspicious.

That reveals why attempt was made to secure a Xerox copy of the certified

copy issued by Gevrai Court and to get the same certified from Patoda Court

official.

The entire proceedings of his application for securing Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits are vitiated by this fraud lin as much as he was aware that he

was not even born when freedom movement took place and attempted and

succeded in securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and

be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 209 -

Shri Dadarao Sonaji Bhople

Dadarao Sonaji Bhople filed application on 26.03.1984 claiming

Freedom Fighter’s Pension on the ground that he acted in Hyderabad Freedom

Movement as underground freedom fighter. Thereafter on 03.07.1997 he filed

his own affidavit dated 26.06.1997 and affidavit of Anna EknathTelap dated

23.06.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 21.06.1997 in support of his claim.

The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhaye appear to be

affidavits already typed to which name of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople was added

afterwards by pen. Even his own affidavit appears to be stereotype proforma

affidavit.

the application of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople relying on the affidavits of Anna

Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector Beed in his report dated 10.07.1997

submitted to the Deputy Secretary General Administratin Department

Freedom Fighter’s Cell endorsed that there was no compliance with

Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and so in his opinion it is not a fit

case for grantof pension. However, he asked the Government to take decision

in the matter.

The High Power Committee accepted the affidavits and

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned pension.

The Petitioners in Public Interest Letigation disputed age of this

respondent. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed filed list of 26 persons in

High Court wherein name of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople is at No. 5 and his date of

birth is shown as 10.3.1937.

On summons being issued to the Education Officer Zilla Parishad

Beed, he produced the register of school admission and the certified copy of

the original with translation is retained which shows his date of birth as

15.03.1937 which shows that during the freedom movement he was aged

hardly 10 to 11 years and could not have taken part in the freedom movement.

- 210 -

The claim is based on warrant in file No. 7/1357 Fasli outward No. 407 dated

2 Bahman 1357 fasli i.e. 2nd December 1947 and the entire warrant which

includes the name of boy of 10 to 11 years thus becomes suspicious. The

original warrant is found to be forged by the Commission for the reasons

given in separate part of reasons for warrant cases. Therefore also his claim is

found to be false.

The affidavit filed in support of the application and the affidavits of

other freedom fighters supporting his case are also unreliable. He was of so

tender age at the time of freedom movement that it is highly improbable that

he could have taken part in the freedom movement. The claim is thus

fraudulent. He was fully aware that he was not concerned with the freedom

movement inspite of that he attempted to move application and produced copy

of forged document in support to justify the claim. The claim thus is vitiated

by fraud and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted deserve to be and be

cancelled forthwith. The Commission recommends accordingly.

- 211 -

File Case No. 329 (Respondent No.329) Shri Maruti Ganpat Misal

Maruti Ganpat Misal applied for freedom fighter’s pension on

10.10.1991 stating therein the role played by him as underground freedom

fighter in the movement against Nizam Government. In support of this

application he filed his own affidavit dated 09.10.1997. Thereafter, again in

compliance with the requirement of Government Resolution 04.07.1995 after

notice from Collector, Beed he submitted another affidavit dated 10.12.1997

and affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 24.09.97 and Anna Eknath

Telap dated 15.09.1997. Affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna

Eknath Telap are the ready made typed affidavits wherein the name of Maruti

Ganpat Misal is added in ink after the same was typed.

the application relying on affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna

Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 15.07.1998

addressed to the Deputy Secretary, General Administratin Department

Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai objected to the grant of

application on the ground that the conditions incorporated in Government

Resolution dated 04.07.1995 are not fulfilled by Maruti Ganpat Misal and he

requested for taking final decision at Government level.

Thereafter, on 10.03.1999 Maruti Ganpat Misal presented application

to Sabhapati , High Power Committee, Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya,

Mumbai alongwith his affidavit dated 02.02.1999 and affidavit of Manik

Tulshiram Anbhule , Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap of the same date. Additional

allegations were made to fulfill the requirements of Government Resolution

dated 04.07.1995 in the said affidavits.

The High Power Committee granted the application on 26.06.1999

relying on the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed and the

affidavits placed on record.

On 19.03.2003 statement of Maruti Ganpat Misal was recorded before

Mane Committee wherein he stated about furnishing information to the

- 212 -

activists about the Razakars. He categorically stated that police did not beat

him any time. According to him, police did not arrest him at any time. This

statement of Maruti Ganpat Misal is contrary to the statement made by him

and one of the Freedom Fighters supporting him in their affidavits dated

10.12.1997 and 15.09.1997 respectively.

Maruti Ganpat Misal filed his detailed affidavit dated 03.12.2005

before the Commission where in he has narrated many new things which he

did not disclose earlier.

Record of birth date of Maruti Ganpat Misal is placed on record,

wherein his date of birth is shown as 2.5.1939 indicating that he was 8/9 years

old at the time of freedom movement.

In the list of 26 persons produced by the Education Officer in the

High Court in public interest petition, his name appears at Sr.No.23 and the

date of birth mentioned against the name is 02.05.1939. It means that at the

time of freedom movement he was aged about 8 to 9 years and it is highly

improbable that a boy of such tender age would take part in the freedom

movement or would even have understanding about the freedom movement

going against the Nizam Government.

The Commission had issued summons to the Education Officer to

produce the original record which was produced by the Head Master wherein

his date of birth is recorded as 02.05.1939. He was admitted to the school on

24.07.1945 in pre-primary section and it is therefore highly improbable that in

the freedom movement of 1947-48 he could have taken part and could have

been a part of the activities as mentioned in his application and the affidavits.

Thus even affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are on the face of it

unreliable. He was aware of the fact that he had no concern with the freedom

movement and in spite of that he ventured to file false application for grant

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and fraudulently obtained the same and

therefore Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be

cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 213 -

Shri Dadarao Waman Misal

Dadarao Waman Misal filed application for freedom fighter’s pension

on 18.10.1991 alleging therein about his underground activities against the

Nizam Government. He also submitted Xerox copy of his own affidavit dated

09.10.1991 along with that application. Thereafter, he filed fresh application in

response to the notice issued by the Collector, Beed on 3.7.1997 to comply

with requirement of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. To substantiate

the application, he filed affidavit of his own dated 10.12.1997, along with

affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 29.09.97 and Anna Eknath Telap

dated 15.09.1997. The affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna Eknath

Telap are in typed format wherein the name of Dadarao Waman Misal is

inserted in ink in typed format.

the case relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 5.7.1998, addressed

to the Deputy Secretary, General Administratin Department Freedom Fighter’s

Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai expressed that applicant had not complied with the

requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. However he added

that final decision be taken at Government level.

Thereafter Dadarao Waman Misal addressed letter to the Deputy Chief

Minister on 15.6.1999 and along with that letter he submitted affidavit of his

own dated 9.6.1999, affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev

Balawant Aher of the very date. The Deputy Chief Minister, forwarded the

application and affidavits along with other papers with his forwarding letter

dated 15.6.1999 for taking appropriate action in the matter, whereon Member

Secretary endorsed for putting up the matter immediately and to inform the

Deputy Chief Minister of action taken. The High Power Committee granted

application on 25.9.1999 relying on the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and recommendation of Deputy Chief Minister as well as the affidavit

of supporting freedom fighters.

- 214 -

In the statement dated 29.3.2003 recorded before Mane Committee

Dadarao Waman Misal accounted for his underground activities in the struggle

against Nizam Government.

In the public interest petition the Education Officer had produced a list

of 26 persons in which his name appears at Sr.No. 24, wherein the date of

birth is mentioned as 05.07.1931, therefore he was aged 16 to 17 years at the

time of Hyderabad Freedom Movement and on the ground of his age it cannot

be said that it is improbable that he would have taken part in the freedom

movement.

As already pointed out the supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and Anna Eknath Telap suffers from the infirmity not only of addition

of names in hand writing to the typed format of affidavit but also the statement

that he took education in private school and cannot produce school leaving

certificate. The portion that he was beaten by the police and was required to

live away from house is also added in handwriting to the typed format. The

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap on the close scruitiny reveals that earlier it was

stated that in the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka and Antervali Naka

Dadarao Waman Misal resident of Khakarmoha Taluka Patoda district Beed

was with them along with many others. The word many others is addition to

earlier typed portion of 90 to 95. None of the additions have been signed or

initialed by anybody and to say the least these supporting affidavits are worth

less. They cannot be treated as affidavits in the sense of statements on oath

having the necessary sanctity. He has thereafter in the year 1999 filed

additional affidavit of himself supported by Manik Tulsiram Anubhule in

which there are no such additions, but he has named Manik Tulsiram Anbhule

for the first time, although in his affidavit dated 10.12.1997 he had mentioned

the names of as many as seven persons with whom he worked which did not

include the name of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap has

stated the incident in which he was sentenced to three months. This

respondent was not sentenced and mere addition of his name in the blank

space that he was also with them in the said incident is not sufficient to show

his involvement and as already pointed out the said affidavit itself is not

- 215 -

affidavit in the proper sense of the term. Although he claims in his affidavit

dated 10.12.1997 even the supporting freedom fighters state that he was

beaten by the police, when examined by Mane Committee he stated that police

had never beaten him. In this statement also he has not named Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule. He has also not quoted any of the incidents which he has

stated in earlier affidavits and which are stated in the affidavits of supporting

freedom fighters. On the contrary he stated that he used to collect grains and

money from the nearby villages but could not give any particulars as to from

where and from whom he had collected the same.

Considering the background of the persons filing supporting affidavits

in umpteen number of cases, the close scrutiny of the affidavits becomes

absolutely necessary. It clearly appears that when letter of Deputy Chief

Minister Minister was received and on the said letter the Member Secretary of

High Power Committee made endorsement that the file be immediately put up

for recommendation there was change in approach.

The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to make out the case

as per the requirements of the Government Resolution to prove his entitlement

under the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled and the

justice ab palkar commission of inquiry report volume-i

shri t

shri v

shri r

shri p

commission cases

commission shri kishor

freedom fighters pension

warrant cases

Documents

lorem ipsum/media/marketing/ch/...velux blinds and shutters...

assessing inquiry - guided inquiry design

sri lanka institute of development administration...1 m.s.d....

when is appreciative inquiry transformational? · 1. the...

chapter 5 business letter (i) eileen 1. the process of doing...

inquiry learning definition of inquiry what are the...

an inquiry into intercessionan inquiry into...

inup talk 2011 edited palkar

solenoid valve - cnc specialty storeab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab...

ab a dhika april mulya ab a...dhika april mulya ab rizka b...

sr.no. worker name registration no.jalna sr.no. worker name...

justice ab palkar commission of inquiry report volume iii

the desmond fatality inquiry - desmond inquiry

nudging towards inquiry: nnps inquiry process

inquiry | public inquiry...inquiry | public inquiry

result - arabic/ urdu/ sanskrit language teacher's … ·...

offload annotations: bringing heterogeneous computing to...

eurokamроялкерамика.рф/assets/files/i_rock.pdf ·...

inquiry based learning -...

svm06-047 ab ab ab - caproni- · pdf filesvm06-047 ab ab ab...