justice ab palkar commission of inquiry report volume-ii

Report

of

One Man Commission

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

Appointed

By

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

V/s

State of Maharashtra.

(VOLUME II)

2007

- 216 -

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

16-31

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

32-40

VII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES OF UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS

41-54

VIII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES BASED ON WARRANTS OF ARREST

55-71

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

217

XII. CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT AS WELL AS

HIS OR HER SPOUCE IS REPORTED DEAD AND

HENCE CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION

218

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

- 217 -

PART – XI

CASES IN WHICH FILES WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO

THE COMMISSION:

Sr.No. Case File

No.

Name of the Freedom

Fighter 1. 41 Raghunath Eknath Chaudhari 2. 62 Trimbak Dagdu Sanap (deceased)

Represented by Manjulabai Trimbak Sanap

3. 208 Kondibhau Bhanudas Gavhane

- 218 -

PART – XII

CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT AS WELL AS

HIS OR HER SPOUCE IS REPORTED DEAD

AND HENCE CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION.

Sr.No. Case File No. Name of the Freedom Fighter

1. 18 Sarubai Dyanoba Rakh

2. 39 Narayan Marotrao Kagde

3. 40 Ramabai Hanmant Pangarkar

4. 43 Shri.Vitthal Bhanudas Dhas (deceased) Represented by Chandrakant Vitthal Dhas

5. 71 Shyamrao Nanerao Talekar

6. 76 Sampat Tukaram Chaudhari (deceased) Represented by Anjanibai Sampat Chaudhari

7. 105 Mandakini Parshuram Chaudhari

8. 108 Laxman Dhondopant Sahastrabudhhe

9. 125 Namdeo Sakharam Surwase (deceased) Represented by Shewantabai Namdeo Surwase

10. 148 Sathiram Vittalrao Jadhav

11. 165 Achyut Ramrao Shinde

12. 183 Appaji Bappaji Sanap (deceased) Represented by heir

13. 190 Suryabhan Namdeo Misal

14. 260 Tulsabai Bhagawan Jagdale

15. 261 Laxmibai Yashwanta Chavan

16. 293 Vishwanath Ranganath Javkar

17. 352 Dagdu Rangnath Sali

- 219 -

PART – XIII

PARTICULAR CASES OF

UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS Sr. No.

Case File No.

Name of the Freedom Fighter Page No.

1. 1 Shri. Janardan Gopalrao Kulkarni 217

2. 2 Nivrutti Eknath Sanap 219

3. 4 Ramchandra Gopalrao Kulkarni 220

4. 5 Eknath Vamanrao Joshi 221

5. 6 Maroba Dagduba Vairage 223

6. 7 Lala Laxman Kidant 225

7. 9 Bhagwan Dhondiba Chaure 227

8. 13 Ramkisan Yeshwanta Rahale 230

9. 22 Deorav Ramji Shinde 232

10. 24 Sakharam Bajirrao Shinde 234

11. 28 Maruti Jayawant Dalvi 236

12. 35 Shashikala Rambhau Eksinge 239

13. 36 Narhari Raosaheb Karande 241

14. 37 Manik Narayan Sakhare 243

15. 38 Kisan Sarjerao Tole 245

16. 45 Raghunath Bhagoji Rakh 247

17. 47 Vithu Kisan Gayake 250

18. 55 Parwatibai Sadashiv Lahurikar 252

19. 59 Maruti Gangaram Bhanwar 254

20. 65 Satwaji Bapurao Dhakne 256

21. 70 Maruti Shripati Shinde 259

22. 73 Tukaram Maruti Pawar 261

23. 74 Mukta Bapu Dhas 263

24. 75 Bapurao Raosaheb Garje 265

25. 77 Nivrutti Jogu Anushe 267

26. 78 Bapurao Banduji Bhapkar 269

27. 79 Mathurabai Bajirao Tarte 271

28. 81 Janu Kisan Wanve 273

29. 83 Babasaheb Narayan Khade 275

30. 84 Wamanrao Maruti Kulkarni (deceased) Represented by Dwarkabai Wamanrao Kulkarni

276

31. 86 Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni 278

32. 87 Dhondiram Govind Labde (deceased) Represented by Laxmibai Dhondiram Labde

279

33. 98 Shivaji Limbaji Doiphode 281

34. 99 Prabhakar Bajirao Wanve 284

35. 100 Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni 286

36. 101 Rukhaminibai Vitthal Mirgane 288

37. 103 Madhav Kisan Mankale (deceased) Represented by Parwati Madhav Mankale

290

38. 104 Shrimram Waman Bharati 292

39. 106 Hemraj Premraj Meher 293

- 220 -

40. 109 Anandrao Sahebrao Dhosar 296

41. 112 Waman Punaj Sanap 298

42. 113 Raghunath Bayaji Wadge 300

43. 114 Uttam Shripati Shinde 302

44. 116 Lobha Dinga Wadmare 304

45. 117 Kisan Sakharam Pansande 306

46. 118 Kisan Shimram Tandale 308

47. 119 Manik Dyanyoba Chaure 310

48. 120 Dyandeo Jayawant Kakde 312

49. 121 Ashruba Rambhau Sonawane 315

50. 122 Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde 317

51. 129 Kishor Mahappa Jujgar (deceased) Represented by Vanamala Kishorappa Jujgar

319

52. 130 Wasant Bapurao Upare 321

53. 134 Waman Nivrutti Sanap 323

54. 135 Badrinarayan Ramchandra Toshtiwal 325

55. 136 Bhagwan Bapu Nagargoje 327

56. 137 Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale 329

57. 139 Praba Thakuba Garje 332

58. 140 Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale 334

59. 142 Sonaji Daji Dhole 336

60. 143 Ramchandra Nivrutti Nanaware 338

61. 144 Kamalabai Dattopant Hamine 341

62. 145 Chintaman Abaji Jaybhay 343

63. 146 Shripati Waman Sonawane 344

64. 150 Sahebrao Eknath Nagargoje 346

65. 157 Ajinath Sahebrao Wanve 348

66. 158 Limbabai Bapurao Pingle 350

67. 159 Appasaheb Devji Mahadik 352

68. 164 Sonaji Deorao Chaure 354

69. 166 Marotrao Tatyaba Sarpate 356

70. 167 Bhaurao Aabasaheb Bhanwar 357

71. 168 Sarjerao Kashinath Sanap 359

72. 173 Pandharinath Dajiba Baglane 361

73. 177 Ashruba Rambhau Jadhav 362

74. 179 Pandharinath Bhaguji Gite 364

75. 189 Shahurao Karbhari Sanap 368

76. 203 Trimbak Deoram Misal 370

77. 205 Uddhavrao Anandrao Shinde 371

78. 207 Bappasehed Madhavrao Shinde 373

79. 213 Keshav Sitaram Ghadge 375

80. 214 Ambadas Dhondiba Dhakne 377

81. 216 Bhanudas Sadhu Gagtap 380

82. 221 Eknath Savla Jaybhay 383

83. 232 Ranganath Haribhau Shelke 385

84. 234 Ramrao Nivrutti Solunke 387

85. 238 Ashruba Krishna Lokhande (deceased) Represented by Kaushalyabai Ashruba Lokhande

389

- 221 -

86. 240 Vitthal Yadavrao Rakh 392

87. 254 Bhagwan Yada Jagadale 394

88. 257 Rambhau Tulshiram Ghuge 396

89. 262 Sahebrao Ravji Chavan (deceased) Represented by Savitribai Sahebrao Chavan

398

90. 265 Dagdu Ganpati Dongre 401

91. 272 Ambadas Morotrao Wanve 403

92. 283 Bhiku Maruti Tupe 405

93. 286 Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande 407

94. 291 Eknath Bapurao Kolhe 410

95. 294 Kakasaheb Damodar Chavan 412

96. 295 Radhuji Khandu Wanve 414

97. 296 Dattatraya Babasaheb Badge 416

98. 297 Janrao Kisanrao Misal 418

99. 298 Bapuseb Bajirao Pawar 420

100. 302 Vitthal Nivrutti Misal 423

101. 304 Kashinath Aapparao Doiphode 425

102. 305 Sarjerao Khandu Wanve 427

103. 308 Aajinath Vithoba Mule (deceased) Represented by Kusum Aajinath Mule

429

104. 310 Raghunath Parshuram Shinde 431

105. 312 Keshav Maruti Wanve 433

106. 317 Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar 435

107. 320 Rama Manik Wanve 438

108. 321 Pandharinath Bapurao Nanaware 441

109. 323 Surbhan Baliram Jagtap 444

110. 324 Vitthal Madhavrao Mirale 446

111. 327 Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad 450

112. 328 Bhagwan Bajirao Latpate 452

113. 331 Balkrishna Dyanoba Misal 454

114. 332 Balbhim Tatyaba Bhilare 456

115. 334 Maroti Nana Golhar 457

116. 335 Bhujang Nivrutti Hange 460

117. 336 Sopan Deoji Doiphode 462

118. 337 Kisan Yadav Pawar 464

119. 340 Yamunabai Jagganath Javkar 466

120. 344 Dattatraya Vitthalrao Murtekar 469

121. 346 Haribhau Yadav Rakh 471

122. 350 Govind Bhagawat Jangire (deceased) Represented by Yamuna Govind Jangire

472

123. 351 Kisan Limbai Kadam (deceased) Represented by Radhabai Kisan Kadam

475

124. 354 Namdeo Sakharam Zagade (deceased) Represented by Anusayabai Namdeo Zagade

477

- 222 -

Case File No. 1 (Respondent No.1)

Full Name: Janardan Gopalrao Kulkarni deceased represented by wife Indubai.

He claimed pension as Underground freedom fighter. Application for claiming

pension as freedom fighter was filed on 22nd February 1996.

He stated in application that he was required to leave his house as his house

was burnt by Razakars. His wife died due to shock of this.

He has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and

Anna Eknath Telap who were convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment.

In his own affidavit dated 7th August 1997 ( 20.8.1997)he referred the names

of Waman Rao Vaze and Anna Eknath Telap as well as Namdev Khade and claimed

to have worked at Kharda camp. He was involved in the incident of ransacking vada

check post , house of police patil and also the office of the police patil.

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane stated that at Kharda camp Waman Vaze was the

chief and 90 to 95 groups of freedom fighters were working under him.

Similar is the statement of Anna Eknath Telap. He has however, stated that in

the incident of looting Antaravali check post, Janardan Gopal Kulkarni was with him

along with 50 to 60 persons . Whereas Nivrutti Dhakane does not refer to this

incident.

In another affidavit dated 21st August 1997 he states that in the incident of

attack on police choky along with Kashinath Jadhav, he was involved and there were

50 to 60 other persons.

In another affidavit filed on 19th November 1998 he stated that he was

working under Ramling Swami and Kashinathrao Jadhav along with P.V.Joshi of

Nandur.

- 223 -

In the meeting of Zilla Gaurav Samiti held on 29th January 1999 it is stated

that he has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters and he was connected with

Hyderabad Freedom Movements and his case is recommended.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the ground that he has filed

affidavits of two freedom fighters, who were sentenced in the freedom movement to

two years imprisonment.

On 12th March 1999 the Additional Collector, Beed had written letter to the

Section Officer, General Administration Department, Mantralaya that the evidence

produced in support did not fulfill the requirements of Government Resolution dated

4th July 1995. However, the High power Committee accepted the recommendation

and pension was sanctioned.

Mane Committee did not recommend his case because he did not name Anna

Eknath Telap in his statement but named Sahebrao Telap and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Although the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the same defect which are pointed out in the

general reasoning contained in separate part, his case appears to be case of real

hardship. His house was burnt by the Razakar and his wife died due to shock. One of

the members of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti P.V.Joshi who acted in the meeting of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti as a conscious keeper of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti by raising objections

whenever he found it appropriate recommended his case.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary

benefits granted to him need not be disturbed and recommends accordingly for

continuing the same.

- 224 -

Case file No. 2 (Respondent No.2)

Full Name: Nivrutti Dashrath Sanap.

He claimed pension as underground freedom fighter and in his application

filed on 16th October 1998 he stated that he worked at Kharda Camp with Sahebrao

Sanap, Namdeo Khade. He also filed affidavit of Namdeo Balavant Aher.

On 9th March 1999 Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for pension.

In his own affidavit dated 07.10.1998 he has named 7 well known freedom

fighters with whom he was working. He has also described meeting of Wamanrao

Vaze in which there was firing and the instance in which two constables of Nizam

Government were killed and two persons namely Limba Bappaji and Patil Buva

became martyrs having been killed by the Nizam police.

Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap support Nivrutti’s

activities from Kharda camp and various instances disclosed by him in his affidavits.

It is no doubt true that the fact that he was required to live away from his house was

stated by him for the first time on 07.10.1998 and said fact is contradicted by him

when his statement was recorded by the Mane Committee. However, for the

activities or the acts he was performing in the freedom movement he was residing at

Kharda camp away from his house cannot be denied and therefore merely for some

contradiction his claim cannot be rejected.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserves to be continued and recommends accordingly.

- 225 -

Case File No. 4 (Respondent No. 4)

Full Name: Ramchandra Gopal Kulkarni

He claimed pension as under ground freedom fighter. He is brother of

Janardan Gopal Kurlkarni (Case File No.1)

In the affidavit filed along with application he has only stated that he had gone

underground during the Hyderabad Movement. He stated in his affidavit dated

19.11.1998 that his house was burnt by Razakars and so he was compelled to give up

his education and live away from his house. He has filed additional affidavit of

Namdev Balawant Aher who supported his case made out in the subsequent affidavit.

The other freedom fighter Manik Tulsiram Anubhule also stated the similar story.

In the meeting dated 25th July 1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his

case.

The Additional District Collector wrote a letter to Section Officer, General

Administration Department, pointing out that he did not comply with the requirements

of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

High Power Committee refused to accept the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti.

Subsequently High Power Committee accepted the recommendation in view

of the supplementary affidavit in which incidents regarding requirements of

Government Resolution that he was required to live away from his house was stated.

He is recommended by one of the members of Zilla Gaurav Samiti Pabdurang

Waman Joshi and he is brother of Janardan Gopal Kulkarni and it is obvious that

since house of Gopalrao Kulkarni was burnt and wife of his brother died due to shock

of this incident, the entire family including Ramchandra Kulkarni suffered extreme

hardship as the house was burnt. There need not be any independent evidence to show

that he was required to live away from his house. Moreover as a result of house

having been burnt by the Razakars, he was compelled to give up his education and his

case is recommended by two freedom fighters having the necessary qualification as

prescribed by the Government Resolution and therefore Commission does not find

any defect in the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits to him. It is not required to

be interfered with and recommend accordingly for continuance thereof.

- 226 -


Full Name: Eknath Waman Joshi.

He applied for freedom fighters pension on the August 1995.

In the affidavit he stated that he was beaten and driven out of his house and

one Kasam driver took possession of his house.

He was harassed because he was not helping police to arrest his brother

whose house was burnt by Razakars. He therefore went underground. Khanderao

Digambar Kulkarni also supported his case.

He filed further affidavit on 1st July 1997 and stated the same facts. Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who were convicted and sentenced to two

years imprisonment have supported his case. However the names of Eknath Waman

Kulkarni is added in ink to typed affidavits of both the freedom fighters .

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on 9th July 1997 and the High

Power Committee accepted the same.

However, in his letter dated 10th July 1997 the Additional Collector informed

Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department that his case is not fit for

sanction for want of compliance with the Government Resolution.

His application shows that his house along with all utensils and household

articles was auctioned and the possession of the house was taken by one Kasim driver

and Murlidhar Kulkarni. He has referred a book written by Shriniwas Khot in respect

of Beed district Hyderabad freedom movement in which this incident is quoted.

He is real brother of Pandurang Vaman Joshi , Member of the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and it is further stated that P.V.Joshi being well known freedom fighter was

wanted by the police of Nizam as he could not be arrested, his son was burnt by the

police and when Eknath Joshi tried to intervene he was driven out of village and he

- 227 -

remained underground. The affidavits of two supporting freedom fighters Anna

Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity of addition of

name as found in other cases. He has also filed additional affidavits of Namdev

Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and they have supported the incident,

which he has narrated in his own affidavit as well as in his application.

Thus he has suffered a great hardship; he was driven out of village and was

naturally required to be away from his house by going underground and of the same

is supported by the other freedom fighters.

The Commission, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the grant of

Sanmanpatra and pentionary benefits to him and recommend continuation thereof

accordingly.

- 228 -


Full Name: Mariba Dagadu Vairage deceased represented by his wife Sojarbai.

He applied for pension on 11th August 1995 and in Form A he stated that he

was working as per the directions of Tatya Dhargal and Shaikh Omar. However, he

has not stated that he was required to leave village or he was beaten by the police. In

the affidavit dated 26th June 1997, he stated that worked under the leadership Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He has filed their affidavits.In both the

affidavits his name is added in ink to the typed affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the ground that the two

freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for two years have supported

his case.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his letter to Deputy Secretary, dated 6th

August 1997 stated that Mariba’s case was not fit for sanction as he did not comply

with provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High

Power Committee as his case was supported by two freedom fighters having

necessary qualification.

In his own affidavit dated 26.06.1997 he has added the names of Anna Eknath

Telap to the typed affidavit. In his own affidavit he has not stated that he took part in

burning the Pachangari Naka, Daskhed police patil office and wada to which

reference is given by the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane. In both the affidavits the name is added in ink to the typed affidavit.

He has filed additional affidavit dated 11.11.1998 stating that he was required to live

away from his house and in his affidavit he has referred to the incident of burning of

Pachangari naka. There is also supporting affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule who

was sentenced imprisonment for two years and has stated that Mariba Dagadu Vairage

was living with him for three to four months. He has filed further affidavit of

Namdev Balawant Aher dated 24.12.1997. However in this affidavit the name of

Mariba Dagadu Vairage is added after erasing one earlier sentence containing the

- 229 -

name of some other person and the entire portion of the name, village, taluka etc. are

written in space which was cleared after using the whitener to delete the earlier

portion. Thus the only proper affidavit is of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule whereas the

Government Resolution required him to file affidavits of two freedom fighters who

were sentenced to imprisonment for two years.

When he appeared before Mane Committee he was unable to make any

statement even he was unable to stand due to extreme old age. By the time

Commission issued summons he was no more and his wife Sojarbai filed affidavit

before the Commission. She has obviously no personal knowledge.

In view of the fact that out of four affidavits of supporting freedom fighters

filed by him three affidavits are defective and the statement contained therein

specially regarding his involvement in some activities against the Nizam Government

along with them is after thought and unreliable, he cannot be said to have complied

with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted deserve to be cancelled and the Commission

recommends accordingly.

.

- 230 -

Case File No. 7(Respondent No.7)

Full Name: Lala Laxman Kirdat.

He applied for pension on 4th January 1985. In the Proforma A filed with the

application he has stated that he had taken part in attacking police choky, check posts

and burning Government buildings.

When he applied in 1985 he had filed affidavits of persons who worked with

him viz. Uttam Patil Gavane and Devidas Nana Kadam. They were not convicted and

sentenced.

After the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 a letter was issued to

him and he filed additional affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Manik Tulisiram Anubhule.

In the affidavits of Niviruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of

Lala Laxman Kirdat is added in ink to the typed affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case. However, by letter dated

16th October 1997 the Additional Collector wrote to Deputy Secretary General

Administration Department that Lala did not comply with the provisions of the

Government resolution dated 4th July 1995.

However, the High Power Committee accepted the recommendation and

agreed with the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and recommended the case for grant of pension.

He appeared before Mane committee. His statement was recorded on oath and

in this statement he made completely contradictory statement to case earlier made out

by him and his supporters. He stated that his father had taken part in the freedom

movement and at that time he was aged 7 to 8 years. He himself did not take part in

the freedom movement. His application for pension was prepared by Kashinath

Jadhav who collected the documents and did everything necessary in that respect, no

warrant was issued against him he was not arrested, he was not beaten by the police.

His father was underground freedom fighter but since his father did not get any

- 231 -

pension Kashinath Jadhav made application for him and filed certain documents in

support of it. He is not aware as to which freedom fighter filed supporting affidavits

and he does not know Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Manik Tulshiram

Anbhule, and Namdeo Balwant Aher and he never knew that they were in the

freedom movement. This statement on oath made before Mane committee completely

falsifies his claim for Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits.

His father may be a freedom fighter as stated by him but it is no reason that

since the father did not get pension application can be moved by his son, who was of

tender age of 7 to 8 years during the freedom movement. In fact this is a fraudulent

claim although he himself may not be guilty of the fraud and the fraud as observed by

the Supreme Court vitiates any solemn proceeding and therefore, Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted be cancelled forthwith and the commission recommends

accordingly.

- 232 -

Case file No. 9 (Respondent No.9)

Bhagwan Dhondiba Chaure.

He applied for pension on 11.8.1995 alleging therein that he acted as

underground freedom fighter by attacking police chowkies, looting police posts, and

took part under the leadership of Babu Nana Gite and Namdeo Bapurao Khade.

In proforma A appended to the said application he stated that he worked under

the leadership of Babu Nana Gite at Kharda camp.

He has filed affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

who were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years.

In his affidavit filed on 11th August 1995 he has stated that he worked at

Kharada camp under the leadership of Ramling Swami with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane,

Wamanrao Vaze and Namdeo Khade, Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite. He

has filed affidavits of Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite. In both the affidavits

of his supporters it is stated that about 70 to 80 persons were working at Kharada

camp and Bhagwan Dhondiba was one of them.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 5th June 1997 recommended his

case on the ground that two convicted freedom fighters have supported his case.

The Additional Collector vide his letter dated 4th July1997 addressed to

Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department informed that there was no

compliance with provisions of Government Resolution dated 5th July 1995. And

therefore application could not be sanctioned.

The High Power Committee did not agree with the note put up by the office

stating that on going through the earlier documents and affidavits of the applicant

contrary statements were noticed and further more persons who recommended his

case for grant of pension Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher have given such recommendations to

hundreds of persons and therefore their affidavits are not reliable and it in fact

requires inquiry and the applicant’s claim be rejected and accordingly the High Power

Committee rejected his claim.

- 233 -

Thereafter he filed affidavits of Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite ,

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdeo Balawant Aher. One additional affidavit was

filed by him on 20th December 1997 and in the supporting affidavits filed along with

this further affidavit , it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away

from house for four or five months.

Advocate N.S.Jadhav pointed out that in the supporting affidavits the name of

Bhagwan Dhondiba Chaure is added afterwards as the name is typed in both the

affidavits after the earlier portions was typed.

He filed another affidavit on 16th November 1998 wherein he stated that he

was beaten by the police and he received severe injuries on his back and feet and he

was required to stay away from his house for eight to ten months and along with it he

filed affidavits of Namdeo Balavant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap stating that

he was required to live away from his house for about ten months and was beaten by

the police.

Advocate Jadhav pointed out how the applicant has improved his case by

stating additional facts and how the persons supporting his case have also changed

their versions to suit his case.

These latter affidavits were directly sent to the Member Secretary of the High

Power Committee who had earlier raised objection to the extent of stating that inquiry

is necessary as the said freedom fighters have filed similar affidavits supporting

hundreds of applicants.

On 31st January 2003 he appeared before the Mane Committee. He has not

stated in the statement that that he was required to live away from his house.

However, he named Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Sopan Nana Bangar, Namdev

Tatya Bangar as a persons with whom he had worked. He only stated that they took

part in morcha and burnt the check post.

In fact the member secretary High Power Committee adv. Rajabhau Zarkar in

his note dated 16.04.1998 rightly pointed out that in there was no mention of all the

persons on whose affidavits he relied upon and the statements contained therein were

contradictory to the earlier version. Moreover, Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Sona Rama

Jaybhay, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo Balvant Aher have filed such

affidavits in innumerable cases and are not reliable and the matter requires enquiry

- 234 -

regarding the persons filing such affidavits in innumerable cases. It is also stated that

the same Advocate Tandale identified all the deponents before the authority.

Considering the date of this note, it is surprising as to how in this case as well

as in other cases the affidavits of the very same freedom fighters were blindly

accepted without even considering the defects, by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as

by the High Power Committee.

Further surprising aspect is that after this note when the claim was rejected

and he was informed by the Government, he again applied through the member

secretary of the High Power Committed who had put the aforesaid strong note and

thereafter note was put up that he had taken part in the Hyderabad Freedom

Movement as underground freedom fighter and the statement of his sufferings in his

affidavit explained that he was required to live away from his house and his brother

was also arrested by the police and therefore, he has complied with the provisions

4.7.1995 Government Resolution. Thereafter, same member secretary put up a note

that considering the affidavits filed, the claim be sanctioned and the same was

accordingly sanctioned.

The earlier view taken by the Government was correct. There was need to

make enquiry against the persons who were indiscriminately filing affidavits and

supporting various applicants, by showing that they have taken part in the very same

incident as pointed out in the general reasons of the underground freedom fighter’s

cases. The number of freedom fighters to whom these freedom fighters have given

supporting affidavit is also stated by the Commission. It is obvious that for some

reason which is inexplicable there was sudden change in the approach of secretary to

High Power Committee.

The Commission is of the considered view that the earlier rejection was proper

and there was no justification for change in view. The Commission therefore finds

that the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to him deserve to be and

be cancelled forthwith and commission recommends accordingly.

- 235 -


Ramkrisan Yeshwanta Rahale

He claims pension as underground freedom fighter . In his application filed on

14th August 1995, statement in column no 6 is that he worked as underground

freedom fighter in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram under the leadership of Kashinath

Jadhav.

In the affidavit filed on 14th August 1998 he merely stated that he took part in

the said movement under the Leadership of Kashinath Tatyasaheb Jadhav. Similar

statement is made by the persons supporting him namely Achyut Shankar Gavane and

Ashruba Jayaji Gavane.

He was issued notice probably in view of the Government Resolution of 4th

July 1995 and thereafter for the first time he stated in his affidavit to have worked

under the Leadership of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and deceased

Vamanrao Vaze and filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane in which, the name of

freedom fighter is written in ink in typed affidavit. He also filed affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay which is also of similar type and similar contents and additions.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21st July 1997 recommended his

case for grant of pension based on the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane.

Thereafter the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 26th July

1997 that he did not comply with the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4th

July 1995.

The High Power Committee, against the note of the Department in favour of

sanctioning, made endorsement on 17th November 1997 that the claim be rejected and

rejected it. This note is of Member Secretary and claim was accordingly rejected.

- 236 -

He complained to the Lokayukta and further note was put up.

The High Power Committee reconsidered the case in the light of this note and

affidavits filed earlier and his statement that he was required to live away from his

house for five to six months and sanctioned the pension. No new material was placed

on record to change the opinion.

The affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakne and Sona

Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same defects and infirmities that the names are

inserted afterwards in the typed affidavit and they are stereo type as in other cases.

The earlier note put up to the High Power Committee merely stated that he appeared

to have been connected with Hyderabad Freedom Movement but there was no

mention of the fact that he had complied with the provisions of Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The claim was rightly rejected.

However as stated above the High Power Committee changed its view and

sanctioned pension although no additional evidence was produced.

Thus the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters were defective as the

addition of name and other alterations were not signed or initialed. The statement that

he was required to live away from home was afterthought and for reasons not known,

the High Power Committee took a somersault and sanctioned the claim.

In the Commission’s view this was improper and is unacceptable and remains

unexplained. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and

be cancelled as he failed to comply with the Government Resolution dated 4th July

1995.

- 237 -

Case No. 22 (Respondent No.22)

Shri Devrao Ramji Shinde

Devrao Ramji Shinde filed application on 14th August 1995 claiming pension

as underground freedom fighter stating therein that he worked underground under the

leadership of Kashinath Jadhav in connection with attacks on Madalmohi, Padalsingi

out posts and Ahergaon Razakar centre etc.

He filed affidavit on 14th August 1995. He also filed affidavit of Sahebrao

Tukaram Bhavad resident of Takalgaon. Dhutarmal and Bansi Umaji Wagmode.

These affidavits are extremely vague. He filed affidavit of freedom fighters who were

sentenced to two years imprisonment namely Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane dated 2nd July 1997 which are stereo type and in both the affidavits his name

is written in ink in the blank space left in the affidavit.

He again filed affidavit of Namdeo Balavant Aaher and Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule on 19th January 1999 and further affidavit of himself. In this affidavit he

stated that he stayed away from his house for ten months and since he was working

underground he was not beaten by the police. The persons supporting him have not

stated that he was required to live away from his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting held on 8th December 1997 referred to

the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and recommended

his case for grant of pension in view of two affidavits filed in support of his case.

On 14th August 1998 the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary

that Devrao did not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th

July 1995 and the case was not fit for recommendation.

The High Power Committee sanctioned pension in view of recommendation of

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. He forwarded his own affidavit dated 19.1.1999 and two

supporting affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule of the

same date directly to the Member Secretary, High Power Committee, Advocate

Rajabhau Zarkar.

- 238 -

In pursuance of notice issued by Mane Committee he appeared. When he was

asked “how he is getting pension for last four to five years”, he could not reply. His

son Sudam Devrao Shinde was present when his statement was recorded and he told

that Maruti Kakade had filed application for his pension and got pension sanctioned .

He does not have any document to show that he was a freedom fighter. He was not

required to stay away from his house and was not beaten by the police and there was

no warrant against him.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has not stated anything worth

nothing.

Although in the affidavit dated 19.01.1999 he stated that he was required to

live away from his house and he was working from Domri Camp as well as Pachangri

Camp, he made contradictary his statement which falsified his earlier version, when

examined before Mane Committee. From the statement recorded on oath by Mane

Committee, he appears to be simpleton and stated that he can not explain what was

done for securing Sanmanpatra and pension and his son Sudam who was present

when statement was recorded stated that for securing pension for his father one

Maroti Kakade ( Since deceased) had done the necessary act of filing application etc.,

He has no document to show that he was a freedom fighter. He was not driven out of

village and was not beaten by the police and no warrant was issued against him. In

short, he could not assert that he did take part in the freedom movement and was

involved in any particular incident or activity against the Nizam Government. The

statement in his affidavit that he was required to live away from his house is

obviously afterthought and unreliable and there was no compliance with the

provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The affidavit of supporting

freedom fighters Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same

defect of addition of names to the typed format of affidavits and the other affidavits

obviously contain statements which are afterthought. The other two affidavits were

not before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

The Commission, therefore finds that he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits and the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the

Commission recommends accordingly.

- 239 -


Shri Sakharam Bajirao Shinde

Sakharam Bajirao Shinde filed application for grant of pension on 9th October

1996 and in column No.3 and 4 he stated that he worked in the Hyderabad Freedom

Movement as underground freedom fighter under the Leadership of Kashinath Rao

Jadhav.

He filed affidavit of Sakharam Bajirao Shinde and Sudam Lakshamanrao

Waghmare and Achuyutrao Shankar Gavane who are getting pension as freedom

fighters.

He was issued notice dated 9th October 1996 i.e. after Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995. He then filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane which are stereo type and in which the name of Sakharam Bajirao Shinde is

typed afterwards and the other portion of draft affidavit was kept ready as can be seen

by necked eye.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting on 23rd December 1997 refused to

recommend his case. However the earlier cyclostyled portion about the

recommendation for sanction was not scored out though wherein it was clearly stated

that case was not fit and as per rules and could not be recommended.

Thereafter on 4th July 1998 Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter to the

Deputy Secretary that the case is not fit for grant of pension as applicant did not

comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The matter was then placed before the High Power Committee and the High

Power Committee referred to the affidavits of the Freedom Fighters Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as well as Aaher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and

sanctioned pension.

In his original application he has not stated that he was required to leave his

house or was beaten by the police and stated for the first time that he was required to

live away from his house for about nine months. The freedom fighters supporting

him did not state in their affidavits that he was required to leave his house.

- 240 -

Before the Mane Committee he stated that his father had taken part and police

were making inquiries, regarding whereabouts of his father. His father got pension as

freedom fighter. He had specifically stated that his father got pension because

Kashinath Jadhav and his wife had love and affection for his father. He has not done

any work, he was only providing bread (bhakari). He does not possess any documents.

He has filed a detailed affidavit before this Commission reiterating the same facts.

However, there is no statement regarding compliance with Government Resolution.

In the minutes of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti meeting the Chairman has clearly

written in his own hand writing that ‘case is not fit for sanction as there is no

compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution.’ However, the earlier

cyclostyle portion regarding recommendation, which should have been deleted by

adding this sentence remains as it is. This addition of the sentence by the Chairman

and signature of all members therein clearly show that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not

recommend the case for sanction.

However note put up, to the High Power Committee is that the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti unanimously recommended his case. Thus High Power Committee was

mislead by the note put up.

In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

his name is added to the typed affidavit.The difference of the ink is so obvious that it

clearly appears to have been typed afterwards. Moreover their affidavits speak of the

same incidents which they have stated in almost all supporting affidavits filed by

them in different cases and in general reasoning part there is detailed discussion

regarding the nature of their affidavits and the reliability, validity and acceptability

thereof.

Before Mane Committee he specifically admitted that he had not done any

work in the freedom movement except providing breads and from the statement it also

appears that even his father got pension because of wife of Kashinath Jadhav named

Anusuyabai belongs to his village and was residing in his neighborhood and therefore,

Kashinath Jadhav had love and affection for his father. As admitted by him, he

merely provided breads (bhakari) and did not take part in any activity against Nizam

Government, he has not complied with any provisions of Government Resolution and

his claim was liable to be rejected and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti rightly refused to

recommend his case. Therefore the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him

deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 241 -


Shri Maruti Jaywanta Dalvi

Maruti Jaywanta Dalvi applied for pension on 23rd January 1990 and in his

application he stated to have taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. However

in the affidavit filed on 16th January 1991 he has stated that warrant was issued

against him and therefore he suffered. In support of his claim he filed affidavits of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. In both the affidavits filed on 27th

January 1997 name of the applicant is written in the blank space left open in the typed

affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 20th June 1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension in view of two supporting affidavits of persons who were

sentenced to not less than two years for their activities in the Hyderabad Freedom

Movement.

The Additional Collector in his letter dated 10th July 1997 informed the

Deputy Secretary that his case was not fit for sanction, as he did not comply with the

requirement of the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 inspite of the said

fact, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had recommended his case.

The matter went to the High Power Committee and on 17th November 1997

the High Power Committee observed ‘he does not comply with the requirements of

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, his pension cannot be sanctioned’ and

rejected his claim.

Thereafter the decision of rejecting the claim of applicant was informed to

him. After that the applicant filed two more affidavits along with his own affidavit

dated 11th November 1998. The affidavits of one Namdev Balawant Aher dated 8

th

December 1998 and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule dated 5th September 1998.

- 242 -

Thereafter he filed further affidavit dated 11.1.1998 and along with it

produced affidavits of Namdev Balwant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. His

later affidavit and these two affidavits contain incidents not referred to by him earlier

or even by the other two freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane.

After these additional affidavits were filed, the note to the High Power

Committee stated, that in view of this new evidence, the file is put up again for

consideration. It is further stated that he had not produced copy of warrant although

he claimed that arrest warrant was issued. The claim was rejected after which he has

filed two additional affidavits.

The note further states that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case

and he has complied with the requirements and the claim be sanctioned and thereafter

claim was sanctioned on 29th January 2000.

However on going through the file it can be seen, in the meantime the then

Minister of State for Rural Development Shri Badamrao Pandit had addressed a

letter to the Member Secretary Rajabhau Zarkar, Advocate that his case be

recommended for grant of pension. It is obvious that after this letter, a fresh note was

put up.

In his statement before Mane Committee he stated that no warrant was ever

issued against him and he was also never required to live away from his house and did

not state anything about the other requirements of the Government Resolution. In fact

he clearly stated that he did not take part in strike or any other activity against Nizam

Government.

He filed affidavit before this Commission after issuance of notice wherein he

has named other freedom fighters namely Lahanu Bhondave, Bhimrao Shinde and

others.

After earlier rejection of his claim he filed affidavit dated 11.11.1998 wherein

it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for 11

months. He has also stated that the incident in which two persons namely Limba

Bappaji, Sanap Yadav Patil, Buva Sanap were killed by the Nizam police and after

- 243 -

this incident for protection about 400 to 500 persons including him attacked Nizam

police with sticks, guns etc. at Wadzari and in the firing by these freedom fighters

two police constable of Nizam Government were killed. In the first part of the

affidavit he has stated that in all the acts including the incident quoted above Namdev

Balawant Aher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap were with him.

However, Namdev Balawant Aher does not refer to this serious incident, in the

supporting affidavit and even Manik Tulsiram Anbhule does not refer to this serious

incident. Such a serious contradiction would normally not be found if all the three

were party to the said incident. The earlier rejection was correct. However, entire

approach changed after the letter of Minister dated 5th July 1999 on which the

Member Secretary Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar put up note to place the matter for

reconsideration.

When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

on oath. He did not make reference to the aforesaid incident in which two police of

Nizam Government were killed. He merely stated that freedom fighters used to come

to their village and he used to provide them bread (bhakari) tea etc. He did not take

part in any strike or any other activity against Nizam Government. In view of this it is

obvious that the detailed affidavit filed at later stage does not contain truthful version.

The Commission is therefore of the considered view that Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits have been granted to him wrongly and in the absence of necessary

grounds in existence and evidence of compliance with the Government Resolution

and the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 244 -


Smt. Shashikala Rambhau Eksinghe

Rambhau Yesuba Eksinghe deceased represented by wife Shashikala.

In the application filed by Rambhau Yesuba Eksinghe on 4th June 1998 stated

to have worked along with Aashraji Jagatap in the freedom movement against the

Government of Nizam and in the affidavit dated 7th February 1998 he stated that he

worked, as congress worker giving slogans of “Vande Mataram” and “Mahatma

Gandhi ki Jai.” He was also involved in the activity of burning Karodgiri naka and

since the police were in search of him, he went to Mirajgaon camp. He stated that

razakars used to come to their village along with ten to fifteen persons. He was

keeping watch to protect the villagers.

After the notice dated 19th August 1996, he sent letter to the Collector on 15

th

August 1997 stating that he was required to live away from his house for about four to

six months along with Asharji Raoji Jagtap head of Mirajgaon camp. However he

was not beaten by the police and there were groups involving 90 to 95 persons who

were working underground. He filed the affidavit of two freedom fighters who were

sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years namely Eknath Anna Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane along with his own affidavit. In both the affidavits the name

Rambhau Yeshuba is added in handwriting which is not signed or initialed by any

body. He has also filed additional affidavit, stating different incidents which were

not in the earlier affidavit and has filed affidavits of Shebrao Ganapati Sanap and

Manik Tulshiam Anbhule.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 6.11.1997 recommended his

case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane.

- 245 -

However, the Additional Collector, Beed in his letter dated 14.7.1998

addressed to the Secretion Officer noted that the requirements of 4th July 1995

Government Resolution provisions 3B(1) A.B.C. , 3 and 4 were not fulfilled.

Thereafter matter was placed before the High Power Committee and the note

put up stated names of persons who filed additional affidavits of viz. Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and sanctioned pension on 20.10.1999.

As he is no more his wife appeared before the Mane Committee and naturally

she has no personal knowledge.

The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira filed in support of

Rambhau Yesuba have the same defect as in other cases. After notice was issued to

him in view of the Government Resolution of 4.7.1995, he filed detailed affidavit on

19.8.1996 along with supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik

Tulshiram Anbhule. These affidavits were before the High Power Committee when

his case was considered by the High Power Committee in view of his additional

affidavit and the supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik

Tulshiram Anbhule. The incidents stated in these three affidavits are consistent and

his statement in the affidavit is corroborated by the two supporting freedom fighters.

There is compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution of 4.7.1995 and

merely because earlier two affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne relied upon by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti were defective, it would be unjust to

reject his claim or to say that the said claim was wrongly considered by the High

Power Committee on untenable grounds and the Commission therefore finds that

there is no reason to interfere with the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits

sanctioned to him and recommends the continuation thereof.

- 246 -


Shri Narhari Raosaheb Karande

He has filed application on 11th September 1995 claiming pension as

underground freedom fighter and in his application he has stated that he worked under

Ramling Swami and Kashinath Jadhav. He addressed a letter dated 12th May 1997 to

the District Collector and along with it; he sent affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

A letter was addressed to him by the Section Officer on 10th June 1998 for

compliance with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. He

then sent affidavits of Narhari Raosaheb Karande and Namdev Balavant Aher.

He also sent his own affidavit stating that he was working under the leadership

of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. He was required to live away from the house and could

not take education because of that and filed affidavits of Namdeo Balavant Aaher and

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 13th April 1998 and in both the affidavits his name is

written in ball pen in the typed affidavits. The supporting affidavits do not state that

he was required to live away from his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in meeting dated 25.07.1997 referred to the affidavits

of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap however, refused to recommend

his case on the ground that the earlier statement in the application was contradictory.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary General

Administration Department on 29th July, 1998 on the ground of non compliance of

the requirements of Government Resolution. The member secretary High Power

Committee, advocate Rajabhau Zarkar endorsed in his note that the application be

rejected.

Thereafter, he complained to the Lok Ayukata and the matter was

reconsidered in view of this complaint to the Lok Ayukata .

- 247 -

Note put up to the High Power Committee thereafter, states that he has filed

affidavit of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment as required by

the Government Resolution. He took part in the freedom movement from Kharda

Camp and was involved in the incident of attack of Pachangri Naka and burning

office and wada of police patil Daskhed, and there are supporting affidavits of

Namdeo Balvantrao Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. The statements in these

affidavits are consistent with the statements in his affidavit and so High Power

Committee granted his application. He appeared before Mane Committee and his

statement was recorded on 4th February, 2003. He stated that he did not know

Wamanrao Waze and he was directed by Ramling Swami to provide breads ( Bhakri)

to freedom fighters and he used to carry 100 breads (Bhakri) from his house. He has

not referred to any activity in the freedom movement against Nizam Government and

therefore the statement in his affidavit and the affidavits of the supporting freedom

fighters are unreliable as he himself when examined on oath by Mane Committee did

not tell a single word about the said activities. Accepting his word that he provided

breads (Bhakri) to the persons working in Kharda Camp, he does not became a

freedom fighter entitled to Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits and therefore the

same granted to him on untenable grounds deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith

and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 248 -


Shri Manik Narayan Sakhare

Applied for pension as underground freedom fighter vide application dated

30th May 1995. In the application he stated that he worked under the Leadership of

Kasinath Jadhav .

After the notice was issued to him on 3rd August 1999 he filed affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane dated 30th July 1997 the name of Manik Narayan Sakhare resident of Beed is

typed afterwards as the original affidavit is carbon copy and name of Manik Narayan

Sakhare is added in original type written letters. Similar is the affidavit of Anna

Eknath Telap, in which the name Manik Narayan Sakhare is added and clearly

appears to be typed afterwards in the affidavit already typed.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10th December 1997

recommended the case for grant of pension in view of the affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter dated 16th July 1998 to

the Deputy Secretary taking objection to the grant of pension as per recommendation

of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti for the non compliance with the provisions of the

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

In the meantime he had filed additional affidavit dated 27th April 1998 in view

of notice received after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995,

stating that being underground freedom fighter he had to live away from his house .

He cannot produce any evidence. As he was away from house he could not take

education. There was no question of being beaten by the police. He has already filed

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. Now he is filing

affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aaher. In the affidavit

of Namdeo Balawant Aher dated 27th April 1998 the name of Manik Narayan Sakhare

is hand written in typed affidavit in portion kept blank for addition of name.

- 249 -

The High Power Committee granted pension in view of the statement that he

was required to live away from his house and affidavits filed in support.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and in his statement, he has merely

stated that he was providing bread (bhakari) in police action and at that time he was

aged nine years. His parents were poor. He did not attend school. He was providing

breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters and remained underground.

Although, he has filed four affidavits of supporting freedom fighters who were

qualified to file such affidavits, fact remains that for the first time in the affidavit filed

after notice was issued to him after the Government Resolution, he made statement

that he was required to live away from his house. In his own affidavit, he has not

mentioned the incident of setting fire to Pachangri Naka or Daskhed Police Patil

Wada, to which reference is made in affidavits of the four supporting freedom fighters

namely Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, and

Namdeo Balwant Aher. The name of Manik Narayan Sakhare is added afterwards to

the typed written affidavit and although they have referred to the incident of setting

fire to Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil Wada and office, the freedom fighter

himself has not stated about these incidents in his own affidavit and this appears to be

real position because when he was called by the Mane Committee he stated that he

was only providing breads ( Bhakri) to the camp and did not referred to any activity in

which he took part in the freedom movement. Even accepting that he was providing

breads to the persons residing at cam, he does not became a freedom fighter.

Moreover, he further stated that at the time of police action he was serving in a hotel

and he was then aged about 9 years. It is therefore, also not probable that he could

have taken part in any activity against the Nizam Government at such tender age of 9

years that also when he was serving in hotel. This also falsifies his statement that he

was required to live away from his house which is afterthought statement and

obviously he has done only the work of providing breads (bhakri).

In view of these facts and circumstances, he is not a freedom fighter at all and

is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve

to be and be cancelled forthwith and the commission recommends accordingly.

- 250 -


Shri Kisan Sarjerao Sole

Kisan Sarjerao Sole filed application on 2nd June 1988 wherein he stated that

he has worked under Ashraj Raoji Jagtap by giving slogans as “Vande Matram”,

“Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai.” As razakar police were in search of him, he lived away

from his housel and joined Mirajgaon camp.

In his affidavit dated 26th May 1988 he stated that he had attended the

Mirajgaon camp. He has filed affidavits of Asraji Raoji Jagtap, Dr. Achyut Amrut

Rasal and Mohan Narhari Deth.

He addressed a letter to the District Collector on 9th June 1997 and filed

affidavits which include affidavit of Mohand Narhari Deth, Namdeo Balavant Aher

and Sahebrao Ganapti Sanap.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29th October 1997 stated that

he has filed affidavits of Asraji Raoji Jagatap and Achyut Amrit Rasal along with

their jail certificates and affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth and Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended his case for grant of pension.

Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter dated 5th November

1997 to the Deputy Secretary taking exception to recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti as there was no compliance with the provisions of the Government Resolution

dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee stated in the note that he had taken part in the

freedom movement against the Government of Nizam and Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended his case for sanction and sanctioned the pension to him on 18th

September 1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee on 4th February 2003 and merely stated

that he supplied bread (bhakari), he was working under Ashraji Raoji Jagtap, he used

- 251 -

to carry bread for 20 to 22 persons every day from his village and he remained

underground.

After the notice was issued by the Commission he sent an application that

whatever he stated in the earlier application was correct and he had complied with the

requirements of Government Resolution and produced copy of affidavit dated 26th

May 1988.

The first defect in the claim of the respondent is that out of the three

supporting freedom fighters the only person qualified to support on the ground that he

was sentenced to two years imprisonment is Dr. Acchutrao Amrut Rasal. Mohan

Narhari Deth as well as Asraji Ravji Jagtap were not qualified to file supporting

affidavits which fact was noted by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti Member, Mr. P.V. Joshi

but was igonored by High Power Committee. Even the supporting affidavit of Dr.

Achyut Amrut Rasal is of no assistance to Kisan Sarjerao Sole in as much as what is

stated in the said affidavit dated 6.3.1997 by Dr. Rasal is that Kisan Sarjerao Sole

worked with him in the freedom movement of India against British Government and

thereafter, he has added one sentence that he ( Dr. Rasal) also worked in the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement as underground freedom fighter. But he does not state

that alongwith him Kisan Sarjerao Sole was also working in that freedom

movement and the sentence in the affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal that he

also worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Fighter movement as underground freedom

fighter is also added to the earlier typed affidavit in the blank space between two lines

and this addition is obvious to the naked eye and is not signed or initialed by any

body.

From the statement on oath recorded by Many Committee, his claim of being a

freedom fighter is completely falsified as the only activity which he claims to have

done in the freedom movement is of supplying breads (Bhakri) to the persons at the

camp. He himself has not taken part in any activity against the Government of

Nizam. His statement in the affidavit dated 26.05.1988 to the effect that he took

active part in the freedom movement which he had not earlier stated in the application

and which affidavit is produced before the Commission for the first time is falsified

by his own statement recorded by the Mane Committee.

- 252 -

He is therefore, not a freedom fighter in the proper sense of the term and is

not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to

be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

Case File No. 45 ( Respondent No. 45)

Shri Raghunath Bhagoji Rakh

Shri Raghunath Bhagoji Rakh in his application stated that he cut shindi trees

and obstructed recovery of levy by the Government. He filed affidavit in Proforma in

which he stated name of Wamanrao Vaze.

A notice was sent to him on 6th July 1997 probably in view of 4

th July 1995

Government Resolution. He had filed one more affidavit on 18th January 1998 and

stated therein that since he had worked underground warrant was issued against him

and after the notice he filed further affidavit dated 28th December 1998 in which he

stated that he had to live away from his house for ten to twelve month.

In supporting, he filed affidavits of Shri Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and

Namdeo Balavant Aaher. They, however, did not state that he was required to live

away from his house for ten to twelve months.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29th January 1999 referred to

the affidavit filed by him after the notice and the affidavits of two freedom fighters

viz. Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and recommended his

case for grant of pension.

However, the Additional Collector by his letter dated 20th March 1999

addressed to the Section Officer objected to the grant of pension stating that he did

not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti

and pointed out that he had complied with the requirements of the Government

Resolution and pension was sanctioned on 2nd July 1999.

- 253 -

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on

5.2.2003 wherein he stated that he provided breads ( Bhakri) to Domri Camp

and also provided the same to Madhav Dhondiba, Ashruba Dhondiba who were

arrested because they had cut Sindhi tree. He claims that arrest warrant was issued

against him but he has not been able to produce any copy of warrant and therefore

case has been dealt with throughout as of underground freedom fighter. He has earlier

filed an affidavit on 18.01.1991 wherein he did not name the freedom fighter who

have now filed affidavits in his support. He merely stated that there were many

persons working with him and also stated that warrant was issued against him.

After notice issued to him in view of the Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995, he filed on 3.7.97 detailed affidavit and made out entirely different case

wherein he disclosed names of freedom fighters Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Karbhari

Tatya Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balvant

Aher as the persons under whose guidance he worked. He also referred to the

meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and the attack by Nizam Police on that meeting and the

consequent firing. He further stated the incident in which Baburao Dhondiba Rakh

and Gunaji Manaji Vanve were killed by the Nizam Police and stated to have taken

part in buring of Karodgiri Naka at Rohatwadi, claiming that Manik Tulshiram

Anbhule and Namdeo Balvant Aher had also taken part alongwith him. The affidavit

of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule also referred to the incident of burning of Karodgiri

Naka at Rohatwadi and burning of Daskhed police Patil office and Wada and similar

is the affidavit of Namdeo Balvant Aher.

However, when called by Mane Committee his statement was recorded he

merely stated the story of having provided bread (Bhakri) and that too to two

persons who were arrested for having cut Shindi trees. He has not stated any other

incident in which he was involved in the freedom movement and this statement

recorded by Mane Committee entirely falsifies the version in his affidavit as well as

supporting affidavits of two freedom fighters who even otherwise as found by the

Commission and pointed out by the High Power Committee that they have given

supporting affidavit to innumerable persons, as stated in the reasoning contained in

general reasoning of underground freedom fighter’s cases. The version in his

- 254 -

affidavits and in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters is falsified by his own

statement on oath recorded on 5 February, 2003 by Mane Committee so he can be not

said to be entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

Therefore, according to the Commission, he has claimed the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits on grounds that did not exist and the claim is supported by the

statements in the affidavits, which are proved to be false from his own version

recorded by Mane Committee.

The Commission, therefore finds that he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith


- 255 -

Case File No. 47 ( Respondent No. 47)

Shri Mithu Kisan Gayake

Mithu Kisan Gayake applied for grant of pension on 7th July 1990 and in the

application stated that he worked in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and claimed pension

as underground freedom fighter.

A notice was issued to him on 16th July 1997 after issuance of new

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and in reply he sent affidavits of two freedom

fighters Shri Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. In the affidavit of

Shri Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane there is no statement that he was

required to live away from the house. It is however stated that he was working as

underground freedom fighter.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9th December 1997 recommended the

case for grant of pension in view of two affidavits of freedom fighters mentioned

above.

However the Additional Collector, Beed wrote to the Deputy Secretary

General Administration Department on 14th September 1998 that the applicant is

fulfilling the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee granted pension in view of the recommendation

of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 29th July 1998.

In his statement before the Mane Committee, Mithu Kisan Gayake stated on

oath on 5th February 2003 that he was required to live away from house for one

month. He was visiting Kharda camp and for about one and half month he was

absconding.

- 256 -

After the notice was issued to him in view of Government Resolution of

4.7.1995, he had filed detailed affidavit dated 4.5.1998 alongwith affidavit of Namdeo

Balvant Aher dated 20.04.1998 and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 20.04.1998. The

incidents narrated by him in his later affidavit are also stated in the affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters as well as stated by him in a statement recorded by Mane

Committee and being underground freedom fighter he was required to live away from

the house.

In substance, he has complied with the requirement of Government Resolution

of 4.7.1995 and his entitlement can not be questioned. The Commission therefore

does not find any defect in the recommendation and grant of Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits to him and recommends the continuation thereof.

- 257 -

File Case No. 55 (Respondent No. 55)

Sadashiv Vithal Lahurikar (Deceased) represented by wife

Smt. Parwatibai Sadashiv Lahurikar

He has claimed pension as under ground Freedom Fighter by application dated

17.8.1989. Earlier he filed affidavits of two Freedom Fighters and of “Kendra

Pramukh” Namdevrao Khade. After the notice issued in view of Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995 he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case in view of affidavits of Anna

Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne.

High Power Committee agreed with the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Committee and sanctioned the pension.

As he died his widow Parwatibai appeared before the Mane Committee but

she has no personal knowledge of activities of her husband and her statement is not

material.

On perusal of the file it is seen that he had moved his application for grant of

pension as early as in the year 1989 on which no action was taken upto 1994 and he

was required to approach High Court by filing writ petition. Thereafter, he filed

necessary documents but his case was not taken up for consideration and ultimately

after the 1995 Government Resolution, he was called upon to file additional

documents and to comply with the provisions of Government Resolution so he filed

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne who were sentenced to

two years imprisonment and were qualified to file supporting affidavits. He has

wrtitten detailed letter to Lok Ayukt stating his entire case. It is true, that the affidavit

of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity

which is found in all other cases but only on that ground the claim if otherwise

genuine can not be rejected. Earlier he did not rely upon their affidavits. He relied on

- 258 -

affidavits of “Kendra Pramukh” Shri Khade and two other freedom fighters. He has

been pursuing the remedy and was required to file affidavits only because his claim

remained pending. By filing the same, he complied with the requirements of


There is therefore no reason to interfere with the findings and the order of the

Government sanctioning pension to him and grant of Sanmanpatra. The Commission

finds accordingly and recommends continuation of the same.

- 259 -


Shri Maruti Gangaram Bhanwar

Respondent filed application on 11.08.1995 as under Ground Freedom

Fighter and it is stated in the application he worked under leadership of

Ashruba Jagtap.

In first application dated 09.08.1995, he has named only Ashruba Jagtap.

However, after he was directed to produce supporting documents he produced

affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changediya and Mohan Narhari Deth. In

both the affidavits his name is added in ink to the written portion already typed on the

stamp paper. These two persons Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan

Narhari Deth have worked in the Freedom Movement of India against British Rule

and not in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

He has also filed affidavits of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap on 17.02.1999. These two affidavits were sent directly to the High

Power Committee and were not produced before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

In the Affidavits filed on 17.02.1999 totally different facts are stated with a

view of showing that he complied with the provisions of Government Resolution

dated 04.07.1995. In these affidavits it is stated for the first time that he was required

to live away from his house for 3 to 4 months which statement is not in the affidavit

of the Freedom Fighters.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 09.12.1997 recommended for

grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Premchand Uttamchand Changediya and

Mohan Narhari Deth.

However, Additional Collector by letter dated 14.07.98 reported that there is

no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995. High Power

- 260 -

Committee referred to the additional affidavits of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and sanctioned pension.

In the note put up before High Power Committee there is mention of affidavit

of Namdeo Balwant Aher which is not on the record.

After the notice was issued to him in view of Government Resolution of

4.7.1995, he filed affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap

as well as his own affidavit. Although, the earlier two affidavits are of the freedom

fighters who took part in freedom movement of India. Additional two affidavits filed

by him are of freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years and the story made

out in his own affidavit is corroborated by the additional two freedom fighters. It is

also clear from the affidavits that he was living away from his house because of his

activities in the freedom movement and there appears no reason to interfere with the

Government’s order of sanction of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits to him and the

Commission accordingly recommends continuation thereof.

- 261 -

File Case No. 65 (Respondent No.65)

Shri Satwaji Bapurao Dhakne

He filed application dated 17th July 1996 claiming that he worked under

leadership of Ramling Swami , Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Bhima Umaji Bangar.

He filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne Dated 17.07.1996, and affidavit

of Bhima Umaji Bangar who was not convicted and sentenced to two years.

He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 02.07.1997 but in his own

affidavit he has not stated the name of Sona Rama Jaybhay. Sona Rama Jaybhay in

his affidavit states that 90 to 95 groups were working whereas Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

has stated that 50 to 60 persons were working with him.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 11.3.1998 recommended rejection .

The High Power Committee rejected the claim on 11.03.1999.

Thereafter, a note was put up for reconsideration of claim in view of letter of

Shri Babasaheb Bangar, Chairman, Zilla Gaurav Samittee to the High Power

Committee enclosing a list of 58 persons.

However, additional Additional Collector in his letter Dated 10.07.1997

informed Deputy Secretary that there was no compliance with Government

Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and the case was not fit for consideration.

However, after the letter of Shri Babasaheb Bangar, containing list of 58

persons the case was reconsidered by the High Power Committee stating that in view

of the recommendations of the two Freedom Fighters and personal request of

Babasaheb Bangar in his individual capacity the claim be sanctioned.

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay have referred to the incident

of burning of Panchangri Naka and Daskhed police patil office and Wada but he

- 262 -

himself has not made any reference to these two incidents. Moreover, in the affidavit

of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in the ink.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case on the basis of affidavits

of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay. However, the High Power

Committee rejected his claim even after additional affidvits were filed. Thereafter he

wrote a letter dated 2.7.1998 to the member secretary advocate Rajabhau Zarkar and

as per the order of member secretary matter was placed before High Power

Committee for reconsideration. Thereafter, his claim was considered and sanctioned.

However, in the meantime the chairmain of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Babasaheb

Bangar had written the personal letter to the Deputy Chief Minister as well as the

member secretary of High Power Committee and had enclosed list of 58 persons

including Satwaji Bapurao Dhakne. Thereafter, he also filed another affidavit dated

20.07.1998 in which also there is mention of the incident of burning Pachangri Naka

and Daskhed Police patil wada and office.

When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded he

merely stated that he and his brother were beaten by the police and his brother was in

jail for six months. There is no documentary evidence for this, however he stated that

he provided breads ( Bhakri) and at that time he was aged 20 years. He has not stated

even in this statement that he was involved in the incident of burning Pachangri Naka

and Daskhed police patil wada and office. In view of contradictory statement of the

freedom fighter and the supporting freedom fighters, case made out by him does not

appear reliable and apparently claim which was rejected has been reconsidered only

on the letter of the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. It is doubtful whether the

chairman could right a personal letter in respect of 58 persons asking High Power

Committee to reconsider their cases. However, that appears to the reason for

reconsideration.

Thus, High Power Committee was initially not convinced about the

genuineness of his claim and reconsidered it only in view of the letter of Chairman,

Zilla Gaurav Samiti. In view of the contradictory statements in the affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters the claim is not made out as required by the provisions

of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 263 -

The requirement of two supporting affidavits is not a mere formality but

necessary requirement to make out case that he was involved in the freedom

movement alongwith them and worked as underground freedom fighter and therefore

there has to be consistency in the affidavit of applicant freedom fighter and the

supporters.

The Commission, therefore finds that his claim was initially rightly rejected

by the High Power Committee and the same was reconsidered for reasons other than

legal and his claim deserves to be and should have been rejected and the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 264 -


Shri Maruti Shripati Shinde

He applied for pension on 07.08.1995 on the ground that he was underground

Freedom Fighter. He filed affidavit dated 04.08.1995 wherein he has named Ashraji

Raoji Jagtap as the person under whom he worked.

Thereafter he filed affidavits of Mohan Narhar Deth dated 09.08.1957. Damu

Walhu Wandekar of the same date. Mohan Narhar Deth was not involved in the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement but was in the freedom movement of India. He also

filed affidavit of Anant Narayan Kulkarni.

The affidavit of Damu Walhe Wandekar makes an interesting statement that

Damu Walhu Wandekar worked under himself. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended the case in view of two affidavits filed by him.

Additional District Collector in his letter dated 14.07.1998 to the Government

after referring to two affidavits stated that Maruti did not comply with the

Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the claim on 14.07.1998 in view of

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti on the basis of two affidavits.

He appeared before Mane Committee and named Bhausaheb Janjire and

Kashinath Janjire he stated that he did not know the names of two Freedom Fighters

i.e. Damu Walhu Wandekar, Mohan Narhar Deth and Anant Narayan Kulkarni on the

basis of whose recommendation his claim was sanctioned.

- 265 -

In his own affidavit he has not stated any specific incident or activity in which

he was involved in the freedom movement whereas two qualified freedom fighters

who have filed affidavits in his support namely Damu Walhu Wandekar and Anant

Narayan Kulkarni have given various details of the activites in which he was involved

along with them. The other freedom fighter Mohan Narhari Deth was not sentenced

to two years imprisonment in the freedom movement of India and there is no

evidence of his part in the Hyderabad freedom movement.

At the cost of repeatition Maruti Shinde appeared before Mane Committee, in

his lengthy statement recorded on oath he stated that he does not know Damu Walhu

Wandekar, Mohan Narhari Deth and Anant Narayan Kulkarni, therefore the statement

in his own affidavit and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are not reliable

and there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, therefore

he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him be

cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 266 -


Shri Tukaram Maruti Pawar

He applied for the pension as Freedom Fighter on 04.04.1989 stating that he

worked with Anandrao Nimbalkar and Bhausaheb Jagtap. In his affidavit dated

23.07.1997 he named for the first time Freedom Fighters namely Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne and Namdeo Khade and others. The name of Sona Rama Jaybhaye is added

in ink.

He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 15.05.1997 and Anna Eknath

Telap filed affidavit dated 05.04.1997. In both supporting Freedom Fighter’s

affidavits the name of Respondent Tukaram Maruti Pawar is in handwriting in the

typed format. Zilla Gaurav Samiti, on the basis of Affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap

and Sona Rama Jaybhay recommended grant of pension.

However, the High Power Committee rejected the claim on 5.11.1997.

Thereafter, applicant filed another affidavit and case was reopened and sanctioned on

08.02.1990 on the basis of that affidavit.

He appeared before Mane Committee. The statement recorded before Mane

Committee shows that he stated to have cut Shindi trees and given slogans of Bharat

Mata Ki Jai and did not take part in any other activity concerned with the Hyderabad

Freedom Movement and he did not know the names of persons who recommended his

case as underground Freedom Fighter.

The affidavits of the two supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and

Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Tukaram Maruti

Pawar is added in ink to the type written affidavits in the space left blank earlier and

- 267 -

there are also other over writing and erasures. Apart from this, the statement in their

affidavits that along with them he took part in the incident of burning Pachangri naka

and Anterwali naka is not found in his own affidavit and there is also no statement

regarding the other requirements of the Government Resolution, 4.07.1995.

These affidavits were filed by him after his claim was rejected asthe

contradictions and the above pointed infirmities were noticed. In his own affidavit the

name of Sona Rama Jaybhay is added after the affidavit was typed. The statement

contained in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighter contradict his statement.

Thereafter he filed further affidavit of himself dated 5.10.1998 and affidavit

of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and Namdev Balwant Aher. Even in these two affidavits

there is no consistency and the supporting freedom fighters have not referred to the

incidents mentioned in his own affidavit. All the affidavits contain contradictory

statements and therefore his claim was rightly rejected, earlier.

When his statement was recored on oath on 10.2.2003 by Mane Committee, he

merely stated that he cut sindi trees and did not refer to any particular incident, much

less to the incidents referred to in the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters.

After earlier rejection of his claim for reasons, his case was reconsidered on

the basis of same documents and the claim was sanctioned.

In view of this contradictory evidence produced by him in support of his

claim, the Commission is of the considered view that the claim could not have been

sanctioned and in view of the fact that there was no proper compliance with the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 the Commission recommends that his claim

of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted be cancelled forthwith.

- 268 -


Shri Mukta Bapu Dhas

Application was filed on 12.06.1995 stating that he worked at Pathardi camp

as Freedom Fighter under Madhavrao Nirale, Changdev Maruti Bhavar and Lahanu

Mengde.

In further affidavit dated 04.08.1997 he stated names of Ramling Swami and

Sona Rama Jaybhay of which the former was scoured out and the later was

subsequently added.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his claim relying on the affidavits of the

supporting Freedom Fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

certificate of Madhavrao Nirale.

The Additional Collector vide his letter dated 10.08.1998 informed Deputy

Secretary that there was no compliance of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the claim on 04.02.1999.

He filed affidavit dated 4.8.1997 in which he named for the first time freedom

fighters Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Wamanrao Vaze and in the

typed affidavit it was stated that he was filing affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane but the name of Anna Eknath Telap was scored out and the

name of Sona Rama Jaybhay was added in that place and there is no initial or

signature on this addition. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffers from the

same infirmity that the name Mukta Bapu Dhas is added in ink in the blank space left

for that purpose and the incident of burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police

patil wada and office referred to therein has no reference in the affidavit of Mukta

- 269 -

Bapu Dhas. Similar is the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay in which there is addition

of the name of Mukta Bapu Dhas in handwriting in blank space left for that purpose.

A perusal of the affidavit of Mukta Bapu Dhas shows that the affidavit was

drafted as if Mukta Bapu Dhas was a female and widow of Bapu Dhas and that her

husband had taken part in freedom movement and he died on a particular date. The

space was left blank for addition of the name of her husband and the date of his death

and which remained blank even after affidavit was sworn in. This shows how the

affidavits were prepared and no sanctity can be attached to the statements contained in

such affidavits. The contents of the affidavits are written with no regards for the

truth.

In the statement recorded by Mane Committee he has stated that he filed

application as he was asked by some other persons to file but he did not know

Namdev Balawant Aher, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule, and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

He did not state any incident in which he was involved in the entire freedom

movement.

The Commission, therefore found that he had failed miserably to make out

any case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and

his claim was liable to be rejected, and the Commission therefore recommends that

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

forthwith.

- 270 -


Shri Bapurao Raosaheb Garje (Deceased) represented by widow Smt. Kusumbai

He applied for pension on 29.6.1988 stating in his application that he worked

under Asraji Raoji Jagtap and for one year he was underground. In his affidavit

dated 06.01.1988 he has not mentioned any specific incident or activity against the

Nizam Government in which he was involved.

After he was given notice dated 19.06.1997 he produced affidavit of Dr.

Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth. He also filed affidiavits

of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 4.8.1997 recommended his case

for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona

Rama Jaybhay. However, one of the member P.V.Joshi made endorsement that

affidavits are suspicious.

He filed further affidavits dated 22.12.1998 after he received notice for

compliance with Government Resolution of 04.07.1995 and in this affidavit he has

stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his village and he had

changed his name for that purpose and he was also required to give up his education.

He also filed supporting affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim on the ground that there is no

compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution of 04.07.1995.

- 271 -

However, thereafter note was put up that he filed affidavits of freedom fighters

who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and he was required to leave his

village and stay away from his house and with this note the recommendation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High Power Committee and his claim was

granted.

The statement in his affidavit although made at a later stage regarding

harassment caused to him is supported by the freedom fighters who were sentenced

to two years imprisonment and therefore Government rightly sanctioned his claim.

The Commission does not find any infirmity in the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits to him and recommends continuation of the same which is being paid to his

wife. He had two wives but by consent payment is being made to one of them.

- 272 -

File Case No. 77(Respondent No.77)

Shri Nivrutti Jogu Anuse

Application was filed on 20.05.1988 in which he stated that he worked under

Asrajai Raoji Jagtap and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal. He filed affidavits on 11.09.1997.

However, Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal is Freedom Fighter sentenced to more than two

years imprisonment for his work in the Freedom Movement of India and not in

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram.

He filed affidavits Mohan Narhari Deth, Anna Eknath Telap Sona Rama

Jaybhay Mohan Narhari Deth worked in freedom movement of India and not in

Hyderaad Mukti Sangram.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama

Jaybhay and recommended his case on 27.11.1993.

Additional Collector, Beed by his letter dated 04.07.1998 reported to

Government that there was no compliance of Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

However, the High Power Committee has sanctioned the claim on 10.12.1998.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he supplied bread

(bhakari). He did not take part in any incident of Naka burning nor did he specifically

work against Nizam Government.

- 273 -

In his affidavit dated 21.05.1988 he stated that he used to work under the

orders of Asraji Raoji Jagtap Kendra Pramukh and used to convey secret news and

information about the movement of police to the freedom fighters.

Mohan Narhari Deth and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal were imprisoned for their

part in the freedom movement of India. He has also produced the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. In his affidavit and the affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters there is a detailed description regarding his part in the

Hyderabad freedom movement but when he was called by the Mane Committee and

his statement was recorded on oath, he only stated that he was informing the Kendra

Pramukh about movements of Razakars. He used to provide breads (bhakari) and he

did not take any part in burning naka as he ran away. Thus he was unable to say on

oath that he was involved in any particular activity against Nizam Government in the

freedom movement. Therefore, the statements contained in the affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters that he was working along with them in the Hyderabad

freedom movement cannot be belived and he cannot be said to have fulfilled the

requirements of the 04.07.1995 Government Resolution as he was living in his own

house and providing breads (bhakari) to the Camp. He therefore failed to prove his

entitlement and therefore the Commission recommend that Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserves to be and be cancelled forthwith.

- 274 -


Shri Bapurao Banduji Bhapkar

Application was filed on 30.12.1997 wherein it is stated that he worked under

Narhari Jagtap. He filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath

Telap.

With another application dated 01.11.1995, he filed affidavit of Dr. Achyut

Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia. He filed another affidavit

on 19.07.1997 on 21.07.1997.

In the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap his name is

added in ink to the typed format .

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for grant of pension on

21.7.1997 on the basis of affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath

Telap.

On 28.07.1997 Collector, Beed wrote to Government noting his objection on

the ground of non-compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

His claim was rejected and he was informed by detailed letter dated

18.1.1999.

- 275 -

However, after ten days in view of note put up by the Assistant applicant’s

case was reconsidered and with modified note, the matter was placed before for

necessary orders on 2.4.1997 and the claim was sanctioned.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he knew Eknath

Telap and Fakira Dhakne but did not work with him. He cut Shindee trees and was

involved in the incident of burning office of Talathi. He attempted to burn the office

of Talathi. He filed certificate of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changedia in which there is no mentioned of any part played by Bapurao

Bandoji Bhapkar alongwith them in the Hyderabad freedom movement.

In the affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia there is no reference

to the part taken by Bapurao Bandoji Bhapkar in the freedom movement and the

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the infirmity

that his name is added in the typed affidavit in hand writing and there is no signature

or initial and in both the affidiavits the incidents mentioned are burning pachangadi

naka and Dashkhed police patil office which are not stated by Bapurao Bandoji

Bhapkar in his own affidiavit.

The supporting affidavits are therefore not reliable. He has not produced

reliable evidence in support of his application. He was therefore not entitled to

grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be and be

cancelled forthwith and Commission recommends accordingly.

- 276 -


Bajirao Laxman Tarte (deceased) represented by wife Shrimati Mathurabai

Bajirao Tarte .

Application was filed by Bajirao Laxman Tarte on 11.07.1989. It was

accompanied by affidavit of Asraji Raoji Jagtap. After his death his widow

Mathurabai filed affidavit on 10.07.1997 and alongwith the same filed affidavits of

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay. In the affidavit of Nivrutti Dhakne

and Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of Mathurabai is mentioned as freedom fighter

with Bajirao Laxman Tarte. However, the name is added in ink to typed proforma.

Even Mathurabai in her affidavit dated 10.7.1997 stated that he had taken part in the

freedom movement of Hyderabad when it was the case made out in the original

application.

She wrote a letter on 12.12.1997 to the Sabhapati.

It is noteworthy, she claimed that her husband was the Freedom Fighter and

later on she also claimed that she herself was also Freedom Fighter. In the application

of Bajirao and affidavit of Asraji Raoji Jagtap there is clear statement that freedom

fighter (underground) was Bajirao and not Mathurabai.

Similarly in the affidiavit dated 22.06.1989 filed by Bajirao Laxman Tarte, he

had clearly stated that he took part in the Hyderabad freedom movement and police

were in search of him and therefore he stayed at Mirajgaon camp. He died on

03.01.1994 and after his death his wife Mathurabai who in fact could have made a

claim as wife of deceased of Bajirao Laxman Tarte, filed affidiavit making statement

that she herself was freedom fighter and took active part in the freedom movement

- 277 -

from Kharda camp under the leadership of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Advocate Vaman Vaze.

Similarly in the supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

10.07.1997 it is stated that Mathurabai was a freedom fighter and she was involved in

the incidents of burning pachangri naka and attack at Antarwali naka along with

Bajirao. In this affidavit the name of Mathurabai and Bajirao Laxman Tarte are added

in ink to the typed written affidavit and similar is the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay.

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 contradict

by the affidavits of his wife and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters as

suddenly after his 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.

It is thus clear that claim was originally of Bajirao Laxman Tarte. The Zilla

Gaurav Samiti recommened for grant of pension to him and even the High Power

Committee treated that it was claim of Bajirao Laxman Tarte, who was representinted

by widow, but the affidavits of Mathurabai and two supporting freedom fighters - that

Mathurabai herself was freedom fighter which are completely falisified by her

statement recorded by Mane Committee wherein she clearly admitted that she was not

freedom fighter and was aged 8 to 10 years at that time.

- 278 -

It is therefore a case in which the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

Mathurabai deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission



Shri Janu Kisan Wanve

Pension is claimed on the ground lthat he was underground freedom fighter in

Hyderabad Freedom Movemnet.

He filed applicaltion lon 24th August 1995 in the application he stated the

name of Kashinathrao Jadhav as a person under whom he worked.

In his affidavit dated 3rd July 1997 he has named Sona Rama Jaybhay and

Nivtutti Fakira Dhakne and their affidavits are produced. This was after the notice

was issued in persusance of 04th July 1995 Resolution.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case based on two affidavits

of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivtutti Fakira Dhakne who were sentenced to two years

imprisonment in Freedopm Movement.

Thereafter, the additional Collector by letter dated 10.08.1997 informed

Deputy Secretary that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995.

- 279 -

The High Power Committee rejected the claim on the ground that there is no

compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 as pointed out by the

Additional Collector. He was also informed that his claim was rejected.

In the mean time he had approached the Lok Ayukta and wrote letter to

Sabhapati dated 02.03.1998. It appears that on recommendation of the Sabhapati and

also in view of letter to Lok Ayukta, the case was reconsidered and in view of the

affidavits of two Freedom Fighters namely Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane as well as affidavits of other freedom fighters Thaksen Shankar Dhase and

Narayan Dagadu Choure sent to the Sabhapati with his letter, the High Power

Committee sanctioned the claim.

He appeared before Mane Committee but in his statement he has not referred

to the aforesaid two freedom fighters. On the contrary he has referred to the affidavits

of Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Dagdu Chaure. However, no evidence was

produced to show that he was required to live away from his house

The contradictions interse between the affidavits of Janu Kisan Wanve as well

as affidavits of the freedom fighters supporting him and his statement before Mane

Committee are not so alarming as to lead one to disbelive in his part as explained by

him in the freedom movement. Moreover his contention that he was living at Kharda

camp is also supported by the other freedom fighters working with him and therefore

naturally he was living away from his house. The requirements of the Government

Resolution dated 4th July 1995 having been complied with, the Commission does not

find any reason to disturb the finding recorded in his favour and accordingly

recommends continuation of his Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him.

- 280 -


Shri Babasaheb Narayan Khade

He applied on 14.08.1995 for pension on the ground that he was underground

Freedom Fighter. In his affidavit dated 28.05.1997 he disclosed the names of Sona

Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap for the first time to which there was no

reference in his application dated 14.8.1995.

In the supporting affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is written in the

typed proforma of affidavit and the said writing is not initialed by anybody. Similar is

the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap. From these two affidavits it is clear that typed

affidavits were already prepared and the name of the applicant was added afterwards

without initials of any persons much less the concerned officer.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting held on

20.06.1997 and recommended grant of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sona

Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 07.07.1997 wrote to the Deputy

Secretary, but even though two affidavits are filed there is no compliance with the


The High Power Committee had rejected his claim dated 20.02.1998 but

reconsidered it after detailed note and sanctioned the pension. Note on the basis of

which the claim was rejected earlier is not on record.

- 281 -

It is true that his claim was earlier rejected but if one goes through the reasons

for which it was rejected, it will be clear that if the claim is to be rejected for such

reason then almost all applications will have to be rejected. Neither anybody

produced such record having been required to remain away from his home nor was it

available to any body.

Therefore his claim was rightly reconsidered. There is no serious

contradiction in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters and his statement before

Mane Committee is consistent with his earlier statement in the application and

therefore the Commission does not find any reason for interference with the grant of

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and accordingly recommends continuation thereof.


Wamanrao Maroti Kulkarni (Deceased) represented by

Shrimati Dwarkabai Wamanrao Kulkarni.

Application was filed by his wife Smt. Dwarkabai on 03.07.1997 and

alongwith the application she filed affidavits dated 05.07.1997, of Anna Eknath Telap

and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne.

In the application she stated that her husband was Freedom Fighter. He

worked under Ramling Swami, P.V.Joshi and Shankar Jagtap etc. and in the affidavit

she affirmed the same facts claiming that her husband was Freedom Fighter.

However, in the supporting affidavits Anna Eknath Telap as well as Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne it is stated that the applicant Dwarkabai w/o Wamanrao herself had

taken part in the Freedom Movement and was involved in the incident of killing a

Pathan in the Central part of Antarwali. Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has stated he was

involved in burning naka and office of Police Patil. In both the affidavits of

supporting Freedom Fighters there is no reference to her husband being a Freedom

Fighter and the assertion made therein that Dwarkabai is Freedom Fighter is one

which is not her claim in the application.

She has produced extract of one book Hyderabad freedom movement written

by Shreeniwas Khot which mentiones her husband Waman Maruti Kulkarni was

freedom fighter. Waman Maruti Kulkarni was Patwari. He was compelled to give up

- 282 -

his job. Being wife of Waman Maruti Kulkarni Dwarkabai may have helped him and

may have served food to the freedom fighters at her residence. However, that does

not make her a freedom fighter. Secondly the most important aspect is that it is not

her application for pension as a freedom fighter in individual capacity. Her claim is

as widow of Waman Maruti Kulkarni. Even in her affidavit dated 30.11.1998 she has

clearly stated that her deceased husband had taken part in Hyderabad freedom

movement along with P.V.Joshi and under his guidance in their house many freedom

fighters were given shelter. She has also described the suffering of herself and the

family as a result of family being required to leave the house after her husband was

compelled to leave the job of Patwari. However in this later application also she has

not claimed that she was freedom fighter whereas all the supporting freedom fighters

invariably stated that Dwarkabai was freedom fighter. Mr. Pandurang Waman Joshi

also gave subsequent recommendation letter stating that both of them were freedom

fighters. However, in view of his earlier statement recommending her case as widow

of Waman Maruti Kulkarni it is not possible to accept later improved version in his

letter to the effect that both of them were freedom fighters.

This appears to be unfortunate case in which the claim as made out in the

application was not considered and under some misconception, the High Power

Committee as well as the Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated her claim as contrary to her

own application and therefore even though her husband might be one of the sufferers

in the freedom movement and consequently the entire family might have suffered yet

the case made out in the application is not supported by the freedom fighters and what

is stated by the supporting freedom fighters is contrary to her own application and

therefore she was granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits wrongly when she was not

entitled to the same.

Her claim should have been considered in the capacity of widow of Waman

Maruti Kulkarni which has not been considered and therefore the Commission finds

that it is not possible to uphold the findings of the Government that she is entitled to

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits in her individual capacity as freedom fighter and the

same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 283 -


Shri Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni

Respondent filed application dated 06.0.1992 stating that he worked under

Ashruba Raoji Jagtap and affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal, Bapu Kashinath

Narwade. Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal is from Ahmednagar District and was not involved

in Hyderabad Freedom Movement whereas Bapu Kashinath Narwade was sentenced

to imprisonment for eleven months only.

In the affidavit of Dr. Achut Amrut Rasal the name of Digambar Haribhau

Kulkarni r/o Takalsingi Taluka Ashti is added by different machine (type) in the

already typed affidavit and the difference in the ink in which the letters are typed is

obvious. Further more Dr. Rasal was involved in the freedom movement of India and

he has merely stated in one sentence that he took part in the Hyderabad freedom

movement and Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni was also with him. Apart from this

vague statement there is no description of his role or activity in the Hyderabad

freedom movement.

Another supporting freedom fighter Bapu Kashinath Narwade was sentenced

only to eleven months and as such was not having necessary qualification to file

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

Even the requirement of two freedom fighters sentenced to two years imprisonment

filing supporting affidavits was not fulfilled

- 284 -

There is also no evidence of compliance with provisions of Government

Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and the Additional Collector had rightly pointed out by

his letter dated 15.7.1995 regarding non compliance with Government Resolution.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not justified in recommending and the High

Power Committee was not justified in acting on such recommendation.

In view of the aforesaid defects in the claim Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni

failed to prove his entitlement to claim of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which


accordingly.

File Case No. 87 (Respondent No.87) (Underground)

Dhondiram Govind Labde(deceaseed) represented by

Shrimati Laxmibai Dhondiram Labde.

Application was filed by Dhondiram Govind Labde on 05.12.1999. He

claimed pension as under ground Freedom Fighter. He filed affidavits of Dr. Achyut

Amrut Rasal on 15.03.1997 and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia R/o

Ahemadnagar District.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the basis of affidavits of

Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Uttamchand Premchand Changedia which were filed

in the writ petition and forwarded to Government.

However, Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia both had taken part in the freedom

movement of India against British rule and in his affidavit Dr. Rasal has also stated

accordingly. Dr. Rasal has not even stated that he was in any way concerned with the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. However, Dr. Changedia stated in his affidavit that

he was holding camps on the border of Ahmednagar district but has not stated about

any other activity in which he was involved in the Hyderabad freedom movement. He

was also sentenced for his work in freedom movement of India.

The application was rejected in view of detailed note put up by the Member

Secretary of High Power committee Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar wherein he observed

- 285 -

in categorical terms ‘Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia are from Ahmednagar district and

these two freedom fighters have collected huge money by establishing one Swatrantra

Sainik Sanghatana and have issued supporting affidavits to number of persons. This

organization is not even registered and it is necessary to hold police inquiry and

matter be sent for confidential inquiry to the police which will reveal huge

corruption.’

After rejection of his claim further note was put up in view of his application

that he worked underground and he stated in his application that he was required to

give up his education, he was beaten by the police and his case deserved to be

considered. After which the same Member Secretary put up a contradictory and

positive note for sanction of the claim and accordingly the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits are granted to him (Dhondiram).

The entire file reflects a very sorry state of affairs of the working of the High

Power Committee. It is obvious that for reasons which are clear but cannot be stated

and can be a guess of a man of ordinary prudence, the Member Secretary made a

voltaface and the case was reconsidered and pension was granted.

The Respondent had failed to make out a case. He failed to comply with the

provisions of Government Resolution and in fact the High Power Committee earlier

did not believe the contents of his application and supporting affidavits and therefore

the Commission is of the considered view that he was not at all entitled to

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and

the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 286 -


Shri Shivaji Limbaji Doiphode

He filed application for grant of pension on 14.08.1995 stating that he was

working at Kharda camp under Babasaheb Ganapati Bangar. He claimed pension as

underground freedom fighter and produced affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

28.04.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 17.02.1997. In the supporting

affidavit of Gyanoba Jijaba Bangar the name of the respondent is added in ink after

the entire affidavit was typed. Similar is the case of Babasaheb Ganapati Bangar.

However, in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 24.8.1997 as well as in

the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay, the blank space was left for writing the names of

the concerned freedom fighter for whom the affidavit was sworn and left blank with

red lining and the affidavits were produced in that form (i.e.with blanks not filled in).

It is difficult to appreciate how the Executive Magistrate (Avval Karkoon) has signed

the affidavits with blank spaces.

There is a letter of Deputy Chief Minister in the file with recommendation to

take quick action and the Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar has also

made endorsement for immediate action. A list of 58 persons was enclosed with the

letter and the request pertains to all 58 persons. From the different affidavits filed by

him at different times the attempt to improve the case and make further averments

which were not earlier, is clearly apparent on lthe face of the record.

- 287 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.06.1997 recommended for

grant of pension on the basis of supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona

Rama Jaybhay. At the cost of repetation it is necessary to point out that in both the

affidavits his name is not written as the space for writing the name is blank. In his

initial application he had not mentioned the names of the two freedom fighters who

have now given supporting affidavits which are relied upon by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti.

The Additional Collector by his letter dated 3.7.1997 addressed to the Deputy

Secretary referred to two affidavits, and observed that Shiwaji did not comply with

the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim on 1.12.1997 and he was

informed accordingly by letter dated 15.09.1998. Thereafter he filed another affidavit

referring to the earlier evidence produced by him stating how he was required to

suffer because of the part taken in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and that he has

produced the affidavits of two freedom fitghters namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

dated 11.10.1998 and Bhima Umaji Bangar dated 21.12.1998 out of them Bhima

Umaji Bangar was not qualified.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded wherein

he stated that he and others had caught hold of one Daud Pathan and hanged him and

his dead body was lying there for three days in the Masjeed and thereafter he and

other persons ran away. He worked under Babasaheb Bangar, Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane. No warrant was issued against him. He has filed affidavits of Babsaheb

Bangar, Gyanoba Bangar and he does not know Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna

Eknath Telap and whether they were convicted and sentenced in the freedom

movement. This is totally contradictory with earlier version of the Respondent in his

application.

Before the Commission he filed a detailed affidavit making further

improvements.

- 288 -

Thus the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters in which blank spaces

left for inserting the name having remained blank till date the said affidavits with

blank spaces are totally worthless and cannot be considered even as affidavits or even

supporting letters as they do not mention the name of the person concerned. It is

surprising that the authority before whom the affidavits were sworn in being

Executive Magistrate signed the affidavit and overlooked the blank spaces.

His claim was rightly rejected by the High Power committee and thereafter he

produced the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.

This is one of the case in which the Chairman of Zilla Gaurav Samiti had

taken personal interest by writing a letter to the High Power Committee and enclosing

a list of 58 persons, such personal recommendation of the Chairman of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti is uncalled for and should not have been acted upon because the High

Power Committee is expected to consider the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and not to act upon personal request by either chairman or any member of the

Committee.

Thus he failed to comply with the requirements of the Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995 and even to file proper affidavits of persons qualified to file supporting

affidavits and therefore he was not at all entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

The Commission is of the considered view that he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits which are wrongly granted to him and deserve to be and be cancelled

forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 289 -


Shri Prabhakar Bajirao Wanve (Deceased) represented by wife Hansabai

Prabhakar Wanve.

Prabhakar filed application on 22.09.1988 claiming pension as underground

freedom fighter and in his application stated that he worked under Kashinath Jadhav

and Namdev Khade.

He filed affidavit dated 10.07.1997 and in the said affidavit he named Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap for the first time. He filed supporting

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 2.3.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

10.07.1997. In the affidavit of Bapu Nana Gite filed on 22.08.1995 the name of

Namdev Bapu Khade is added in the space left blank and this is not signed or initialed

by anybody. Similarly in another affidavits of Sanap dated 22.08.1995 the name of

Namdev Bapu Khade is added. Even in the affidavit of Prabhakar himself dated

22.08.1995 the name of Namdev Bapu Khade is added in space left blank. It is in

different ink. In another affidavit dated 10.07.1997 he named for the first time

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane who has filed supporting affidavit of the same date and in the

affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhanke the name of Prabhakar is added afterward in ink

which is not signed or initialed by anybody.

He filed another affidavit of Thaksen Shankarrao Dhase. He filed one more

affidavit of Narayan Dagadu Chaure.

- 290 -

There is another affidavit of 2.7.1997 of Sona Rama Jaybhay who was

sentensed to two years imprisonment and in this affidavit also the name of Prabhakar

is added in ink after the entire affidavit is typed the addition is not initialled by

anybody.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 21.07.1997 recommended

grant of pension based on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama

Jaybhay.

However, in his letter dated 28.06.1997 the Additional Collector informed to

the Deputy Secretary that although two affidavits were filed, he did not comply with

4.7.1995 Government Resolution. Prabhakar had filed complaint to Lokayukta.

The matter came up before the High Power Committee and relying on the

affidavits and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav samiti pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded in which

he stated that he worked under the Leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and he cut sindhi

trees. At that time he was 17 to 18 years. He executed a letter of apology.

Having given a letter of apology for whatever act or activities he did in the

freedom movement, he is disentitled to claim Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as a

freedom fighter apart from the other defects pointed out in the earlier part. The

Commission is of the considered view that he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him and same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the


- 291 -


Shri Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni

Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni applied for pension on 14.08.1995 stating that he

worked under the Leadership of P.V.Joshi who was one of the member of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti. In his application dated 30.11.1990 he has stated that his house was

sold and the Police draw out all members of the family and they shifted to

Pandharpur.

Affidavit submitted by Pandurang Waman Joshi supported his claim.

Similarly Shripati Bapu Gapat also supported his claim and the statement in the

application. In his affidavit dated 01.07.1997 he has named Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

and Anna Eknath Telap and Shankarrao Bangar for the first time .

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne filed affidavit dated 26.07.1997 supporting his claim

stating there were 90 to 95 groups working at the Kharda camp under leadership of

Ramling Swami. In his affidavit the name of Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni is added in

handwriting in different ink and that is not initialed and the similar is the case of

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap filed on 20.01.1997. The addition of name is not

initialed by anobody.

He has also filed another affidavit dated 11.03.1999 of Namdeo Balwant Aher

of the same date. Namdeo Balwant Aher was sentensed to imprisonment for not less

- 292 -

than two years and he filed further affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule dated

11.03.1999. He has undergone sentence.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.07.1997 recommanded

sanction of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna

Eknath Telap.

However, Additional Collector wrote letter dated 24.07.1997 to the Deputy

Secretary objecting to the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that there was

no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case in the light of note put up to

it in which the above stated facts were considered and the pension was sanctioned.

There is a list of 33 persons attached to the High Power Committee note wherein it is

stated that those at serial No. 1 to 19 are not granted pension and 20 to 33 are granted,

in which there is name of Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni at Sr. No. 27.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated facts already contained in

different affidavits and before the Commission also he has filed detailed affidavit.

The perusal of the entire file of the Dattatray Narayan Kulkarni shows that his

father was patwari and after him he was also appointed as patwari. They were found

to be against the Nizam Government inspite of holding Government offices and

therefore their house was auctioned and they were compelled to leave the village and

family shifted to Pandharpur. Although the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

Anna Eknath Telap are defective as pointed out earlier there are also affidavits of

Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aher and there is no inconsistency

in the contents of his affidavits and their affidavits and there is also recommendation

letter given by Pandurang Waman Joshi one of the member of the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti. This letter lends assurance to the statement in his affidavit.

Therefore the Commission is of the considered view that he was rightly

granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be continued and the


- 293 -


Shrimati Rukhminbai Vithal Mirgane

Applied for Freedom Fighter’s pension on 28.02.1996 and in the application

she named Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Namdeo Khade as leader of Kharda Camp

where she worked.

She claimed pension as underground Freedom Fighter and in her affidavit

dated 15.02.1996. she stated to have worked at Kharda Camp under Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne and Wamanrao Waze and Namdeo Khade and in one application dated

23.04.1997 she referred to the incident of setting fire to the office of Police Patil and

Bomb blast by Shankar Jagtap claiming that she was present at that time. She filed

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 21.02.1997 and Narayan Dagdu Chaure as well

as Thaksen Shankar Dhase of 04.02.1998.

Zilla Gaurav Samittee in its meeting dated 23.06.1997 recommended grant of

pension on the basis of affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Anna Eknath Telap.

However, Additional Collector recorded his objection by letter Dated 09.07.1997.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension in view of the facts stated

above and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samittee.

She appeared before Mane Committee and her statement was recorded on oath

on 14.02.2003 in the said statement she no doubt stated that she was working at

- 294 -

Kharada camp along with Namdev Khade, Narayan Khade, Thaksen Dhase, Nivruti

Dhakane. However the only work she was doing at Kharada camp as stated by her

was preparing bread (Bhakari). She has stated that there were three other women who

were also preparing bhakari but they are dead. She was staying in Wada of Marwadi

and her husband was residing at the Camp (Charade) She clearly stated that except

giving bread and serving food she did no other work. This statement clearly falsify

her earlier assertion in the affidavit regarding her active participation in the incident

of setting fire to office and wada of Police Patil and the bomb blast incident. It also

falsified the various different version regarding her participation in freedom

movement stated by the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane, Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Choure.

She may have either prepared bread (bhakari) or served food to the freedom

fighters, however, it does not make her freedom fighter much less one entitled to

claim Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits. As per the Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995 or any provision of law she is not entitled to make such a claim and

the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to her deserve to be and be

cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 295 -


Madhav Kisan Mankale (Deceased) represented by widow

Shrimati Parwatibai Mdhav Mankale.

She filed application claiming pension for the work done by her husband in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. Pension was claimed as underground Freedom

Fighter.

She filed affidavits of Yogiraj Santram Raut dated 20.8.1996, Maroti Mahadev

Kakade dated 29.8.1996. In these two affidavits it is stated that her husband Manik

Kisan Mankale was required to live away from house as he was working in the

freedom movement.

She filed her affidavit dated 21.8.1996 and additional affidavits of other

freedom fighters. In this affidavit she has stated that Manik Kisan Mankale had taken

part in Hyderabad freedom movement and he was arrested. She is a widow and

therefore she is claiming pension on the basis of the part taken by her husband in the

freedom movement. Thereafter she filed further affidavit dated 25.3.1997 wherein

she stated that her husband took active part in the freedom movement and was

working at Kharada camp and he worked under the leadership of Ramling Swami,

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Waman Vaze Advocate. She has also worked under the

leadership of Namdevrao Khade and Anna Eknath Telap and she was preparing

bhakari and was also giving secret information and for that she was required to go

underground.

- 296 -

She produced affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 5.2.1997 in which there

is a reference to incident of burning Pachangri Naka and attack on Antarveli naka as

well as the incident of stabbing of one pathan. However, her name is added in the

affidavit in ink in blank space already left for that purpose and there is no initial or

signature on this addition in the typed affidavits. Similar is the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 5.2.1997 in which reference is made to setting ablaze Daskhed

police patil wada and office stating that she was involved and had taken part in that

incident.

It may be noted here that she herself did not make any such claim either in

her application or in oral evidence. When she was examined on oath before the Mane

Committee, she clearly stated that she did not herself do any work in the freedom

movement. She was claiming pension as legal representative of freedom fighter. She

was aged 12 to 13 years when she was married and her husband took part in the

freedom movement but was unable to say what work he did and in what activities he

was involved. Since after marriage she was living with her parents-in-law as her

husband was taking education at Beed. But she did not know the name of the school.

Her husband passed matriculation and worked in the Tahasil office and retired in

1974-75 and she would produced his certificate of date of birth.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered her case in the meeting dated 23.10.1997

but did not give any positive recommendation.

However in the note put up before the High Power Committee it is stated that

Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended her case.

The Additional Collector raised objection by letter dated 18.4.1997 which is

also stated in the note put up to High Power committee.

It is obvious that note but up before the High Power Committee regarding

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti was incorrect. She was not a freedom fighter

in the proper sense of the term and at the most she might have cooperated by

providing breads. She was living with her parents in law and she was not living away

from her house and therefore she is not entitled to claim Sanmanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits under the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 297 -

Moreover the application was filed by her as widow of Madhav Kisan

Mankale for the activity of Madhav in the freedom movement. Earlier affidavits were

also to the same effect. However when she made a voltaface claiming the pension for

her own activity, the supporting freedom fighters went to the extent of stating on oath

that she was with them in the particular incidents stated and this shows how the

supporting freedom fighters have been giving affidavits to all and snndry which

makes them totally unreliable.

The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits wrongly granted to her deserve to be and

be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 298 -


Shri Shriram Waman Bharati

He filed application on 1.8.1996 for pension on the ground that he was

undergrond Freedom Fighter. In his earlier application filed on 20.09.1993 nothing

particular was stated. In the form filed on 01.08.1996 he stated to have worked as

underground.

The incident of burning Panchangri naka and burning of Daskhad police patil

office wada was not stated by him in his own affidavit which was stated by Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane in his affidavit dated 1.8.1996. In this affidavit the name of Shivram

Waman Bharati is added in ink in the blank space left for that purpose. He also filed

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 28.2.1997 which is also contradictory to his

own affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the basis of support given

by two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and the High

Power Committee accepted the recommendation.

When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

he stated names of Pandharinath Bikkad, Jalindar Bikkad, Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. Thus from affidavit of himself and of supporting freedom

fighters it is revealed that he took part in setting ablaze Pachngri Naka and Daskhed

police patil wada.

The only defect in the material filed on record is that one of the affidavit of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffers from infirmity of adding his name in the typed

- 299 -

affidavit. However, for this reason alone the Commission cannot find fault with the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and its acceptance by the High Power

Committee and the Commission therefore finds that it cannot interfere with the

findings and the conclusion of the Government and recommends continuation of his

pension and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.


Shri Hemraj Premraj Meher

Application was filed on 01.10.1990 alleging that he worked under Ashraji

Raoji Jagtap. In the application nothing in particular was stated except that he cut

Shindi trees and took part in burning Karodgiri Naka. In his affidavit he claimed

pension as Underground Freedom Fighter. With his affidavit dated 24.10.1990 he has

filed affidavits by Ashroba Jagtap and Vishwanath Bhausaheb Ajbe.

He stated that as one criminal case was filed against him, he went

underground. The copy of Crime Register produced by him shows that he was not

convicted and sentenced. On the contrary it shows that case was filed without any

further action. In his affidavit dated 10.07.1996 he referred to aforesaid persons only

and also to have worked under ground alongwith Dr.Uttamchand Premchand

Changediya and Achyut Amrut Rasal of Ahmednagar District. It is noteworthy that

these two freedom fighters had taken part in Freedom Movement of India against

Biritish Rule and were not concerned with thre Hyderabad Freedome Movement.

One Writ petition was filed in the High Court 3067 of 95 by him wherin

direction was given for deciding the case in 09 months.

In the affidavit dated 26.07.1996 of Dr. Uttamchand Premchand Changediya

has stated that he took part in the 1942 Freedom Movement and was sentenced.

Similar is the case of Achyut Amrut Rasal. He worked against British Government

and he was sentendced.

In the further affidavit dated 27.01.1997 also he has referred to Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changediya and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal as persons with whom he

worked.

Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal in his affidavit has stated that he worked

intheFreedome Movement of India.

- 300 -

On this background he filed affidavit dated 19.08.1997 wherein he made

reference to Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Sakharam Sonaji Palve

as well as sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap for the first time as the persons

whith whom he worked and he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

14.08.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 05.08.1997. In both the affidavits the name

of Hemraj Premraj Meher was added in ink to the type written portion without even

initials.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meetting dated 14.02.1997 recommended his case

on the basis of two supporting affidavits. However, the additional collector recorded

his objection for non-compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Dr. Changediya and Dr.

Rasal and stated that they were from Ahmednagar District. The Member Secretary

Advocate Rajanbhau Zarkar recorded that two persons recommending him (Hemraj)

for grant of pension were from Nagar District and their affidavits are not reliable and

therefore, pension should not be sanctioned, even though Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended. Thereafter, further note was put up on the basis of remarks of the

Sabhapati that the point raised by the Member Secretary has been raised in other cases

also and the matter be sent back to the department. Thereafter, another note was put

up and reference was made to the High Court petition stating that there was order to

decide the case within nine months. It is further stated that District Collector was

asked to hold enquiry but he did not submitted report.

The Member Secretary made endorsement that since time limit given by the

High Court was coming to an end, the report be called and if necessary extension be

sought from the High Court. In pursuance thereof further note was put up and

reference was made to the concerned freedom fighter’s affidavits dated 20.8.1997 and

it was stated “suporting affidavits are of freedom fighters from Nagar District and

Hemraj Meher from Beed District, their affidavits are not reliable”.

He again applied on 24.08.1997 to reconsider his case and filed affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. He worked from Kharda camp under

the leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and Namdev Khade. He suffered because of his

involvement in freedom movement, now that he has filed affidavits of persons from

Beed district, his application be considered and application was considered and

pension was granted. It is pertinent to note that the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap

and Sona Rama Jaybhay suffered from the same infirmity that the name of Hemraj

- 301 -

Meher is added in the ink to the typed affidavit and there was also deletion of some

portion with whitener in affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap.

He apeared before mane committee and his statement was recorded. He stated

that he was studying in School, no action was taken by police in respect of burning

Karodgiri Naka and he has produced copy of two arrest warrants which are in Urdu

and he produced its transalation. He stated that he will produce certified copy within

one week but he has never produced. He has not referred to the name of Anna Eknath

Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay in his statement.

Thus there is no proper affidavit of supporting freedom fighters in the sense

that in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of

Hemraj Premraj Meher is added in ink after the entire affidavit is typed. The typed

affidavits contain the same incidents which are stated by the said freedom fighter in

the other affidavits and in view of the note of Member Secretary of the High Power

Committee, affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr. Achyut

Amrut Rasal were found to be totally unreliable by the High Power Committee. In

fact the inquiry as directed in the note of Member Secretary should have been held

and if it had been held something could have come to light. For reasons best known

to the Government there was no follow up of the inquiry order and ultimately the

inquiry was never held.

It appears that in view of the fact that the time limit granted by the High Court

was coming to end the Government hurriedly sanctioned his claim. From the material

produced by him he had failed to make out case as required by Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995 in as much as the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Sona Rama Jaybhay were defective and those of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal were found unreliable even by the High

Power Committee. It is difficult to appreciate as to how after such serious remarks

the same Member Secretary recommended his case on the basis of the same affidavits

and without there being any change in the circumstances.

The Commission therefore finds that he was granted Sanmanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits although he was not entitled under the provisions of Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the same deserve to be and should be cancelled

forthwith and Commission recommends accordingly.

- 302 -


Shri Anandrao Sahebrao Thosar

He applied for pension on 30.03.1995 as underground Freedom Fighter and in

his affidavit dated 2.3.1995 he has stated that Bhima Umaji Bangar and Devidas

Kadam were working with him. He worked at Beed, Georai and Patoda. In support

affidavits of Bhima Umaji Bangar, Wadmare and Devidas Nana Kadam were

produced. There is nothing in particular stated in these affidavits. He lateron

produced with his affidavit dated 29.03.1995 affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane

and Anna Eknath Telap referring to their names for lthe first time.

The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 15.07.1997 is typed as usual in

which there is a blank space left and in that blank space name of Anandrao Sahebrao

Thosar is inserted in a hand writing and one line after that earlier written portion is

removed by whitener stating incident which took place at Antarweli. The affidavit of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakne dated 5.7.1997 is similarly typed and in the blank space name

of Anandrao Sahebrao Thosar is inserted later on, and the last line is erased by

whitener.There is use of whitener in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap. The

respondent naming them for the first time after four years of application is significant.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 28.07.97 relied on the affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and recommended grant of pension.

He filed complaint to the Lok Ayukta as his matter was kept pending for quite

sometime.

- 303 -

The High Power Committee observed that he has not complied with the

conditions mentioned in Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and the the

Additional collector has raised this point. However, his involvement in Hyderabad

Freedom Movement is obvious and pension can be granted and the same was granted

on 29.12.1997.

He appeared before Mane committee. His statement was recorded wherein he

referred the incident of firing in the meeting held by Wamanrao Waze at which time

he ran away and in the affidavit filed before the Commission he repeated the aforesaid

facts.

Although the case is recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the

recommendation is accepted by the High Power Committee, the supporting affidavits

of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity of

addition of names in the blank space left for that purpose in the typed affidavit apart

from this addition of names, there is overwriting by erasing earlier sentence by

whitener in respect of material part of incident of Antarveli in the affidavit of Anna

Eknath Telalp and the last line in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has also

been erased with whitener. These two documents although they are on stamp papers

and are signed by the Executive Magistrate cannot be said to be affidavits in the

proper sense of the term and are of no assistance to support the claim Anandrao

Sahebrao Thosar as freedom fighter.

These defects in the affidavits should have been pointed out in the note put up

to the High Power Committee by the Mantralaya staff. Thus he has failed to comply

with the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. There is no reliable

evidence to show that he was required to live away from house or was beaten by the

police.

The Commission finds that he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits as a freedom fighter and the same are granted in the absence of adequate and

reliable evidence deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 304 -

File Case No. 112 (Respondent No.112 )

Shri Waman Punaji Sanap

He applied for pension as Underground Freedom Fighter on 23.05.1990and

he has filed his own affidavit on 03.02.1997 wherein he has named persons working

with the Ramling Swami , Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap and filed

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 12.01.1997 and Anna Eknath Telap of the

the same date. In both the affidavits the name of Waman Punaji Sanap is added later

on in different front although it is type written. The differnce in ink is obvious.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 06.03.1997 referred to the two

affidavits but stated that the matter be placed for decision to Government and did not

give any positive recommendation.

The Additional Collector, Beed wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 18.08.1997

that he (Waman) did not comply with the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The matter was then placed before the High Power Committee and the note to

the High Power Committee states that his case was recommended by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti whereas the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had not given any positive recommendation.

The Under Secretary had also stated in his remarks that Zilla Gaurav Samiti had not

recommended.

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded. He

stated that he did not know whose affidavits were filed. He did not know Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap.

- 305 -

Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap are defective in the sense that the

name of “Waman Gunaji Sanap” is added to the typed affidavit which contained

stereotype statement of fact which were in other affidavits filed by the said freedom

fighters. The claim based on the support of these freedom fighters is falsified by his

admission before Mane Committee that he even did not know them. When he does

not know Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, it is difficult to appreciate

how they could file affidavits stating emphatically that he was involved with them in

particular incidents. All these aspect make the entire statement in the affidavit of

supporting freedom fighters doubtful.

The fact that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give any positive

recommendation is material but when the note was put up before the High Power

Committee a misleading statement was made that Zilla Gaurav Samiti has

recommended his case for sanction.

In view of this defect in the claim put up before the Government, his claim

was not acceptable and the Government should not have sanctioned Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 306 -


Shri Raghunath Bayaji Badge

He applied for pension as underground Freedom Fighter on 04.01.1985 and

stated in his application that he worked under Kashinath Tatya Jadhav. With his

affidavit dated 23.02.1995 he filed affidavit of Uttam Patil Gavhane dated 23.02.1995

and affidavit of Devidas Nana Kadam of the same date. However, the supoorting

affidavits are not of the persons who were sentenced for the Freedom Movement and

therefore he filed fulrther affidavits after the notice dated 16.07.1997 that he worked

under Ramling Swami, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Wamanrao Waze.

He then filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. The

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap as well as Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 10.07.1997 and

16.07.1997 respectively as usual, are typed and his name is wirtten in blank space in

ink a later addition not initialed by anybody.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 21.07.1997 recommended grant of

pension on the basis of two affidavits filed by him whereas the Additional

Collectgor, Beed by letter dated 20.07.1997 communicated his objection that he

(Raghunath) did not comply with the G.R. dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti.

He appeared before Mane Committee. Although he stated that he worked with

Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay, he stated the only work he did was

providing a bread (bhakari).

- 307 -

Thus apart from the fact that the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap

and Sona Rama Jaybhay are defective in view of the addition of the name in the blank

space without any signature or initial, the instances stated in the affidavit of

Raghunath Bayaji Badage or in the supporting affidavits of these two freedom fighters

were not stated by him in the statement recorded by the Mane Committee wherein he

merely stated that he did work of providing bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters.

He did not claim to have been party to any incident or any activity against the Nizam

Government. Thus his role as a freedom fighter in various activities narrated in the

earlier affidavit of himself and the supporting freedom fighters is not reliable and he

does not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995

either in respect of filing of affidavits or in any other respect.

He is not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits. The Commission

therefore is of the considered view that the same should not have been granted and

deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 308 -

File Case No. 114( Respondent No. 114)

Uttam Shripati Shinde.

He filed application for grant of pension as Freedom Fighter on 23.01.1990

stating that he worked in the Freedom Movement and did not refer to any particular

act.

In his affidavit dated 15.05.1997 he has named Anna Eknath Telap and Sona

Rama Jaybhay for the first time. In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 15.02.1997 and 05.02.1997 respectively his name is inserted in

ink in the blank space.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.07.1998 recommended his case.

The Additional Collector raised objection that he (Uttam) did not comply

Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, however, High Power Committee

sanctioned pension.

In fact on mere perusal of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 5.2.1997,

it becomes clear that initially this affidavit contained some other person’s name which

was erased by whitener and in that place name of Uttam Shripati Shinde R/o Shiwani

taluka District Beed and many other words were inserted. This type of affidavit

cannot be relied upon in any proceedings and as already pointed out even in the

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the name is inserted in the blank space without there

being any signature or initial on the insertion part.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case in the meeting of 24.7.1997

completely ignoring this infirmity in the affidavit.

- 309 -

Even in the note put up to the High Power Committee it was not stated that the

affidavits are of this type containing erasures and insertions and recommendation of

Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted. Although, the Additional Collector had brought to

the notice of High Power Committee that there was no compliance with Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995, unfortunately he did not highlight the defect in the

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters. The other freedom fighters who supported

him are not freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years and as such were not

qualified.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Commission is of the

considered view that he was not entitled as he miserably failed to make out case as

required by the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and Sanmanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the


- 310 -


Shri Lobha Diga Wadmare

Application was filed for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension dated 4.1.1985

and in the said application he stated that he worked under leadership of Kashinath

Tatyaba Jadhav. He produce Xerox copy of affidavit of Narayan Ramrao Nimbalkar.

He complained to the Collector on 06.02.1995 that his application dated

04.01.1985 was not considered. He also approached to the Lok Ayukta. Lok Ayukta

gave direction to submit report regarding his case within 15 days on 01st April, 1997.

He produced the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne after

receipt of notice. The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 05.02.1997 and Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne of the same date suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Lobha

Diga Wadmare is inserted in ink in the blank space left in the affidavits already typed.

There is no initial of any person on the insertion.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give positive recommendation.

On 28.07.1997 the Additional Collector wrote to the Government that there is

no compliance with the Government Resolution of 4.7.1995.

However, High Power Committee sanctioned the pension on 29.01.1997 in

view of two affidavits.

In the note put up to the High Power Committee it was stated that Zilla

Gaurav Samiti recommended when in fact there was no positive recommendation.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on oath

on 26.2.2003 wherein he stated that he provided bread (bhakari) and water to the

- 311 -

persons taking part in freedom movement, and did the said work of providing bread

(bhakari) for one month. He used to collect bread (bhakari) from the village and

convey them up to Naka for which he was required to walk. He clearly stated that he

never left his village and the application was prepared by Kashinath Jadhav and he

was not aware as to which freedom fighters filed affidavits in support. Thus, his

statement is contradictory to his earlier assertion in his affidavit mentioning various

activities in which he was involved in the freedom movement along with others and it

also falsified the statements contained in the affidavits of the supporting freedom

fighters.

Apart from this the note put up to the High Power Committee was defective in

the sense when there was no positive recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, the

note put up to the High Power Committee stated that the case was recommended by

Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that he failed

miserably to make out case as required by provisions of Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995. It can be clearly concluded that he is not entitled to the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled


- 312 -


Shri Kisan Sakharam Pansande

Kisan Sakharam Pansande applied for pension as freedom fighter on

1.12.1993. In the application he stated that he worked under Ashruji Raoji Jagtap. He

has filed affidavit dated 17.12.1993 stating that the he worked at Mirajgaon Camp.

He has filed supporting affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrutlal Rasal. In his affidavit dated

17.12.1993 he has only stated the name of Ashruji Raoji Jagtap.

In the supporting affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal dated 11.02.1997 his

name is added in different type and there is also one sentence added in the same type

to the effect that Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal had worked in Hyderabad Freedom

Movement. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Achut Amrut Rasal is getting pension

because of his part in freedom movement of India and therefore the addition of such

sentence to the effect that he also took part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement is not

reliable.

He also filed affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia who also

took part in the freedom struggle of India and not in the freedom movement of

Hyderabad. Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia however, stated that he worked

under Swami Ramanand Thirth in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. Another freedom

fighter Ashruji Raoji Jagtap was not sentenced.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 9.3.1997 referred to the

affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia

and recommended grant of pension and the High Power Committee sanctioned the

pension. He did not file affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to

imprisonment for their work in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. He filed Writ Petition

- 313 -

in the High Court wherein direction was given for deciding his case within six

months.

He filed affidavits after notice was issued by the Commission and referred to

the documents already produced.

Considering the admitted position that both the supporting freedom fighters

Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal as well as Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia were

sentenced to imprisonment for their role in the freedom movement of India and there

is no independent evidence about any part played by them in the Hyderabad freedom

movement, it is difficult to accept how their recommendation regarding the role of

Kisan Sakharam Pansande in Hyderabad freedom movement could be relied upon and

accepted. Even then the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has given positive recommendation and

the same is accepted by the High Power Committee. It appears that in view of the

writ petition filed by him and the directions of the High Court for expediting the

decision of the case, his claim was granted hurriedly and there was no proper scrutiny

as to whether there is compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.2.1995. On

close scrutiny of the above stated facts and circumstances it is clear that he failed to

comply with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The

Commission has commented in detail in a separate part of the report regarding

reasons in respect of case of underground freedom fighters on the reliability of certain

freedom fighters indiscriminately filing such supporting affidavits including the above

two persons. The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 314 -


Shri Kisan Shivram Tandale

Kisan Shivram Tandale filed application dated 3.5.1989 as underground

freedom fighter for grant of pension and he stated name of Gahininath Fakira, Misal

as kendra pramukh and he filed affidavits of Namdev Khade and Gahininath Fakira.

However in his further affidavit dated 3.1.1997 he stated for the first time

names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and filed their affidavits

dated 6.11.1996 and 1.1.1997 respectively. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 20.6.1997

recommended the grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Anna Eknath Telap.

On 7.7.1997 the Collector noted his objection stating that Kisan Shivram

Tandale did not compy with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. However,

High Power Committee sanctioned the pension on 14.10.1997.

He appeared before the Mane Committee but nothing new was stated. He also

filed affidavit before Commission and repeated the facts stated earlier and also made

further improvement and stated for the first time that he was required to live away

from his house for 13 months.

The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane show that

his name is added to the typed affidavits and there is no signature or initial on the

added portion. Moreover the incidents stated in their affidavits are not quoted in the

affidavit of Kisan Shivram Tandale which is completely vague. The said affidavits

are stereotype repeating the facts as stated by them in other cases.

- 315 -

His statement is recorded on oath by Mane Committee on 22.2.2003 but there

also he made extremely vague statement and did not refer to a single incident

concerning the freedom movement.

He therefore miserably failed to make out a case that as a result of part taken

in freedom movement, he was required to live away from house. In fact there is no

averment regarding any suffering as such by him during the freedom movement and

the Commission therefore finds that he had miserably failed to establish his

entitlement to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and same granted to him deserve to be

and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 316 -


Shri Manik Dnyanoba Chaure

He filed application on 16.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter. He filed

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and relying on this the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case. However, Additional Collector pointed

out that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. He

filed another affidavit on 11.8.1995 naming Namdev Baburao Gite and in the affidavit

dated 7.11.1996 he named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. Their

affidavits are dated 3.2.1997 and 6.11.1996 respectively.

In all the three supporting affidavits his name is added in ink in typed

proforma without initial of anybody. The High Power Committee considered the

cases of Manik Dnynoba Chaure, Garje, Tarte, Dhoke, Vasant Bapu, U.P.Ashruba. S.

B. Bhosale, Garje and Tandle.

The supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telalp and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Manik Dyanoba Choure was added to

the typed affidavits and there was no signature or initial of any person on the addition.

However, this infirmity was not noted by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti or was not even

brought to the notice of High Power Committee and even the Additional Collector did

not refer to this aspect in the letter to the Government.

His own affidavit is extremely vague and he did not state any particular

incident in which he took part in the freedom movement. In the affidavit of Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane there is a reference to the incident of burning Pachangri Naka and

attack on Daskhed police patil wada and Naka regarding which the Nivruti Fakira

- 317 -

Dhakane has stated in all the affidavits filed stating that there were 50 to 60 persons

who took part in that attack. The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap refers to the incident

of burning of Antarvali Naka stating that Manik Dyanoba Choure was also with him

in the said incident. As earlier stated Manik Dyanoba Choure himself did not mention

this incident. The other freedom fighters whose affidavits are filed are not qualified

in the sense that they were not sentenced to two years imprisonment. He appeared

before Mane Committee on 28.2.2003 and his statement had been recorded on oath

and he stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for six

months. There also he has not quoted incidents which are stated in the affidavits of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. Thus he failed to adduced reliable

evidence regarding his role in the freedom movement and to show compliance with

the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and supporting affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane cannot be said to be affidavits in the

proper sense of the term because of the additions in the stereotype affidavits already

typed. He thus failed to prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

and in the view of the Commission the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith


- 318 -


Shri Dnyandeo Jaiwantrao Kakade

He applied for pension on 25.4.1988 as freedom fighter claiming that he was

involved in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. In the application he stated that he was

involved in the incidents of burning Karodgiri naka and gave slogans against Nizam.

He worked at Mirajgaon camp under the leadership of Ashruba Raoji Jagtap.

After 4.7.1995 Government Resolution notice was sent to him on 18.6.1997

for complying with the specific requirements of Government Resolution.

He filed affidavit on 11.7.1997 wherein he named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as

well as Bhima Umaji Bangar. He also filed affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay. In his

affidavit he also mentioned name of Anna Eknath Telalp but it is scored out and there

is no initial or signature.

In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 4.8.1997, the name of

Dnyandeo Jaiwantrao Kakade is added in hand writing to the typed proforma and

similar is the case of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.4.1997. He again

filed affidavit dated 16.12.199 wherein further improvement is made and he has added

name of Namdeo Balwant Aher and stated that he was severly beaten by police and he

had to live away from his house for 5 to 6 months.

He filed affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

and in both the affidavits the name of Dnyandeo Jaiwantrao Kakade added in ink to

the typed proforma.

- 319 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 22.9.1997 relying on the

affidavits of freedom fighters namely Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 13.10.1997 addressed to the Deputy

Secretary referred to the affidavit as stated by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and pointed out

that he (Dnyandeo) did not comply with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Namdeo Balwant

Aher and Bhima Umaji Bangar, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and

the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and in the statement recorded on

oath, he stated names of Asaraji Raoji Jagtap, Ramchandra Jangire, Bhausaheb Janjire

and stated that when polie started firing he ran away. At that time he was aged about

13 to 16 years and he filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Namdev Balwant

Aher and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

In his application he stated that police were trying to arrest him and therefore

he entered Mirajgaon Camp and in his absence his house was ransacked by the

Razakars and his land remained barren because he was living away from house at

Mirajgaon Camp and he suffered heavy loss. Alongwith further affidavit dated

17.7.1997 he produced the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama

Jaybhay.

In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 4.8.1997 name of Gnyandeo

Jaiwant Kakade resident of Kinhi Tq. Ashti is added in ink to the type format and the

incident quoted is that Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade was accompanying Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne in incident of burning Pachangri Naka and Daskhed Police Patil wada, and

office. This incident has been quoted by the Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in almost all

cases. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.07.1997 the name of

Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade is added in blank space in the typed format of affidavit

and incident quoted is of Anterwali naka in which there was fight between Pathan

and Vishwanath Teli wherein Vishwanath stabbed Pathan and other Razakars ran

away. The body of Pathan was brought to the Kharda fort.

- 320 -

He filed further affidavit dated 16.12.97 wherein he stated names of Ramling

Swami and Wamanrao Waze and the names of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo

Balvantrao Aher in addition to the names earlier stated by him. He also stated that he

was required to live away from his house for 5 to 6 months.

He filed further affidavit of Namdeo Balvantrao Aher in which the name of

Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade is added in ink in the blank space left for that purpose in

the typed affidavit.

His statement was recorded on oath by the Mane Committee wherein He

referred to his residence at Mirajgaon Camp and burning of Sheri Karodgiri Naka and

attack on police station of Waghluj.

In the affidavits of almost all supporting freedom fighters, who are qualified to

give supporting affidavits, the name of Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade is added to the

typed format and in that sense the affidavits are defective, as pointed out in the

general reasoning in cases of underground freedom fighters. The Commission has by

way of policy decided that if there was other material on record which lent assurance

to the case made out by the applicant freedom fighter then only for the reasons that

there are such defects in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters the claim

should not be rejected.

The present respondent has stated number of incidents in his original

application and the subsequent application which found support in the affidavits of

some of the supporting freedom fighters and the statement before Mane Committee

also mentions same incidents. The statement recorded by Mane Committee was long

after the incidents and this factor can also not be lost sight of.

The Commission therefore finds that the case of Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade

can not be discarded for the contradictions here and there in these affidavits and finds

that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted need not be interfered with and the

Commission recommends continuation thereof accordingly.

- 321 -


Shri Asruba Rambhau Sonwane

Shri Asruba Rambhau Sonwane filed application as underground freedom

fighter on 4.8.1998. In the application he mentioned names of Madhavrao Nirale and

Changdev Bhanvar. Thereafter he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

1.7.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 21.6.1997 and Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied

on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended

his case.

The Additional Collector noted his objection mentioning no compliance with

the Government Resolution dated 5.7.1995.

He named Anna Eknath Telap and Nirutti Fakira Dhakane in his affidavit

dated 21.6.1997. In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay, his

name is inserted in hand writing in blank space left in typed proforma and that is not

initiated by anybody and the High Power Committee granted pension as per the note

in File No.141.

He appeared before Mane Committee and named Madhavrao Nirale and

Kashinath Jadhav.

In his affidavit and his application dated 28.08.1995 he referred to the incident

of burning of Waghluj Naka and removal of cartridges therefrom. In his further

affidavit dated 21.06.1997 he referred to the names of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna

Eknath Telap for the first time and filed their affidavits in support. Their affidavits as

- 322 -

pointed out in detail in the other part of this report suffer from the same defect

wherein the name of the freedom fighters was added in the ink in the typed format in

which the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka and Antarvali Naka and Daskhed

police patil wada and office were narrated but those incidents were not stated in his

own affidavit by Ashruba Rambhau Sonwane although detailed affidavit was filed on

21.06.1997 along with the affidavits of the aforesaid two freedom fighters.

Even before the Mane Committee when the statement was recorded on oath,

he did not refer to these incidents and his participation in the said in incidents. Thus,

not only that his own affidavit did not contain those incidents, affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap are totally

unreliable which contained a stereotype story made out for supporting number of

freedom fighters as discussed in detail in a separate part of this report and as such not

worth to rely upon.

He, therefore, failed to produce necessary evidence showing compliance with

the provisions of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and to make out case as is

required by the said Government Resolution and therefore, the Commission find that

there was no adequate material before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as High Power

Committee and Sanmanpatra and penionary benefits granted to him on such evidence

deserve to be and be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 323 -


Shri Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde

He filed application claiming pension on the ground that he was underground

freedom fighter and worked under Kashinath Jadhav. He filed affidavit dated

3.7.1997 and along with it produced the affidavits of two freedom fighters Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap dated 3.7.1997. In both the affidavits, the

name of Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde is inserted in hand writing and in the proforma

affidavit typed earlier.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti however relied on the two affidavits and

recommended his case on 22.9.1997 for grant of pension. The Additional Collector

took objection on 8.10.97 and informed the Government that Pandurang was not fit

for grant of pension.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation.

He appeared before Mane committee and stated in his statement that he was

away from his house for five to six months. He further stated that police had filed

criminal case against him at Patoda. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant

Aher are persons with whom he worked. He did not name Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Anna Eknath Telap, on the basis of whose affidavits his name was recommended

by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Powe Cormmittee.

- 324 -

The affidavits of all four supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakane,

Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher suffer

from the same infirmity that the name of Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde is added to the

affidavits already typed. The incidents stated in the affidavits of the respondentant are

not stated by the supporting freedom fighters and all the supporting affidavits suffer

from the infiermity as pointed out. The Commision has commented on this aspect in

the reasons of underground freedom fighters cases in general.

The Commission however finds that other two affidavits suffering

from the same infirmity and contained material contradictory to the statement of the

freedom fighter himself could not curve the defects in the case.

Apart from this a close look at the affidavit of Namdeo Balvant Aher makes it

clear that the thumb impression of Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde were already obtained

on the front portion as well as on hind portion of the stamp paper but since the

contents were typed afterwards, covered the first thumb impression on front page, the

thumb impression on the hind portion is seen at long distance from the part where the

contents ended and not at the place where the thumb impression should have been

taken. Further more, after the identification and signature of the competent authority

there should be thumb impression of the deponent which is absent.

Although, he has contended that he was prosecuted he has not produced any

documentary evidence at any stage before the Commission.

In his statement before Mane Committee he merely stated that he cut Shindi

trees and he was taken by Kashinathrao Jadhav for cleaning the Bendsur forest of

Shindi trees as Bensur residents were not ready to do the work. He has also stated that

at that time he was studying at Ashti in 2nd Standard. It appears that he was of

extremely tender age although there is no evidence of his date of birth on record.

In his affidavit before the Commission he did not refer to any Criminal Case.

The Commission therefore, finds that he failed to prove his entitlement by

compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the

- 325 -

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

forthwith, and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Kishor Mahaappa Jujgar (Deceased) represented by Shrimati Vanmala

Kishorappa Jujgar.

Application was filed by deceased Kishor Mahaappa Jujgar on 30.4.1996

claiming pension as underground freedom fighter and in the application stated that he

worked under Kashinath Jadhav. He filed supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap

and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. He filed another affidavits on 8.5.1998 and named

Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. In their supporting affidavits

the name of Kishor Mahaappa Jujgar is added in different type than the type of the

rest of the portion which is like a proforma affidavit already prepared.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti, which was then in existence did not rely on the

evidence produced to recommend the case.

The High Power Committee also rejected his claim. He was informed about

the decision.

Thereafter however he complained to the “Lok Aayukta”. He filed affidavits

of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap after his own affidavit dated

8.8.1998. Earlier he had filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane dated 16.6.1997. He had also filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In the later affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

his name is added in different type at different time and the addition/alteration is not

- 326 -

signed lor initialed by any body and the affidavits with such additions/alterations

cannot be given sanctity of a statement on oath. They are not worth to rely upon.

After complaint to the Lok Ayukta the case was reconsidered and Zilla Gaurav

Samiti in its meeting dated 24.06.1997 recommended sanction relying on affidavit of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation.

His wife appeared before Mane Committee. She has no personal knowledge.

In fact his claim was firstly rejected rightly by Zilla Gaurav Samiti and it

refused to recommend his case. After complaint to the Lokayukta he sent another

letter alongwith affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap said

affidavits suffer from the infirmity. The incidents stated in earlier affidavits were

repeated in these affidavits to which he made no reference even in his further or

detailed affidavit alongwith which he filed additional affidavits.

The reasons for which his claim was earlier rejected by the Government were

existing and merely by filing affidavits of other two freedom fighters which cannot be

treated as affidavits, cannot be said to have taken place in the situation. In fact, there

was no additional ground or reason for reconsideration of his claim after filing of two

additional affidavits and complaint to Lok Ayukta. The Commission has commented

in detail on the affidavits of the aforesaid freedom fighters who indiscriminately filed

such affidavits in number of cases.

The Commission finds that he failed to prove his entitlement by producing

reliable evidence in support of his claim and the Sanmanpartra and allied benefits

granted to him be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 327 -


Shri Vasant Baburao Upre (deceased) represented by wife Ranjanabai

Vasant Bapurao Upre applied for the pension on 16.8.1995 stating that he

worked under Kashinath Jadhav.

He filed affidavits of Kashinath Jadhav dated 16.8.1995 and supporting

affidavits of Dynoba Rodba Mali and Digambar Ramrao Shinde. However, these

persons were not sentenced to imprisonment for two years.

After 4.7.1995 when notice was issued to him, he filed affidavit on 28.4.1997

and in that affidavit named for the first time Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and filed his

affidavit dated 23.6.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997. In

both the affidavits the name of Vasant Baburao Upre is inserted in ink in typed

written affidavit.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on those affidavits and recommended the case for

sanction.

The Additional Collector recorded objection on 10.7.1997 as there was no

compliance with Government Resolution dated 5.7.1995. High Power Committee

sanctioned the claim on 18.2.1998.

Apart from the fact that the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne suffer from the infirmity of addition of name to the affidavits already

- 328 -

typed, the incidents stated therein i.e. burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police

patil wada and office are not stated anywhere in the affidavit of Vasant Bapurao

Upare, although he has referred to various other activities. He has not stated that he

worked alongwith Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in his earlier

affidavit and stated their names for the first time in the affidavit dated 28.4.1997 i.e.

after the notice issued on 17.06.1997 for compliance of Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995.

The affidavits of other freedom fighters filed earlier are vague in the sense

that particular incidents described in those affidavits supporting the claim of Vasant

Bapurao Upare in his application or in any of his earlier affidavits. Earlier he never

claimed that he was required to live away from his house. Thus, there being no

compliance with the provision of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, he has

failed to prove entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and the

same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 329 -


Shri Waman Nivruti Sanap

Waman Vivruti Sanap applied for pension on the ground that he was

underground freedom fighter in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and worked under

Ramling Swami and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

He filed affidavit dated 9.1.1997 and in this affidavit for the first time he

referred to the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He filed

their affidavits dated 12.2.1995 In their affidavits the name of Waman Nivruti Sanap

is inserted in typed affidavits afterwards and there is no initial or signature.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

Anna Eknath Telap in its meeting dated 5.6.1997 and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector by his letter dated 8.7.1997 differed with the

recommendation on the ground that there was no compliance with Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1975. However, High Power Committee sanctioned pension on

13.10.1997.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded wherein

he has stated that he was underground freedom fighter and cut shindi trees.

- 330 -

Although, he has stated that arrest warrant was issued against him, he did not

produce any copy of arrest warrant.

He named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap only after he

received notice dated 16.06.1996. In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna

Eknath Telap the name of Waman Nivrutti Sanap is added in the space left blank and

in different type on different machine and different ink. Apart from this, the incidents

stated in his own affidavits are not stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom

fighters, He has not referred to the incident of burning Pachangri Naka and Daskhed

police patil wada and office and attack on Antarwali naka which is stated by the

supporting freedom fighters. This makes the case made out in the application further

unreliable and since the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

about whom the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee were fully aware

that they have been indiscriminately giving supporting affidavits, the sanction of

claim based on their affidavits that too when the same were contrary to the contents

of the freedom fighters himself is beyond comprehension. In his statement before the

Mane Committee recorded on oath on 18th February 2003, he stated that he did not

know Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and he had been recommended

by Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Bhanudas Patil and the only incident he stated was

that he hoisted flag at Wadzari against Nizam Government.

In view of the above stated contradictions and the infirmity in the affidavit

pointed out, the High Power Committee was not justified in accepting the

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Moreover infirmities in the affidavits were

not brought to the notice of the High Power Committee in the note put up for its

consideration. The Commission finds that he had failed to prove his entitlement to

the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same deserve to be and be cancelled


- 331 -


Shri Badrinarayan Ramchandra Toshiniwal

Badrinarayan Ramchandra Toshiniwal filed application for grant of freedom

fighter pension on 19.2.1997. In the application made in the format he has stated that

he worked under Namdev Khade at Kharda Camp and took part in burning karodgiri

naka etc. He was working underground and he claimed pension as undergrouond

freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated 24.4.1997 wherein he has named Ramling

Swami, Vamanrao Vaze, Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. He produced

supporting affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. The statements

in these affidavits are contradictory as Sona Rama Jaybhay stated that he took part in

burning pachangiri naka and Daskhed Police Patil wada office. In the affidavit the

name of Badrinarayan Ramchandra Toshiniwal is added afterwards in typed proforma

as the difference in ink is obvious. In the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the addition

of the name in different type is very obvious and the statement is he was also involved

in Antarvali naka burning.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.6.1997 considered his case

and relying on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap


- 332 -

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 30.7.1997 that he

(Badrinarayan) had not complied with the requirements of Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee relying on the recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and the two affidavits, sanctioned pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and he stated that when there was attack

on rajakar at Ashti and Kharda camps at that time Sona Rama Jabhay and Wamanrao

Vaze were with him. He studied at Ambejogai private school upto Vth Std. He

further stated along with his application that he gave affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay

and Manik Anubhule but he did not name Anna Eknath Telap whereas he has named

Manik Anubhule.

After notice, issued by the Commission he filed detailed affidavit making

number of improvements in the earlier statement and stated that Nizam did not allow

Hindu to attend school which nobody’s case and far from truth.

Perusal of the file of Badrinarayan Ramchandra Toshniwal shows that long

back in the year 1972 he was given certificate for his role in the Aryasamaj by Arya

prathinidhi which included the activity of strike in the Hyderabad State. In his

affidavit dated 24.4.97 he referred to have worked under Namdeo Bapu Khade at

Kharda Camp and the incident of attack on Antarwali Naka and burning Karodgiri

Naka. Supporting affidavit is filed by Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 6.5.97. There is also

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap in which there is addition of the name to the typed

affidavit. His affidavit and his earlier application are consistent as contents thereof are

similar and therefore the Commission found that he was entitled to Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits and the finding of the

Government in that respect need not be interfered with and the Commission

recommends continuation of the same.

- 333 -


Shri Bhagwan Bapu Nagargoje.

He filed application as underground freedom fighter on 27.4.90 and stated

therein that he worked at Vadzari camp under Wamanrao Vaze.

He filed affidavit dated 30.4.1990 wherein he stated that there was warrant

issued against him. He took part in burning Karodgiri naka and he was with Uttam

Dhondiba Sanap and Ramrao Ganapati Sanap and filed affidavits of Uttam Dhondiba

Sanap and Ramrao Ganapati Sanap of the same date. In both these affidavits it is

stated that warrant was issued against him.

There is also one application in the proforma which is undated and in which he

stated the incidents of burning Daskhed police patil office and cutting shindi trees.

He filed another affidavit dated 9.1.1997 wherein he named Ramling Swami, Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao Vaze and Anna Eknath Telap and in this affidavit he has

stated that he took part in manufacturing of Bombs and providing them to the freedom

fighters and giving shelter to the underground freedom fighters. He produced

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telalp dated 12.1.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane of the

same date. In the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap his name is added in space already

left blank for that purpose which is obvious from different ink and even in the

- 334 -

affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane the name is added after the earlier portion was

typed but regarding the difference in ink nothing can be stated on mere examination.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case in the meeting held on

5.6.1997 relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

The Additional Collector pointed out by letter dated 4.7.1997 to the Deputy

Secretary that he (Bhagwan) did not comply with the provisions of the Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995

The two freedom fighters whose affidavits are relied upon by him for

compliance of Government Resolution dated 4.7.95 have narrated the incident of

burning Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil wada, office as narrated in his

original application and he has also named Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath

Telap in the same application . The affidavit ofAnna Eknath Telap suffers from

infirmity of addition of name but the same is not the case with the Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne and there are affidavits of other freedom fighters who are ofcourse not

having qualification of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia of being sentenced to

two years imprisonment.

There is no marked contradiction in the statements and he has proved his

entitlement to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and therefore the Commission does not

find it proper to interfere with order of Government and recommends continuation

thereof.

- 335 -


Shri Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale

He applied for freedom fighter’s pension on 20.4.1989. However, no particular

activity in which he was involved in the freedom movement was stated in the

application.

In his affidavit dated 7.4.1989, copy whereof is placed on record, he stated

that arrest warrant was issued against him and such warrants were issued against 30-

40 persons from his village. He therefore went underground in order to avoid arrest.

He filed further affidavit dated 6.6.1997 wherein he named for the first time Ramaling

Swami, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Wamanrao Vaze under whose guidance he worked and

further added names of Bhimrao Umaji Bangar as well Asaraji Raoji Jagtap stating

that along with them he was residing at Mirajgaon Camp and took part in cutting

Shindi trees, burning of Police Patil and therefore arrest warrant was issued against

him and he has filed supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama

Jaybhay.

In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 23.6.1997 his name is

added in ink in the portion left blank to the typed format wherein there is reference to

the incident of Antarwali Naka to which the freedom fighter himself has not made any

reference in his own affidavit and in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay, a reference

- 336 -

is made to the attack on Pachangri Naka and burning of Das Kheda Police Patil office

and Wada. This affidavit also suffers from the same infirmity that the name of

Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale resident of Sangavi, Taluka Ashti is added in ink in the

format of affidavit already typed.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.7.1997 relied on the affidavit of

the respondent and two supporting affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath

Telap and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 10.7.1997 that

there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Before the High Power Committed a note was put up, which was common to

the cases of 9 persons including the present respondent. The note was to the effect that

except Narayan Haribhao Garje the other eight persons complied with the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. They filed affidavits of two freedom fighters

who were sentenced to two years imprisonment. However the attention of the High

Power Committee was not drawn to the defects in the two supporting affidavits and

High Power Committee sanctioned pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and in the his statement recorded on

oath on 18.2.2003 he stated that he took part in the incident of burning Wagaluj Naka,

Dhamangaon, Deolali Nakas and he worked with Nivaruti Fakira Dhakane, Anna

Eknath Telap and Asaraji Jagtap. He did not take part in any other activity in the

freedom movement.

It is thus clear that apart from the fact that the incidents which he earlier stated

in the first affidavit are not stated in the second affidavit the incidents stated by the

supporting freedom fighters are different and there is inter-se contradiction between

the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters and his own affidavit and the

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are also defective in the sense that there

is addition of the name of Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale in handwriting in the typed

format andthere is no signature or initial of any person, which defect has been

consistently pointed out in almost all cases. Apart from this these two freedom

- 337 -

fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap have been consistently filing

supporting affidavits in number of cases which has been pointed out in the general

reasons part in respect of under ground freedom fighters.

In view of the aforesaid contradictory statement made in the affidavits, it is

difficult to rely on the statement made in affidavits of the applicant freedom fighters

or the affidavits of the applicant. Even the statement before Mane Committee is

contradictory to his earlier statement and statements contained in the supporting

freedom fighters’ affidavits.

In his affidavit filed before the Commission he stated for the first time that for

thirteen months he was required to live away from his house and this statement is

obviously made with a view to show compliance with provisions of Government

Resolution dated 4.07.1995.

The claim of the respondent would not have been accepted had the defects in

the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters were noticed by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti or the High Power Committee or had some consideration been given to the

contradictory statements and the absence of any statement showing compliance with

the Government Resolution in the affidavits filed earlier.

The Commission is therefore of the view that he did not make out a case of

having worked as underground freedom fighter in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement

and was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as per Government Resolution

dated 4.07.1995 and the same granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled


- 338 -

Case File No.139 (Respondent No.139)

Prabha Thakuba Garje

Prabha Thakuba Garje applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension on the

ground that he was underground freedom fighter, and he filed supporting affidavits of

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, and Anna Eknath Telap.

His application was received by the Collector Office, Beed on 3rd May, 1989.

Along with application he filed affidavit of which Xerox copy is on record. The said

affidavit is dated 24.04.1989. In the affidavit, he stated that he took part in the

freedom movement and was working as congress and Sevadal worker. He was

residing at Mirajgaon camp. However, he did not state any specific incident in which

he was involved. He filed affidavit dated 3.1.1997, wherein, he added the names of

Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Waze, Namdeorao Khade, which were not stated in the

earlier affidavit. However, in this affidavit also no particular incident was mentioned.

In support of his claim, Anna Eknath Telap filed affidavit dated 4.7.1997 in

which the name of Prabhakar Thakuba Garje is added in ink to the typed format of

affidavit and reference is made to the incident of attack on Pachangri Naka and

Antarwali Naka which are not specifically stated in the affidavit of Prabha Thakuba

Garje. Similar is the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in

- 339 -

its meeting dated 20.06.1997 referred to the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and recommended his case for grant of pension. The High

Power Committee considered the case of Manik Dnyanoba Chaure, Prabha Thakuba

Garje, Gorakh Anandrao Tarte, Sonaji Daji Dhol, Vasant Baburao Upare, Ashruba

Rambhau Sonwane, Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale, Narayan Haribhau Garje and

Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale together.

The note put up before the High Power Committee further states “they have

filed affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years

imprisonment and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended their cases. Moreover, there

is recommendation from M.L.A. Bajirao Sonaji Jagtap. Only Narayan Haribhau Garje

has filed affidavit of only one freedom fighter and therefore, excluding his name the

other persons are sanctioned pension and the Member Secretary advocate Rajabhau

Zarkar has also recommended the case for sanction.” In view of this, the High Power

Committee sanctioned pension to the aforesaid persons.

The contradictions in the affidavit of the freedom fighter and the supporting

freedom fighters are already pointed out as the incident mentioned in the supporting

affidavit is not mentioned by the freedom fighter himself. Moreover, the name of the

freedom fighter is added in the typed format of the supporting freedom fighter at later

stage and there is no signature on the additions.

He appeared before Mane Committee on 5th March 2003 and his statement

was recorded on oath. He no doubt stated that he was at Kharda Camp when he was

aged 15 to 16 years. He used to collect bread (bhakari) for those living in the Camp.

He also referred to the incident of burning pachangri and antarveli nakas and stated

the names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap.

Although affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap

suffers from the infirmities which are common in almost all the affidavits filed by

them there is consistency in the averment of the Respondent in respect of the

incidents in which he was involved and the same incidents were stated even before the

Mane Committee on oath. Therefore in spite of the contradictions in the affidavits as

pointed out earlier, his case does not appear to be one in which the Commission

- 340 -

should interfere in the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and accordingly

recommends continuance of the same.

Case File No.140 (Respondent No.140)

Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale

Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension as

underground freedom fighter on 19.07.1996 and stated in his application that he took

part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and worked with Namdeo Bapurao Khade

and took part in the incident of burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed Police Patil

Office and Wada. He filed affidavit dated 19.07.1996 in which no particular incident

has been referred to by him. He filed supporting affidavit of Bhimrao Umaji Bangar

in which it is stated that he was working from Kharda Camp and was taking part in

the incident of burning Nakas and also took part in incident of attack on Pachangri

Naka, Daskhed Police Patil wada and Office.

In the typed affidavit of Bhimrao Umaji Bangar the name of Bajirao

Annasaheb Tandale is added in ink in the blank space left for that purpose and this

addition obviously at a later stage and nobody has signed or initialed to authenticate

this change or addition. Similar, is affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakne dated

19.07.1996 in which also the name of Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale is added in ink and

bears no signature or initial of anybody. He also filed supporting affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay of which Xerox copy is on record but the same defect of addition of

name is noticed in this affidavit also. Out of the supporting freedom fighters, Bhima

Umaji Bangar was not qualified to file supporting affidavit, in as much as there was

- 341 -

arrest warrant against him only for 9 months. But the two other freedom fighters were

sentenced to two years imprisonment and were qualified.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting dated 5.6.1997 and

relying on affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay recommeded

his case for grant of pension. He also filed further affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

probably when the matter was before the High Power Committee but the said affidavit

also suffers from the same defect as the name of Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale is added

in ink to the typed affidavit. The High Power Committee considered the cases

together, of 9 persons and accepted the recommendations of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

The incidents referred to in his affidavit are also stated in his original

application and although the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters suffer from the

infirmities which are common to almost all affidavits filed by them there being

consistency in his statement through out and his contention that he resided at Kharada

camp also appears consistent. The fact remains that he was living away from his

house and for such contradictions and the infirmities in the affidavits of freedom

fighters, the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

him need not be interfered with and recommends continuance thereof.

- 342 -


Shri Sonaji Daji Dhole

He applied for pension on 26th July 1996 and in his application stated that he

took part in the burning of Pachangri naka and Daskhed police patil wada and office

and worked under the Leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and Bhima Umaji Bangar.

He filed affidavit dated 26th July 1996 in which he stated the names of Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane as well as Ramling Swami. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

dated 26th July 1996 refers to the incidents of burning pachangri naka and Daskhed

police patil wada and office. However, in this affidavit the name of Sonaji Daji Dhole

is added in ink in the blank space and it is stated that Sonaji Daji Dhole was one of the

50 to 60 persons who took part in that incident. The same incident is stated by Bhima

Umaji Bangar.

He further produced affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 19th April 1997

wherein also the two incidents stated above are referred to.

When he appeared before Mane Committee he made exaggerated statement

that he was injured in the firing in one incident and one bullet hit him on his thigh and

he further added that he did not know Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Bhima Umaji Bangar,

Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay, who worked in the freedom movement

of Hyderabad and he was required to live away from his house for a period of two to

- 343 -

three years. The entire statement regarding having been hurt by bullet having been

required to live away from house for two to three years is exagerated as the freedom

movement did not continue so long.

In the application filed before the Commission through his advocate he has

gone to the extent of saying that he was convicted and sentenced to two years

imprisonment for his activity in the freedom movement and he was relieved on 17th

September, 1948 after the police action.

Thus although there is consistency in his application and the supporting

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay through out he stated

that same story. His name is added in ink to the typed format and nobody has signed

or initialed to authenticate the addition. Moreover he admitted before Mane

Committee that he did not know persons who had given the supporting affidavits and

did not disclose in the earlier affidavits that he was required to live away from his

house for a period of two to three years. He admitted before the Mane Committee

that he was not required to live away from his house. If in fact he had received bullet

injury, it is not probable that he would forget such important event when he filed his

own affidavit. In his affidavit before the Commission, he did not make reference to

this. He claimed that he was convicted and sentenced for two years. Thus his entire

statement either in the affidavit or before the Mane Committee and or his statement in

application are totally unreliable. All statements are contradictory and the affidavits

filed in support are of the persons whose affidavits are found by the Commission to be

doubtful for the reasons stated in the general reasoning regarding underground

freedom fighter’s cases. The Commission, therefore, finds that his application and

affidavits filed in support are not reliable and on the basis of such evidence he should

not have been granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserves to be and

should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 344 -


Shri Ramchandra Nivruti Nannaware

Applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 30.9.1995. He filed

affidavit dated 25.9.1995 stating that he worked under Kashinath Jadhav and was

involved in burning Karodgiri Naka and attack on police chauki. He filed affidavit of

Namdev Nana Toal and Hiraji Mejaba Pawar. However, they are not freedom

fighters who were sentenced. He was given notice dated 6.7.1996 after issuance of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.95 and thereafter he filed fresh affidavit dated

1.8.1997, wherein he named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He

filed their affidavits. In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 15.7.1997 his

name is added in ink in the space left blank and there is no initial and same is the case

of affidavit of Anna Eknath Telalp.

He filed another affidavit dated 22.1.1998 and named therein Wamanrao

Vaze, Ramling Swami, Kashinath Tatyaba Jadhav , Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna

Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.


case on the basis of affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap.

However, the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 3.10.1997 that he

(Ramchandra) did not comply with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 345 -

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension in view of the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the two affidavits of freedom

fighters.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded wherein he

stated that he did the work of providing bread (bhakari ) at Pathardi Camp. He also

provided bread (bhakari) at Daskhed Camp.

In his original application as well as in the earlier affidavits filed on 25.9.95 he

did not make reference to the particular incidents which are stated by him in further

affidavits dated 1.8.97. In this affidavit he specifically referred to two important

incidents namely burning of Pachangri Naka as well burning of Police Patil Office

and Wada at Daskhed. These incidents were also stated by Nivruti Fakira Dhakane in

his supporting affidavits and his statement to the effect that in this particular incident

about 50.-60 persons were with him including the present respondent and similar is

the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap wherein he also stated that Ramchandra Nivrutti

Nanvare was involved in burning of Antarwali Naka. Both the affidavits of these

supporting freedom fighters’ suffer from the infirmity pointed out in the earlier

paragraphs. The addition of the name in the already typed affidavits has not been

signed or initialed by anybody. Obviously a stereotype affidavit was already kept

ready wherein name of the person was added.

In the written argument filed on behalf of the respondent it is contended ‘only

formal affidavit of the supporting freedom fighters are required.’ As regards to the

addition of name to the typed affidavit the contention is ‘this is not a defect and the

affidavits are bound to be stereotype if the incidents are same.’ The argument is not

acceptable simply for the reason that if the name of the Freedom Fighter is added in

hand writing that creates doubts on the reliability of the statement of the person

swearing affidavit. This defect can not be just ignored as has been ignored by the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee as no reference is made anywhere in the

note placed before the High Power Committee. It is true that the law does not require

that the supporting freedom fighters should state of particular incident. However,

when he swears to an incident stating that the respondent freedom fighter was along

with him then its truthfulness has to be examined. The absence of any such averment

- 346 -

in the initial application and the first affidavit of the respondent create serious doubt.

The affidavits are worthless in view of the additions and alterations.

Moreover when examined on oath before Mane Committee on 20.2.2003, he

made no reference to these two incidents. Had he in fact been involved in these two

incidents, he would not have forgotten to make reference in the first affidavit as well

as in the application and specifically when he was examined on oath before Mane

Committee. In this statement he has only stated that he used to provide break

(bhakari) to the Camp residents and even to Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane which lends assurances to the earlier inference that neither the statement of

respondent nor the statements contained in the supporting affidavits are trust worthy.

Moreover his statement that he was supplying breads to the Kharda Camp falsifies his

later assertion that he was required to live away from his house. Obviously he must be

living in his own house and carrying breads from there or from the village if at all he

had some concerns with the freedom fighter movements.

In view of this entire statement of the respondent regarding the activities

mentioned by him and the supporting freedom fighter’s in the later affidavits being

afterthought are not at all trust worthy and the Commission is therefore not convinced

that he satisfies the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and has

therefore failed to prove his entitlement to Sanmanpatra and the allied benefits and the

same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith. The Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 347 -


Shri Dattopant P. Hamine (deceased) reresented by wife Kamalabai Dattopant

Hamine

The application is filed by Kamalabai Hamine claiming that her husband

Dattopant had taken part in freedom movement and in the Form B she produced

certificate of Anantrao Bhalerao who was editor of Marathwada Daily and welknown

freedom fighter but the statement in that affidavit is vague and it is stated that

Dattopant Pandurang Hamine had taken part in the freedom movement. There is also

certificate of Tarabai Nagnath Paranjape well-known freedom fighter of Nanded who

has given similar certificate without stating any specific role of the Dattopant

Pandurang Hamine.

There are also letters of various leaders like Pramod Mahajan to Sharad

Pawar and letter of Sharad Chandra Pawar to Shri Pramod Mahajan. One Shreeniwas

Vyankatesh Khot has also filed affidavit dated 1.8.1996 stating that Dattopant Hamine

had taken part in freedom movement of Hyderabad State. Shreeniwas Khot is also a

well known freedom fighter.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered her case in the meeting dated 6.3.1997. It

is stated in the proceeding that on inquiry by the Committee they were satisfied that

Dattopant Hamine had taken part in the freedom movement. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti

unanimously recommended the case for grant of pension.

- 348 -

The note was put up that she has not filed affidavits of freedom fighters who

were sentenced to two years. There is no evidence that Dattoopant Hamine was

required to stay away from house or gave up education because of his activities in

freedom movement.

The Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar made a note on the file

that the case is recommended by Anantrao Bhalerao arathwada” daily Editor, who has

written history of Hyderabad Freedom Movement and who was in jail and there was

also recommendation of Tarabai Paranjape and Shreeniwas Khot andcase is

recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and pension be sanctioned from the date of

application.

She appeared before Mane Committee and stated that her husband took part in

the freedom movement. He worked with Purushottam Chapalgaonkar, Anantrao

Bhalerao, Shreeniwas Khot etc. He was also arrested and kept in custody for one day

by the police. The Mane Committee was also influenced by the certificate of well

known freedom fighters and cleared her case.

Even before this Commission Shri Avargaonkar who is said to be the person

behind the Public Interest Litigation stated that he has no objection for grant of

pension to Kamalabai.

The question however, is not whether anybody has objection or not or whether

the case is recommended by the well known freedom fighters. The question is

whether there is compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

She has admittedly not filed affidavits of two freedom fighters sentenced to

two years imprisonment which is the basic requirement for considering the case on

the ground that person was working underground in the freedom movement. The

supporting certificates have also not stated that he was living away from his

house or gave up his education because of his role in freedom movement.

No documentary evidence is produced regarding his arrest.

The Commission also accepts that the four freedom fighters who have

recommended the case are highly respectable and would not make any false

- 349 -

assertion in their recommendatory letters. However, that does not mean that she is not

required to comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July

1995.

The Commission is therefore of the view that she failed to prove entitlement

of her husband to the pensionary benefits and Sanmanpatra and the same granted to

her should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Chintaman Abaji Jaybhay

He filed application on 11.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter and stated

that he took part in burning nakas etc. and worked from Kharda camp under the

guidance of Namdeo Khade and Babunana Gite.

He filed further affidavit dated 16.12.1997 wherein he added names of Anna

Eknath Telap , Sona Rama Jaybhay and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and filed affidavits

of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. In both the affidavits his name

is added in the ink in the space left blank. It is also added in both the affidavits that

he took education in the private school that also in ink in the blank space. There is

no initial on the additions.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in its meeting dated 7.9.1998

referring to the affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap and Sona Rama Jaybhay and

recommended his case.

The Additional Collector objected on the ground of non compliance with


The High Power Committee accepted the recommended.

Thus both the supporting affidavits suffer from the infirmity of addition of

name and also addition of some material portion to the affidavits in the blank space in

ink to the typed format of affidavits and these additions and alterations are not signed

and as observed in the general reasons these cannot be treated as affidavits having

- 350 -

sanctity of statement on oath. He was exposed fully when appeared before Mane

Committee. He stated that he used to provide bread (Bhakari) which he was

preparing at his house. The incidents stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom

fighters are also not found in his own affidavit.

The Commission therefore is of the view that he had failed to comply with the

requirements datd 4th July 1995 Government Resolution as the affidavits filed in

support were totally unreliable and therefore he failed to prove his entitlement and the

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



Shri Shripati Waman Sonwane

He applied for grant of freedom fighther’s pension dated 29.9.91as a

underground freedom fighter and filed his lown affidavit dated 21.1.1991 stating that

he worked as underground and there was warrant issued against him. However, did

not produce copy of warrant.

His case is considered as underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap ans Sona Rama Jaybhay dated

26.07.1997. In both the affidavits his name is added in ink and it is not initiated and

vague incidents of participation are referred.

He also filed affidavit of Bapu Govind Rakh dated 13.05.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his application in its meeting held on

15.09.1999 and in view of the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama

Jaybhay recommended his case.


there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned pension in view of the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and supporting affidavits of two freedom

fighters and his own affidavits.

- 351 -

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing bread

(bhakari) in Domgri Camp. There are contrary statements in the affidavits of the

freedom fighter and the supporting affidavits and his statement recorded by the Mane

Committee.

In his first affidavit dated 25.1.1991 he has not made reference to any

particular incident in which he was involved in freedom movement and even in the

later improved affidavit dated 11.7.1997, although he added names of other freedom

fighters and the supporting freedom fighters, he did not refer to the incidents which

were stated in the affidavits of the supporting fighters. In the affidavit of Anna Eknath

Telap dated 17.7.1997 the name is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit and

reference is made to the incident of burning Antarwali Naka and murder of one

Pathan by Teli. Even in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in ink

to the typed format of affidavit and reference is made to additional incident of burning

Police Patil Office and Wada at Daskhed to which respondent has not made any

reference.

When examined before Mane Committee, in his statement on oath he did not

make reference to this incident on the contrary stated that he was providing breads

(bhakari) to the freedom fighters and has not done any other work in the freedom

movement which falsifies his statement as well as those of supporting freedom

fighters. Thus he was not required to live away from his house. He was not beaten by

the police and he was only providing breads from his house to the freedom fighters

which means he was living at his house only and he has therefore failed to comply

with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. There is nothing worth

noting in the affidavit filed before the Commission. The Commission is therefore

convinced that he has failed to prove his entitlement and the Sanmanpatra and the

allied benefits granted to him should be cancelled and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 352 -


Shri Sahebrao Eknath Nagargoje (deceased legal representative Tahnabai-wife)

He filed application for grant of pension as underground freedom fighter on

14.08.1995 stating in his application that he worked under Namdev Kashinath Jadhav

and Bapurao Khade at Kharada Camp.

In his affidavit dated 23.06.1997 he stated the names of Nivruti Fakira

Dahakane, Ramling swami, Wamanrao Vaze, Sona Rama Jaybhay.

He produced affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay and

in both the affidavits his the name is inserted in blank space in already typed

affidavits. He has also filed affidavit of Manikrao Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapat

Sanap dated 09.11.1998. In the file there is a letter by Deputy Chief Minister

addressed to the Chairman of High Power Committee recommending sanction of

pension to Sahebrao Eknath Nagargoje.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for sanction on the basis of

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dahakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

However, the Additional Collector recorded objection by letter dated

10.07.1997 addressed to the Deputy Scretary on the ground that Sahebrao did not

comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

- 353 -

His claim was earlier rejected by the High Power Committee in view of the

discrepancy in the affidavits and he was informed accordingly and thereafter he filed

additional affidavits containing the averments which are required as per the provisions

of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. Even in his earlier affidavits dated

8.8.1995 no reference was made to his part in any of the incident nor had he stated

that he was required to live away from his house. After he was communicated the

reasons for rejection of his claim he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and

Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Manik Tulshiram Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap. It is clear that after he was informed of the reasons of rejection he made out

case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution which is obviously after

thought in as much as in the application as well as in the affidavit filed earlier, there

made no reference either to the names of these freedom fighters who have later on

filed supporting affidavits or to the incidents referred to by them in their affidavits.

It is obvious from the perusal of the file that the entire approach of the High

Power Committee took a radical turn after receiving the letter of Deputy Chief

Minister recommending his case for granting of pensionary benefits. The incidents

stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are not stated in his own

affidavit and the case made out that he was required to live away from his house for

ten months is also afterthought in as much as when he was examined on oath on 20th

February 2003 before Mane Committee, he stated that he was providing breads

(bhakari) i.e. he was living in his house and providing bread (bhakari). He no doubt

stated that his father was sentenced to two months imprisonment but no documentary

evidence in support of this statement is produced. Even accepting that his father may

have been a freedom fighter who was connected with freedom movement of

Hyderabad and sentenced, in his statement recorded as late as in 2003 does not refer

to any incident in which he himselfwas involved in the freedom movement and

therefore the incidents stated in his later improved affidavit and the later improved

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters can not be relied upon. The Commission

is therefore of the view that he failed to prove his entitlement as per the Government

Resolution 4.7.1995 and a Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be

cancelled.

- 354 -

File Case No. 157(Respondent No.157)

Shri Adinath Sahebrao Wanwe.

He filed application on 24.12.1998 claimng pension as underground freedom

fighter. In his application he has stated that he took part with Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap, Gyanoba Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawnt Aher and Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule etc. His file was not traceable, therefore he filed fresh application.

He filed another affidavit of the same date. He added names of Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap dated 15.12.1998 and produced affidavits of

Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 13.08.1999 referred to the

affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and stated that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is satisfied about the role of freedom

fighter and recommended grant of pension. One of the Member P.V.Joshi however,

recorded that only one of the freedom figher is qualified to give affidavit as Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap was absconding for two years whereas other freedom fighters were

not qualified to file supporting affidavit as required by the provisions of Government


The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 20.3.1999 that only

one person namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was qualified to file supporting affidavit

and there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 355 -

The High Power committee referred to the affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba

Bangar, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Bhima Umaji Bangar and stated that there is

compliance of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution and the case is fit for grant of

pension and pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded. He stated

that he attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and warrant was issued agains him.

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap has prepared his file for grant of pension and Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Bhima Umaji Bangar recommended his case.

As a matter of fact defect in his case was rightly pointed out by one of the

Member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that out of freedom fighters who have filed

supporting affidavits, only Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was having the necessary

qualification in the sense that he was absconding for two years. However, in the note

put up before the High Power Committee this defect noted in recommendation of the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not high lighted and was also not brought to their notice. In

view of this it is clear that he had failed to comply with the requirements of the 4th

July 1995 Government Resolution and therefore had not proved his entitlement and

the Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him be cancelled forthwith.

- 356 -

File Case No. 158 ( Respondent No.158)

Shrimati Limbabai Bapurao Pingle

Smt. Limbabai Bapurao Pingle filed application for pension in her capacity as

freedom fighter on 20.9.2995 stating that she has taken part in Hyderabad Freedom

Movement under the leadership of Kashinath Jadhav worked as underground freedom

fighter. She has filed her affidavit on 20.9.2995 stating therein name of Kondiram V.

Bhaurao Gavane of Gevrai dt. 20.9.1995 and Sudam Laxman Wadmare of Takalgaon

Tq. Gevrai.

The notice was issued to her on 06.06.1997 and thereafter she filed affidavits

of Yogiraj Santram Raut and Balaji Dhurane Landge.

Thereafter along with her letter dated Nil, she filed affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap and Namdev Balawant Aher. Both of them stated about their own role in the

freedom movement and added that Limbabai was involved in the incidents of burning

of Pachangri Naka and Police Patil Office and wada Daskhed and Antarwali naka.

She again filed affidavit dated 30.7.1998 and stated the names of Anna Eknath

Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Namdev Balawant Aher.

She again filed affidavit dated 21.09.198 wherein she stated that she worked

under Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and she was supplying bread (bhakari)

and cloths to the freedom figher.

She appeared before Mane Committee and stated that she and her husband

were on strike and they have burnt the houses of muslim persons. She did not know

- 357 -

in which village this was done. She and her husband were absconding and she was

supplying bread (bhakari ) to the freedom fighters.

After notice was issued by the Commission she filed affidavit and referred to

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aaher.

Although she filed affidavits of number of freedom fighters, in her

application and in the earlier affidavits dated 20.9.1995 and her affidavit filed along

with application she made vague statement regarding attack on police chowky and

karodgiri naka. Even in the two supporting affidavits of Kondibhau Gavane and

Sudam Lakshman Wadmare no specific incidents have been stated. Even in the later

affidavits of Yogiraj Santaram Raut and Walaji Dhuraji Landge no specific incident

has been stated.

After the notice she filed further affidavits on 16.11.1996 in which also no

specific incident is quoted by her.

However in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Namdev Balawant

Aaher there is a statement that she was involved in the incident of burning pachangri

and Antarvali nakas to which she herself does not make any reference in earlier

affidavit. Even in the further improved affidavit dated 30.7.1998 she did not state any

incident and had contended that she was cooking food at the camp. Thereafter also

she filed another affidavit dated 2.9.1998 and in this affidavit she has stated for the

first time that she was required to live away from her house for ten months.

However in the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Saheb it was stated that he was

arrested with 116 persons and convicted and sentenced and at that time Limbabai was

with all the said accused whereas Limbabai herself does not say in any of her affidavit

that she was part of such incident. Thus her earlier affidavits are vague and there is

contradiction in her own affidavits and affidavits of freedom fighters who have

supported her in the sense that although she referred to certain incidents in which she

was taking part along with them she herself did not say that she had taken part in that

incident. When examined on oath before the Mane Committee she stated that she

and her husband set the house of one muslim person on fire and she used to provide

breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters, It is therefore difficult to accept as to how

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended her case even when one of the Member

brought it to the notice that she did not state the incidents in which she herself was

involved.

- 358 -

All these details were not properly placed in the note put up before the High

Power Committee.

She therefore failed to make out the case of entitlement as per 4th July 1995

Government Resolution to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same need to

be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Appasaheb Devji Mahadik

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 09.08.1988 stating

that he worked under Ashraji Ravji Jagatap, Head of the Centre, and took part in

burning karodgiri naka.

Notice was issued to him on 18.07.1997 and thereafter he filed affidavits of

Dr. Achut Ramrao Rasal dated 5.8.1997 in which his name is added afterwards as the

originall is like a carbon copy and his name is typed in the portion which is kept

blank. Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal had undergone imprisonment in the freedom

movement of India. He also filed affidavits of Aashraji Ravji Jagtap. He filed

affidavit of himself and Appasaheb Mahadik dated 16.9.1997.

He filed affidavit of Sonarama Jaybhay dated 09.09.1997 in which his name is

added in ink in proforma affidavit and also filed affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

08.09.1997 wherein also his name is addd in ink in typed affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal,

Asraji Ravji Jagtap , Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and relying on

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap recommended his case for

grant of pension.


there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

- 359 -

The High Power Committee referred to the fact that he was required to live

away from his house for six months. As stated in his own affidavit and relying on the

suppoting affidavits of two freedom fighter, sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he worked in the

freedom movement and right from 1942 he was working in the freedom movement of

India. He has filed affidavits of freedom fighters who were sentenced to

imprisonment for two years.

In his first application filed in the year 1988 he had referred to the incident of

burning Karodgiri naka at Pimpalkbuti, Waghjai which are also stated in the statement

recorded by Mane Committee in 2003. It is true that affidavit of supporting freedom

fighters suffer from the infirmity which is noticed in almost all cases regarding

addition of names to a typed format of affidavit but even in the very first application

he had stated that his house was ransacked by the Razakars and his land was lying

barren because he could not cultivate. It would show that the statement although

made after the notice was issued to him that he was living away from his house cannot

be rejected out right as after thought and therefore the Commission finds that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted need not interfered with but be continued.

- 360 -


Shri Sonaji Devrao Chaure

Sonaji Devrao Chaure applied for grant of pension as underground freedom

fighter on 16.08.1995 and in his application referred that he workd under N.Baburao

Khade and Wamanrao Vaze and was involved in activities of cutting shindi trees and

burning nakas. He filed affidavit dated 16.08.1995 stating the aforesaid facts and that

Sopan Nana Bangar, Babu Nana Gite were also working with him. He produced

affidavits of Babu Nana Gite and Sopan Nana Bangar.However, these persons are

freedom fighters who were not sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Notice was issued to him on 16.07.1997 and thereagfter he filed affidavit

dated 10.12.1998 in which a totally improved case is made out by quoting names of

Sahabrao Ganapati Banger, Namdev Balawant Aher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. He further stated

that for nine months he was required to live away from his house and produced

affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 10.12.1998 and Namdev Balawant

Aaher dated 10.12.1998.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 13.01.1999 relied on the

aforesaid affidavits and recommended his case for grant of pension on 20.03.1999.

- 361 -

The Additional Collector wrote to the Government that there is no compliance

with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. However, High Power Committee

sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane committee. His statement was recorded. He stated

that he did not know names of persons who supported him. He did not know. Namdeo

Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. Thus he could not state the names of

persons who supported him and who were qualified to file affidavits in order to enable

him to seek pension and Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on their affidavits while

recommending his case.

In the affidavit dated 16.8.1995 the statement of Sonaji Devrao Chaure is that

he used to take part in attack on police choky and ransacking nakas along with Bapu

Nana Gite and Sopan Nana Bangar and he produced their supporting affidavits.

Sopan Nana Bangar stated that Sonaji Devrao Chaure was involved with him in the

incident of burning pachangri naka and Daskhed police patil wada to which no

reference is made by Sonaji Devrao Chaure in his affidavit or in application. His

further affidavit dated 10.12.1995 contains improvements and various incidents are

quoted in affidavit for the first time and has referred to the names of Sona Rama

Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and produce

supporting affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and Namdev Balawant Aher.

However, in his statement recorded on oath before the Mane Committee he has not

stated the names of the freedom fighters who filed supporting affidavits when his

statement was recorded on oath and he had referred only the names of Bapu Nana

Gite and Sopan Nana Bangar who are from his village. Before Mane Committee for

the first time he stated that he was living away from his house for nine months. This

afterthought statement is made to show that he has complied with the provisions of

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. In the circumstances there was no

adequate material on record showing compliance with 4th July 1995 Government

Resolution. He failed to prove his entitlement. The Commission therefore

recommends the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to him be

cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 362 -


Shri Marutrao Tatyaba Sarpate

Marutrao Tatyaba Sarpate applied for pension as underground freedom

figthter on 09.03.1999. He filed affidavit dated 09.03.1999 stating that he worked at

Dongri Camp under Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. Nizam Government police patan had

entered the village Vadzari and the people attacked them and in that incident Limba

Bappaji Sanap, Yadav Patilbuva Sanap were killed on the spot. When this news

reached to the Camp 400 to 500 persons from Dongri went towards Vadzari with

weapons and the police pathan ran away. In the firing two constable of Nizam were

killed and in this incident Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and

Namdeo Balwant Aher were involved.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting heldl on 9.3.1999 recommended his

case relying on the aforesaid two affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap.

The Additional Collector reported on 20.03.1999 that there is no compliance

with the Government Resolution date 04.07.1995.

In the statement recorded before the Mane Committee he stated that he did not

know persons who supported his case for grant of pension and stated that he did not

know full name of Namdev Balawant Aher and he never came in contact with

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher.

- 363 -

The incidents stated in the affidavits of respondent and the supporting freedom

fighters are same and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters corroborated

the case made out. He also referred to Namdeo Balwant Aher, Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and Manik Tulsiram in the statement before the Mane Committee. Marotrao

Tatyba Sarpate did not change the names of supporting freedom fighters. The

Commission therefore finds that there is no infirmity in his Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits and recommends continuation thereof.


Shri Rambhau Abasaheb Bhawar

He applied for grant of pension on 31.03.1989 stating that he worked under

Ashruji Raoji Jagatap and filed affidavit dated 25.7.1997 in wich he has named for the

first time Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth and filed the

affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia dated 29.07.1997 in which the

name of rambhau Aba Bhanwar is added in handwriting. He filed another affidavit

dated 17.2.1999 wherein he added the names of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap, Namdev

Balawant Aher and filed the affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap dated 17.02.1999

and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule of the same date. He has stated names of persons

supporting his case who are qualified to support as per the requirements of

Government Resolution for the first time in the affidavit dated 17.02.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 recommended his

case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth. It is worth noting that these two persons had

taken part in freedom movement of India and they are getting pension for their role in

that freedom movement.

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and stated that he complied with the

- 364 -

requirements of Government Resolution and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended

his case and sanctioned pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in which

he stated that he was reuired to live away from his house because of the freedom

movement and his case is recommended by Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

Although he has filed supporting affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia, Namdev Balawant Aher and Dr. Mohan Narhari Deth, he made statement

before the Mane Committee that he did not know these persons and he did not work

with them. The affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia and Dr. Mohan Narhari Deth suffered from the infirmity of addition of the

names in the typed format of affidavits. The affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap ,

Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule were sent directly to the High

Power Committee along with his own affidiavit dated 27.2.1999, but even then before

Mane Committee he stated that he did not know Namdev Balawant Aher and did not

work with him.

The affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule,

although contained details, are not reliable as even the respondent did not know them.

The statement that he was required to live away from his house is also made by him

for the first time when he filed affidavits of two freedom fighters along with his own

affidavit dated 17.2.1999. Moreover Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr.

Mohan Narhari Deth had taken part in the freedom movement of India and there is

nothing on record to show that they were also involved in freedom movement of

Hyderabad. In his earlier affidavit dated 27.3.1989 he had not even referred to the

names of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. In view of these

contradictory statements contained in the different affidavits, his case of having taken

part in the freedom movement along with these persons whose affidavits are relied

upon by him to support of his contention could not be accepted and the Commission

therefore recommends that he has failed to prove his entitlement as required by the

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

- 365 -

granted to him should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.


Shri Sarjerao Kashinath Sanap

He applied for pension on 26.02.1990 as underground freedom fighter stating

that he worked under Wamanrao Vaze and Trimbak Ganapati Sanap.

He filed affidavit dated 30.1.1999 stating names of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap,

Bhimrao Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant Aher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule,

Karbhari Tatya Bangar, Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar and stated for the first time that he

was required to live away from his house for 9 to 10 months.

He has filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap dated 30.1.1999 and

affidavit of M.T.Anubhule dated 30.1.1999.


for sanction of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and

Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.

The Additional Collector pointed out by that he (Sarjerao) did not comply with

the requirements of Government Resolution.

- 366 -

However, the High Power Committee observed “from his affidavit it is

obvious that he suffered in the freedom movement and his case is recommended by

two freedom fighters and there is also recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti”, and

the pension was sanctioned on 18.1.2000.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded and in the

statement he referred to the names of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Nivruti Gopal Khade,

Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulshiram Anubhule.

He filed before the Commission his affidavit but nothing worth noting is

stated.

In his application filed in the year 1990 he stated that he took part in burning

karodigiri naka and ransacking police patil office and even in his affidavit dated 14th

February 1990 he made the same statement on oath. In his further detailed and

improved affidavit dated 30th January 1999 he referred to the incidents in which two

persons were killed namely Limba Bappaji Sanap and Yadav Patilbua Sanap.

However, for the first time he stated that after this incident he along with 400 to 500

persons went with guns and swords to Wadzari and there they attacked the Nizam

police. If in such incident he had in fact been involved, it should have come out at the

first available opportunity and therefore it is obvious that it is afterthought statement,

similarly at later stage he stated that he was away from his house for nine to ten

months.

Same incidents are stated in the affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and

Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. These affidavits cannot be relied upon to prove

involvement of Sarjerao Kashinath Sanap in the incidents stated therein.

Before Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath on

24.2.2003 he stated that he did not know Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and except

providing information to the persons residing in camp he had not done any work

which falsifies his contention in his detailed affidavit and affidavits of supporting

freedom fighters regarding part taken in the incidents by him and therefore he failed

to establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same

granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 367 -


Shri Pandharinath Raghoji Baglane

Applied for pension as underground freedom figher on 28.11.1998 and stated

the names of Ramling Swami, Namdev Khade, Bhima Bangar and Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap as freedom fighters with whom he worked.

He filed affidavit dated 23.11.1998 stating names of Nivrui Fakira Dhakane,

Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay. He filed affidavit of Narayan Keshavrao

Pawar and Namdev Balavant Aher dated 22.2.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting held on 9.3.1999

and recommended the same on the basis of affidavits of Narayan Keshav Pawar and

Namdev Balwant Aher who were sentenced to two years improsonment.

The Additional Collector, however, informed the Government “the case is not

fit for sanction as there is no compliance wih the Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995”.

The High Power Committee accepted recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti

and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee wherein he has stated names of Nagnath

Paranjape, Dudhali Kadhale and Purushottam Chapalgaonkar etc. whose names are

not stated earlier anywhere.

- 368 -

In his application dated 28.11.98 he has referred to the incident of burning

Rohatwadi Naka and attack on the Nijam Police (Pathan) from Wadzari Camp. He has

filed further detailed affidavit dated 23.11.1998 wherein he has stated the incident of

Wadzari Naka with details and in support he has filed affidavit of Narayan Keshavrao

Pawar and Namdeo Balwant Aher. Narayan Keshav Pawar has filed affidavit in very

few cases of other freedom fighters like Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane

and Namdeo Balwant Aher. Further there are no contradictions in the affidavits of

these freedom fighters in the sense that they have referred to the incidents which are

stated in the application at the very first opportunity. The statement recorded by Mane

Committee is also consistant. The Commission does not find that it is a case in which

the inference is called for and recommends continuation of his pension, Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits.


Shri Ashruba Rambhau Jadhav

He applied for grant of pension as underground freedom fighter on 4.8.1995

stating that he worked under the leadership of Kashinathrao Jadhav. In his affidavit

dated 14.8.1995, he has only stated that he was involved in burning Karodgiri Naka

and worked with Bansi Umaji Wadmare and Dhondiba Rama Kale. He also filed

affidavits of Bansi Umaji Wadmare of the same date and affidavit of Dhondiba

Rama Kale. However, these two persons have not been convicted and sentenced in

the freedom movement.

He filed second affidavit dated 27.7.1997 in which he named for the first time

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and other like Ramling Swami,

Wamanrao Vaze.

In support of his claim Anna Eknath Telap filed affidavit dated 23.6.1997 and

Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997. In this affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay the

name of Ashruba Rambhau Jadhav is added in ink in the typed format. Thereafter he

again filed affidavit dated 17.2.1999 wherein he added the names of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Tatya Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant

Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and also stated for the first time that he was

- 369 -

required to live away from his house for ten months. He filed supporting affidavits of

Namdeo Balwant Aher in which some portion in the affidavit is added in different

type which is obvious from printing ink.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated nil relied on the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay Anna Eknath Telap and recommended his case for grant of pension.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 10.7.1998 pointed out that there was

no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee agreed with the recommendation and granted

pension on 15.10.1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee and in his statement he stated that he

had participated in burning the office at Madalmohi alongwith namdeo Balwant Aher

and Manik Tulshiram Anbhule. According to him he had to live away from his

house for two to three years with apprehension that police may arrest him. He

admitted that police had not been to his house any time for arresting him. In his

affidavit before the Commission he repeated the above said facts.

Aashruba Rambhau Jadhav filed affidavit after notice was issued to him and

also filed the supporting affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Manikrao Tulshiram

Anbhule. There are no contradictions in the supporting affidavits. There is no

infirmity of addition of names in typed affidavits and the one incident which has been

stated by him through out is regarding attack on Madalmovi Naka and has been

referred to in the affidavit of one of the supporting freedom fighters Manikrao

Tulsiram Anubhule. He was residing at Kharda Camp and as such it can be accepted

that he was livng away from his house in the area beyond the borders of Nizam. He

worked as freedom fighter. The Commission therefore finds no infirmity in the order

of the Government granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends

continuation thereof.

- 370 -


Shri Pandharinath Bhaguji Gite

He applied for grant of pension on 22.1.1999 as underground freedom fighter

and in his application stated the names of Wamanrao Deshmukh and Annabhau Gite.

He filed supporting affidavits of Namdev Balavant Aher dated 29.1.1999.

He then filed another affidavit dated 11.1.1999 in which he has stated names

of Sahebrao Sanap Wadzari, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar,

Karbhari, Tatya Bangar and has also stated for the first time that he was required to

live away from his house for 10 to 11 months and the police entered his house and

took away the grains and also had beaten his father and he has filed supporting

affidavits of persons who were sentenced for to two years imprisonment or were

absoconding for that period. He filed affidavit of Narayan Keshvrao Pawar dated

11.1.1999.

He has not produced any copy of warrant what he has produced is a copy of

judgment of criminal court which is not relevant as he was accused in the said case

and was not convicted.

- 371 -


recommendation letter of Jayavantrao Tilak and the affidavits of Namdev Balawant

Aher and Narayan Keshav Pawar and copy of Urdu warrant and its translation and

stated that he took part in freedom movement and has filed affidavits of two persons

who were sentenced to two years imprisonment. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced

about his participation in the freedom movement. However, one of the members

P.V.Joshi mentioned that the Xerox copy of warrant is in respect of Arya Samaj Strike

which is not in respect of Hyderbad freedom movement and his name is not there.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 20.3.1999 and stated

that after going through the papers ‘there is no evidence that Narayan Keshav Pawar

was sentenced to two years and there is no compliance with Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995’. However Narayan Keshav Pawar was sentenced to two years

imprisonment in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

The High Power Committee considered the case and in the note put up before

the High Power Committee it is stated ‘the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his

case and applicant has taken part in Goa Freedom Movement and produced

certificate’. It refers to the certificate of Jayavantrao Tilak. The note further states

that he worked underground and has produced certificate of persons who were

sentenced to imprisonment and their recommendation is self explanatory and

therefore Zilla Gaurav Samit has recommended and as certificate regarding his part in

Goa Freedom Movement is produced the pension be sanctioned. It is further stated

that on oral recommendation of the Member Secretary, it is placed before the

Committee. In the further portion it is stated very clearly that the copy of certificate

of Jayvantrao Tilak and his name is recommended, by Goa Liberation Samiti. His

name is not in the list of Goa Liberation Samiti. However, a person to whom

Jayvantrao Tilak has recommended, his name would normally be in the list of Goa

Liberation samiti. However name of Pandharinath is not in the list of Goa Liberation

Samiti.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case as underground freedom

fighter and Shri Gite has produced certificate that he was a Satyagrahi in Goa

liberation movement and warrant was issued against him. The warrant should have

- 372 -

been got verified through the District Collector, Beed and one of the Member of the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti has stated that in the warrant copy produced by him his name is

not seen. In the further note of the Under Secretary it is stated that the case is not

connected with Goa Liberation movement and the application and report of Collector

to the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti be re-examined from this angle.

The note further states that the District Collector has examined the case as

underground freedom fighter and applicant has worked underground against the

Nizam Government and has stated about his suffering. His affidavit is clear and he

complied with the conditions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and therefore

Zilla Gaurav Samiti made recommendation. Thereafter the matter was kept pending

for sometime because of Code of Conduct was in force and after it was over the

pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in which he

stated the names of Narayan Keshavrao Pawar He sated for the first time that he

helped Namdev Balawant Aher in burning the house and office of police patil of

Daskhed. However no warrant of arrest was issued against him. He was not arrested,

was not beaten by the police and further clearly stated that he did not take part in the

Goa Liberation Movement and has filed affidavits of Narayan Keshav Pawar and

Namdeo Balawant Aher and produced evidence about their sentence.

After issuance of notice by the Commission he filed affidavit stating that he

did not take part in the Goa Liberation Movement but worked underground in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. He, therefore, referred to the supporting affidavit

stating that he worked as underground freedom fighter in Hyderabad Freedom

Movement.

There are certain aspects of this case which need to be high lighted. He has

produced one recommendation letter from Ex-MLA Shri. Annabhau Gite wherein it is

stated that he took part in Sanyukta Maharashtra Moment. There is also a

recommendation letter from Jayawantrao Tilak, Ex-Sabhapati and Secretary of Goa

Liberation Samiti wherein it is stated that this respondent took part in Goa Liberation

Movement under the leadership of Wamanrao Deshmukh and entered the territory of

- 373 -

Goa in 15.8.1965. In his statement recorded by Mane Committee, he clearly admited

that he did not take part in Goa Liberation Movement. Along with the application he

had produced recommendatory letters from Jayawant Tilak and and Annabhau Gite.

In the application no reference was made to any incident pertaining to Hyderabad

Freedom Moment or Goa Liberation Movement. In his own affidavit dated 11.1.1999

also there is no reference to Goa Liberation Movement and the entire reference is

made to Hyderabad Freedom Movement and the incidents in which he was involved

along with Narayan Keshvrao Pawar and Namdeo Balwant Aher as well as Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar. The incidents, which are stated in his

affidavit, are corroborated from the affidavit of Narayan Keshvrao Pawar and there is

also supporting affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher.

It is therefore apperant that since he had produced recommendation letter from

Jayawant Tilak, the case was considered as one of the Goa Liberation Movement for

which he had not made claim. Therefore his case has to be considered as the case of

freedom fighter in Hyderabad freedom movement. He claims to have worked as

underground freedom fighter in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

His statement in the affidavit has been corroborated by one of the freedom

fighters. He was living at Domri Camp beyond Nijam State there appears no such

serious infirmity for which the Commission should recommend cancellation of

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and therefore recommends continuation thereof.

- 374 -


Shri Shahurao Karbhari Sanap

He applied for grant of pension as underground Freedom Fighter on

16.03.1990 claiming to be underground Freedom Fighter. He filed his affidavit on

30.01.1999 where in he referred to the names of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Wamanrao

Waze, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdeo Balwant Aher and others. He stated that the

Nizam Government Police had attacked Wadzari village and in that incident Yadav

Patilbuva Sanap and Limba Bappaji Sanap were killed and after this news was

received in the camp about 400 to 500 Congress workers went with weapons at

Wadzari and on noticing them the police ran away towards Patoda. In the firing by

the Congress workers two police constables died. In the freedom movement his

parents and wife were also beaten by the police.

He filed affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 30.01.1999 and Bhima

Umaji Bangar. However, Bhima Umaji Bangar was absconding for nine months only.

He then filed affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher dated 30.01.1999.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 09.03.1999 recommended to grant

pension on the basis of affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo Balwant

Aher. One of the member Shri P.V. Joshi recorded that both the affidavits were

exactly similar.

- 375 -

The High Power Committee relying on the two affidavits accepted the

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension on 02.02.2000.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in which

there is nothing worth noting as there is repetation of earlier statement and similar is

the case of affidavit filed before Commission.

In the application as well as the affidavit filed in support by Shri Shamrao

Karbhari Sanap long back in 1990 there is reference to the incidents which are stated

in detail in his later affidavit of 30.1.1999 and there is corroboration from the

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo

Balwant Aher. Thus there is consistency in the statements made in the application and

the first affidavit and also in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

corroborating his claims in the application. There is no infirmity in these affidavits

and therefore the Commission does not find any reason to interfere with the decision

of the Government sanctioning Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends


- 376 -


Shri Trimbak Deorao Misal

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 21.08.1995 and in

his application stated to have worked with Dr. Rasal and Dr.Changediya and

Madhavrao Nirale. He filed affidavit dated 11.03.1999 wherein he stated for the first

time that he was required to live away from his house for 4 to 5 months and he also

filed affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher dated 08.12.1998 and Manik Tulshiram

Anbhule dated 08.12.1998.

The Zilla Gaurav Samittee in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 relied on the

affidavits of Achyut Amrutrao Rasal and Sona Rama Jaybhay dt. 23.07.1997 in which

the name of the applicant is added in ink in the blank space left open in the typed

affidavit.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 4.7.1998 that there

is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High power Committee granted pension in veiw of the two affidavits and

additional affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and his

later statement that he was required to live away from his house.

- 377 -

He appeared before Mane Committee but there is nothing specific to mention.

Similar is the case of affidavit filed before the Commission.

He has filed supporting affidavits of Shri Rasal and Sona Rama Jaybhay and

later on he produced before the High Power Committee the supporting affidavits of

Shri Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik Tulshiram Anubhule which were

considered by the High Power Committee. The infirmity regarding the addition of

name is only in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and not in the other two affidavits

and the contents of the affidavits of Trimbak Misal are similar to the contents of

affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher. In any case there

are no serious contradictions in these affidavits and the Commission therefore does

not find necessary to interfere in the order of the Government sanctioning

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends continuation thereof.


Shri Udhavrao Anandrao Shinde

Applied for pension on 22.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter. He worked

under the guidance of Ashraji Jagtap. He filed affidavit dated 17.8.1995 stating the

aforesaid facts.

Notice was issued to him on 18/6/1997 after which he filed affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap in which his name is added at two places in ink in typed affidavit.

He also filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 17.7.1997 in which also his

name is added in ink in typed affidavit. Thereafter, he filed his own affidavit and

named some other freedom fighters and thereafter filed affidavits of Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule dated 5.3.1999 and Namdev Bawalant Aher dated 6.3.1999. If the

affidavits are read one after other it is clear that from time to time he made

improvement in the version and also added names of different freedom fighters and

filed their affidavits in support.

- 378 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 relying on the

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane recommended the case


The Additional Collector by letter dated 15.07.1998 to the Deputy Secretary

recorded objection for non compliance with the Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the additional affidavits of Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aher and sanctioned pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in

which he has stated that he cut shindi tree, burnt Karodgiri naka at Dhamangaon and

Waki and he was aged 17 to 18 years.

In his earlier affidavit dated 17.8.1995 he referred to the fact that he was

working under Shri. Asaraji Jagtap and took part in the burning of Waki Naka and

also in attacks at other places. His case was also considered by the earlier Zilla

Gaurav Samiti of which the Asaraji Ravji Jagtap was one of the member and was the

Kendra Pramukh also and although the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity, there are two affidavits of Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher which corroborate the incidents referred to in

his first affidavit and his statement before Mane Committee that he took part in the

incident of attack on Waki Naka.

The Commission therefore finds that there is no infirmity in the order

sanctioning Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends continuation thereof.

- 379 -


Shri Bappasaheb Madhavrao Shinde.

He filed application on 23.05.1996 as underground freedom fighter. He filed

his own affidavit dated 26.06.1997 and two supporting affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira

Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap dated 26.06.1997 and in both the affidavits his name

is added in different type after earlier portion is typed. Thereafter on 19.03.1999 he

filed additional affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 relied on the affidavits of

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap but the Additional Collector vide

letter dated 15.07.1998 recorded objection that there is no compliance with

Government Resolution.

He has filed affidavit dated 25.3.1996 in which the statement is to the effect

that he took part in incident of burning Karodgiri Naka and was working under

Kashinath Jadhav who was Kendra Pramukh. Earlier he had filed affidavits of two

- 380 -

freedom fighters but they were not sentenced to two year’s imprisonment and

therefore he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. In

both the affidavits his name is added to typed written affidavit later on with different

type by different ink and the incidents which are stated in the affidavits of the

supporting freedom fighters are not stated in the affidavit of Bappasaheb Madhavrao

Shinde.

There after he filed affidavit dated 19.3.1999 in which there is clear

improvement and number of incidents are stated and number of names of freedom

fighters are added and in support he produced affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap

and Namdeo Balwant Aher. These names were stated by him for the first time in the

affidavit dated 19.3.1999. The case made out in the affidavit of 19.3.1999 is totally

improved from the earlier statement in the affidavit of himself and supporting

freedom fighters. Thus his later affidavit is full of improvements. Even the name of

supporting freedom fighters viz. Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap

were not stated earlier. He also did not refer to the names of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in the first affidavit. The incidents stated in the affidavits of

supporting freedom fighters are interse contradictory and he had made out a totally

new case in the affidavit of 19.3.99 to which he did not stick up when examined on

oath by Mane Committee.

All this coupled with the fact that the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne can not be treated as affidavits as having sanctity of a

statement on oath as stated in part of general reasoning in respect of underground

freedom fighters cases. If at later stage he comes out with improved version and

produces affidavits of other two freedom fighters who have sworn, similar affidavits

in support of many others, he can not be said to have made out a case of entitlement to

the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as required by Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995. The fact that he even did not whisper earlier anywhere that he was requird

to live away from his house shows that it is an afterthought statement made in view of

provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The Commission therefore, finds that he has failed to make out case of

entitlement as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and

- 381 -

allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled and the Commission



Shri Keshav Seetaram Ghadge.

He applied for pension on 4.1.1985 and in the prescribed format filed with the

application, he stated that he took part in attack of Madalmohi police choky and in

burning Government buildings at Padalsingi and also attack on Ahergaon and Georai

Razakar camps.

He produced supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane in which there is reference to the different incidents than those stated in his

own application. Anna Eknath Telap states that Keshav Sitaram Ghadage was with

him in the incident of burning pachangri naka and antarvali naka and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane states that he was also involved in the incident of burning Daskhed police

patil office and wada.

After notice was sent to him on 17.7.1996, he filed additional affidavits of

himself and other two freedom fighters. In his affidavit dated 16.1.1999 he stated the

names of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulsiram Anbhule

- 382 -

and Namdev Balawant Aher, for the first time and also stated that he took part in the

incident of attack on Waghluj police station in which four police of Nizam were killed

and he was required to live away from his house for four to five months.

In the supporting affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher there is no reference to

the aforesaid incidents but there is vague statement regarding burning of nakas

including pachangri naka and many other incidents are stated to which there is no

reference in the affidavit of Respondent himself.

In the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule there is statement that Keshav

Sitaram Ghadage was working underground and was helping the freedom fighters and

for that he was required to live away from his house for ten to eleven months.

Before Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath, he merely

stated that he provided Breads (bhakari) to the residents of pathardi camp and stated

further that he provided breads for seven to eight days to five to six persons at

pathardi camp and he has not done any other work in the freedom movement. This

statement falsifies his earlier version contained in his affidavit and even in the

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters. Thus the statements contained in his

affidavit and in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters regarding the various

incidents in which he is stated to have taken part are not reliable and therefore his part

in the freedom movement is doubtful. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits are

granted to him on the grounds which were non-existant and the same deserve to be

and be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 383 -


Shri Ambadas Dhondiba Dhakne

He filed application on 25.07.1996 as underground freedom fighter and filed

his own affidavit dated 02.07.1996 and supporting affidavits of Bhimrao Umaji

Bangar and Nivruti Fakira Dhakne. In the affidavit of Bhima Umaji Bangar dated

02.07.1996 the name of Ambadas Dhondiba is added in ink to the typed affidavit and

similarly in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakne it is added in the ink to typed

affidavit. He filed another affidavit dated 03.07.1998 making further improvement

regarding his role and added the names of some other freedom fighters with whom he

claims to have worked. He also filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated

02.07.1997 in which also his name is typed later on.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti also relied on the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended grant of pension.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 08.07.1997 reported non compliance

with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 384 -

The High Power Committee rejected the claim on 10.12.1997 on the ground

that there was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter a note was put up to the High Power Committee that by letter

15.09.1998 he was informed about rejection and thereafter he has stated about several

things in the Freedom Movement and filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended grant of pension.

Moreover, the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti Shri Bangar has made personal

request for sanction of pension to him.

On record there is letter of Deputy Chief Minister requesting for appropriate

action on which the Member Secretary of High Power Committee Advocate Zarkar

has stated that the letter of Shri Bangar and the list given by him are enclosed. Letter

of Shri Bangar addressed to Shri Zarkar is also on record. There is endorsement by

Shri Zarkar that the file be examined again and be placed with recommendation and

he enclosed list containing 58 names which means that personal request was made by

the Chairman of Zilla Gaurav Samiti for sanction to 58 persons.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he used to collect bread

(bhakari) and provide the same to the Freedom Fighters.

He has filed affidavit before Commission in which further details of various

incidents and names of different Freedom Fighters are mentioned.

It is clear from the above discussion that the High Power Committee had

rejected his claim on the ground that he does not comply with requirements of the

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. After the letter was sent by the

Chairman, Zilla Gaurav Samiti in respect of 58 persons in his individual capacity and

there was also on record letter of Deputy Chief Minister, the case was reconsidered.

The entire approach of High Power Committee changed after the letter of Shri

Bangar and a different note was put up and the claim was sanctioned. Not only in

respect of Ambadas Dhondiba Dhakane but in respect of all the 58 persons of which

list was sent by Shri Bangar, Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

- 385 -

The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is blissfully vague and no particular

incident is stated there in and the name of Ambadas Dhondiba Dhakane is added in

ink to type written affidavit. Similarly to the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay name is

added in ink in the blank space whereon there is no signature or initial. There is

mention of incidents of burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed Patil Office and

Wada whereas Respondent himself does not claim to be involved in these incidents or

to have taken part in the same. It is obvious that the High Power Committee changed

its earlier decision in view of the letter of Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the

recommendation received from the office of Deputy Chief Minister.

It is therefore clear that the claim of the Respondent that he had taken part in

the freedom movement is doubtful and in view of statement before Mane Committee

it is clear that he was not involved in the incidents which are stated in his affidavit and

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters in as much as he had not made any reference

to the said incidents.

In his statement before Mane Committee he has stated that Ramling Swami

and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane had hanged Daud (Razakar) and at that time he was also

with them. If in fact he was involved in any such incident or had even witnessed the

same, he would not have forgotten to mention in his affidavit, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

has also not made any reference in his affidavit to this incident even in any of the

affidavits filed in other cases by him. It is thus obvious that the contention of the

Respondent that he had taken part in the freedom movement is doubtful and therefore

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


- 386 -


Shri Bhanudas Sadhu Jagtap

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 14.1.1985. He

referred to the meeting of Kashinath Jadhav . He filed affidavit dated 2.9.1997, in

which he has named for the first time freedom fighters Ramling Swami, Sona Rama

Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. In the last para of his affidavit certain portion is

blank and his signature appears at two places. In the supporting affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 29.4.1997 space for insertion of name has remained blank.

Similar is the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 5.2.1997 wherein also space for

insertion of name has remained blank. He filed further affidavit in support of his

claim. He also filed his own affidavit again on 2.9.1997 wherein he has referred to

incidents of burning Panchgri naka and Daskhed police patrol wada and office. He

again produced supporting affidavits of Shebrao Ganapati Sanap in which his name is

added in the blank space kept for that purpose and another affidavit of Manik

- 387 -

Tulsiram Anubhule dated 7.1.1999. There is one more affidavit of Namdev Balawant

Aher in which his name is added by typing at different time.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.6.1997 relied on the

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and recommended his case


The Additional Collector Beed by his letter dated 3.7.1997 pointed out that

there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim as it was stated in the note that

the affidavits are stereotype and said freedom figher’s have given number of such

recommendations.

After rejection of his claim further note was put up that in the affidavit names

of the persons who filed affidavits later on are not mentioned and again the claim was

rejected on 9.2.1999.

Thereafter it was stated in further note that his claim has been rejected but he

has filed affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manikram Tulashiram Anubhule

and has stated that he worked as underground freedom figher for one year. Further

note is put up on the file regarding his affidavit and the work done in Kharda camp

under Namdeo Khade and the certificate given by Namdeo Khade. He had stated

about his sufferings due to the part he had taken in the freedom movement and MLA

Bajirao Jagtap has written letter to Chairman and recommended his case the note

further states that taking into consideration the documents filed by him, he has

complied with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 5.7.1995 and there is

unanimous recommendation of Zilla Gaurava Samiti and the matter may be

reconsidered.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he cut shindi trees at

Gevrai and on the instructions of Kashinathrao Jadhav, he provided “Bhakari” for two

years at Hingani, Madalmohi and Wanjarwadi and one Sheshrao Patil was also doing

- 388 -

the same work with him. He has filed necessary document that is affidavits of

freedom fighers who were sentenced to two years.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he was away

from his house for 13 months. This was stated in order to show that he fulfills the

conditions. This was never stated earlier.

Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters

suffer from the infirmity that the name of Bhanudas Sadhu Jagatap is added to the

typed affidavit and two are blank and name is not even written, there is no consistency

in the statements contained in his affidavits and the affidavits of the supporting

freedom fighters. There are also blank affidavits. In fact his claim was twice rejected

by the High Power Committee and it is mentioned that the supporting freedom

fighters have filed affidavits in support of number of persons which creats doubt

regarding reliability of their version and it is only after the letter of Bajirao Jagatap

MLA that the High Power Committee changed radically its approach and note

favourable for accepting the claim was put up and the claim was sanctioned.

However, when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was

recorded on oath, he not only could not state the incidents but stated that he only

provided breads (bhakari) to the camp from Hingane and Madalmohi on instructions

of Kashinathrao Jadhav. He does not claim to have taken part in any activity against

the Nizam Government and therefore inference can be drawn that he was not at all

involved in the freedom movement. He could not have provided breads to the freedom

fighters if he was living away from his house. That the contention is falsified by his

statement that he only provided breads (Bhakari).

This case in fact discloses a very well planned strategy adopted in filing

affidavits. The freedom fighters claiming the benefits as well as the supporting

freedom fighters had ready formats of affidavits in which blank spaces were left for

adding names and as and when any person approached the names were being inserted

with ink or by different typewriter and the affidavits were sworn at times with blank

spaces and even adopted identifying the deponents and that the officer of the level of

Naib Tahasildar / Awal Karkun either ignored it or connived at it. That they were

- 389 -

sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in the freedom movement have no sanctity and

cannot be said to be affidavits having been sworn on oath and are not even worth the

paper on which they are written.

The Commission is therefore of the considered view that he had failed to

prove his entitlement and in fact his involvement in the freedom movement is

doubtful and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be

cancelled forthwith and Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Eknath Sawala Jaybhay

He filed application on 11.8.1995 for the grant of pension on the ground that

he worked as a underground freedom fighter. He stated that he worked at Kharda

camp under the Leadership of Namdev Khade and Babu Nana Gite. He filed affidavit

dated 11.8.1995 wherein he has stated names of (1) Sopan Nana Bangar, (2) Babu

Nana Gite, (3) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and (4) Namdev Khade.

He filed further affidavit on 11.4.1997 which is stereotype stating different

names including Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. He filed supporting

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay, wherein his name is added in ink to the typewritten

affidavit and in his own affidavit of 19.4.1997 he has not referred the name of Sona

Rama Jaybhay. He also filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 15.10.1996

wherein also his name is added in ink to the typewritten affidavit.

- 390 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 5.6.1997 recommended grant of

pension relying on affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

The Additional Collector by his letter dated 4.7.1997 informed Deputy

Secretary that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter he wrote letter dated 17.8.1998 and filed improved affidavit and

has described the sufferings he had undergone.

After his claim was rejected, he filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati sanap

and Namdev Balawant Aher. From the note put up thereafter to the High Power

Committee, it is clear that apart from the additional affidavits there was personal

recommendation of the Chairman, Zilla Gaurav Samiti and on record there is also

recommendation letter from the office of the Deputy Chief Minister and therefore on

his application the Member Secretary, High Power Committee made a note that the

case be put up with recommendation and therefore detailed note was put up

mentioning that the two additional affidavits and the details of his involvement in the

freedom movement and the claim was sanctioned.

However when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was

recorded, he clearly admitted that when he was arrested he gave written apology and

got released. It is obvious that thereafter he was not involved in the freedom

movement as he had already tendered apology. Before the Mane Committee no

incident is stated. He further stated that he is not aware as to who had filed affidavits

in his support. It is therefore clear that his participation in the freedom movement is

doubtful. Moreover having tendered apology he is not entitled to claim to be a

freedom fighter.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.

- 391 -


Shri Ranghnath Haribhau Shelke.

He applied for pension on 10.10.1992 and in his application sated that in the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement he had given slogans and police were behind him to

arrest and so he went underground. He filed affidavit dated 09.12.1991 wherein he

stated that Razarkars entered his house and tortured his family members. A notice

was issued to him on 18.06.1997 and thereafter he produced affidavit of Anna Eknath

Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay who were sentenced to two year

imprisonment.

He also filed his own affidavit dated 23.07.1997 in which the name of various

Freedom Fighters are stated. It is stereo type affidavit as similar affidavits are in many

other cases.

- 392 -

In supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap name of Rangnath Haribhau is

added in the ink to the typed affidavit which is partly a carbon and partly typed and

to the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added to the typed format.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 referred to the supporting

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended his case



there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation relying on his

affidavit and the supporting affidavits.

He appeared before Mane Committee. In the statement recorded on oath he

has not referred to any incident much less the incidents stated in his earlier affidavit or

in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters. Affidavits of all the supporting

freedom fighters suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Ranganath Haribhau

Shelke is added to the already typed affidavit and there is no signature or initial on

these additions. Although he has made reference to a criminal case and has produced

extract of Court registere, his name does not appear in the said record as an accused

and the statement in affidavit is also to the effect that Ashraji Raoji Jagtap and his

party were prosecuted and there is no claim that he was arrested by the police. The

infirmity in the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters was not brought to the notice

of High Power Committee in the note put up for accepting the recommendation of the

Zilla Gaurava Samiti.

There is also no evidence of compliance with 4th July 1995 Government

Resolution and therefore he has failed to prove the entitlement to the grant of

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same deserve to be and be cancelled


- 393 -


Ashruba Krishna Lokhande ) (Deceased) represented by wife Kaushalyabai.

Ashruba filed application on 14.7.1989 claiming pension as underground

freedom fighter and stated in the application that he took part in burning Karodgiri

Naka as underground worker. He filed his own affidavit dated 11.4.1989 stating that

he worked as underground freedom fighter for one year and suffered hardship at the

hands of Razakar.

In support of his claim he filed affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amarut Rasal in which

the name of Ashruba Krishna Lokhande is added in different type in blank space left,

in already typed affidavit. The name as well as the sentence about involvement of Dr.

Acyut Amrut Rasal in Hyderabad freedom movement is added at a later stage. The

affidavit is a carbon copy of material earlier typed on some other paper in which these

two sentences are added.

- 394 -

Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal was sentenced to imprisonment for more than two

years in the freedom movement of India and the entire statement in the affidavit

which was earlier typed was with reference to the freedom movement of India. The

name and the fact that he worked in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram is added later on in

different type.

Another affidavit is of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia who was also

sentenced in the freedom movement of India. He stated that Ashruba worked in

Hyderabad freedom movement. In his affidavit the name of Ashruba and th place of

his residence, taluka and district are added in the blank spaces left open, thereafter he

filed affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth dated 19.7.1997 in which also his name is

added in ink along with name of village taluka and district in the spaces already left

blank. This person was also sentenced to imprisonment in 1942 for participation in

freedom movement of India and except making a bald statement that he took part in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement he has not even stated to have worked in Hyderabad

Freedom Movement.

Ashruba filed another affidavit dated 11.3.1999 in which he added that he was

required to live away from his house for three to four months and filed affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 11.11.1998.

Another affidavit is of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 11.11.1998.

One thing is obvious from the above that from time to time he went on

improving story to suit the purpose and added affidavits of the persons.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the affidavits of Dr.Achyut Amrut Rasal,

Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth and relying on the

affidavit of Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia recommended his case for sanction of

pension.

The Additional Collector and Member Secretary wrote to the Deputy

Secretary on 14.7.1998 that there was no compliance with Government Resolution.

- 395 -

The High Power Committee stated that there is clear cut statement about the

sufferings of the applicant and he is supported by Dr. Rasal and Shri Deth and Dr.

Changedia as well as Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case and there is compliance with provisions of

Government Resolution and so pension was sanctioned on 16.7.1999.

The affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule were

not before the Zilla Gaurav samiti which referred only to the affidavits of Achyut

Amrutrao Rasal, Dr. Premchand Changedia and Dr. Mohan Narhari Deth who were

involved in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad freedom movement

and were sentenced for their activities in the freedom movement of India. Even their

affidavits also show that they were involved in the freedom movement of India. In

this affidavit of Dr. Changedia also name of Aashruba Krishna Lokhande is added in

ink in the blank space and there is no signature or initial of anybody and the similar is

the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth who was also sentenced to imprisonment in the

freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad freedom movement. He has also

not referred to any incident in Hyderabad freedom movement wherein he was

involved.

The affidavit of Respondent filed thereafter before the High Power

Committee, dated 11th March 1999 consists of total improvement wherein he stated

that he was so severely beaten by the police that they (police) felt that he was dead

and left him and thereafter Aashraji Raoji Jagatap and his associates gave him water

and he became conscious. This incident is not stated at any time earlier and is also

not stated in the supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik

Tulsiram Anbhule and the incidents to which they have referred to in their affidavits

are not stated in the affidavit of Respondent. These affidavits were sent to the High

Power committee and the note put up before the High Power Committee was cryptic.

It only stated that his claim was supported by aforesaid freedom fighters. Even his

wife who appeared before Mane Committee did not tell that her husband had any time

complained that he was severely beaten by the police and the entire version in his own

affidavit filed as late as in 1999 is afterthought and unreliable and the same is also not

supported by the affidavits of the other two freedom fighters which were filed along

- 396 -

with the said affidavit. There is no reliable statement to show that he was required to

live away from his house and even his wife did not state that he was required to live

away from his house during the freedom movement. However in the affidavit before

the Commission she made the said averment which is obviously afterthought.

Thus he failed to comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated

4th July 1995 and to prove his entitlement to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the

same granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith, and the Commission



Shri Vitthal Yadavrao Rakh

He filed application on 21st January 1991 and along with application he filed

affidavit dated 18th January 1991 wherein he stated that he worked under Nivruti

Aaba Rakh as underground freedom fighter. He has however not stated any specific

incident in which he was involved. In his application filed in 1998 he stated that he

produced additional affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two

years imprisonment.

In the affidavit filed on 3rd August 1998 he stated the names of Namdev

Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap along with other freedom fighters and

these two have filed supporting affidavits. In this affidavit he stated for the first time

that he was required to live away from house for eleven months. However, he has not

quoted any particular incident whereas Namdev Balawant Aher has referred to the

incident of attack on pachangri naka and burning of Daskhe police patil office and

house. In the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap the name of Vithal Yadavrao Rakh

- 397 -

resident of Therala taluak Patoda is added afterwards to the typed affidavit which

appears to be carbon copy and the statement in this affidavit is regarding the incident

for which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was sentenced along with 166 persons. Although

it is stated that Vithal Yadavrao Rakh was with them in that incident, he was not even

prosecuted. The other incidents which are stated in the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap are obviously the incident in which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and others were

involved and there is no statement to the effect that Vithal Yadavrao Rakh was also

involved in the said incident. Thereafter he again filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule dated 28th July 1999 and the incidents stated in the said affidavits are not

referred to in the affidavits of Respondent.

Thus in the application dated 7.1.1991 he did not refer to any incident. He did

not state anything in first affidavit. He even did not refer to the names of Namdeo

Balwant Aher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule or Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. He has also not

stated that he was required to live away from his house. The later improved version of

himself and of supporting freedom fighters Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and others can

not be believed. It is clearly afterthought and made in order to show compliance with


The Commission therefore finds that he failed to make out case of entitlement

as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits and recommends cancellation thereof forthwith.

- 398 -

File Case No.254 (Respondent No. 254))

Bhagwan Yadav Jagdale (Deceased) represented by wife Chanchalabai

He filed application claiming pension as underground freedom fighter on

29.12.1998 and filed two affidavits on 29.12.1998 on the typed proforma, he named

Ramling Swami Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule and Namdev

Balawant Aher.

It appears that earlier also he had given application but the same was not

traceable so he has filed affidavit and in one of the affidavit he has stated that he had

earlier filed application in the year 1988 and 1995 which are not traceable and in

another affidavit filed by him he has stated the names as Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap,

Bhimrao Umaji Bangar, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aher and

also number of incidents and also stated that he was required to live away from his

house for 10 to 11 months.

He filed supporting affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik

Tulshiram Anubhule.

- 399 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on the affidavits of Namdev Balwant Aher and

Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and recommended grant of pension. One of the members

P.V.Joshi made endorsement that all the affidavits were stereotype.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation and

sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he took part in the

freedom movement in burning check post. He did not know which check post he had

burnt. He was aged 12 to 15 years and no warrant was issued against him. He did not

know Namdev Balawant Aher.

By the time notice was issued by the Commission he was no more and his

wife filed affidavit. She has no personal knowledge.

His application refers to the incidents of burning Rohatwadi-Karodgiri Naka

and Daskhed police patil wada and office and also to the involvement of the

supporting freedom fighters along with him in many acts. He has filed detailed

affidavit in which also these incidents are stated and in the supporting affidavits of

namdeo Balwant Aher dated 19.12.1996 and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule the same

incidents are stated.

Although his statement before Mane Committee is vague he has through out

stated that he was living away from his house and therefore the Commission finds that

this is not case in which the Commission should interfere with the findings of the

Government and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be

continued and recommends accordingly.

- 400 -


Shri Rambhau Tulshiram Ghuge (deceased) after filing affidavit before

Commission represented by widow Laxmibai.

He applied for grant of pension as underground freedom fighter on

29.02.1997. It appears that he had filed application earlier in 1996 and in his affidavit

dated 27.1.1997 stated the names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao Vaze and

Ramling Swami and produced affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane. In both these affidavits filed on 27.1.1997 of the supporting freedom

fighters, the name of Rambhau Tulsiram Ghuge is added in ink in the space left blank

and the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is a mere carbon copy.

He again filed affidavit dated 24.11.1998 in which he added names of

freedom fighters like Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Dnyanoba

Jijaba Bangar and also stated that he was required to live away from his house for 8 to

9 months.

In support he produced the affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap.

- 401 -


case on the basis of affidavits of Anna Eknath Tellap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane who

were sentenced to two year’s imprisonment for taking part in the freedom movement.


was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case and it was stated that there

was no compliance with Government Resolution and claim was rejected in view of

the non compliance with Government Resolution.

Thereafter further note was put up in which it is stated that the claim was

rejected and he was informed on 15.9.1998 accordingly. Thereafter he wrote letter on

9.12.1998 and has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two

year’s imprisonment and in the new affidavit he described how he was required to

suffer in the freedom movement. There are already affidavits of other freedom

fighters namely Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who were also

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his

case. Moreover Chairman Shri Bangar made a personal request therefore considering

these two affidavits and in view of the letter, pension was sanctioned by the

Government.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated “he cut shindi trees and

worked under Ramling Swami. He aged 16 to 17 years. He used to tether the cattles.

He did not go anywhere. He was undergraound. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap brought the

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap”.

In fact his claim was rejected by the Government earlier and according to the

Commission rightly. However, thereafter without any further material on record a

note was put up. It clearly appear that the reason for putting up further contradictory

note was recommendation from the Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti in his individual

capacity. It is difficult to appreciate how the individual recommendation of the

Chairman was considered sufficient for putting up totally different and contradictory

note and sanctioning his claim. The affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

suffer from the infirmity of addition of name without any initial or signature to the

addition and both the affidavits are stereotype mentioning the same incidents of attack

on pachangri naka and antarwali naka and burning of police patil office and wada at

Daskhed which are stated in almost all the affidavits of said two freedom fighters.

- 402 -

There is also one more reason which appears to have made change in the

approach and it is the letter from the office of Deputy Chief Minister to the Member

Secretary on which a note was put up with the list given by Shri Bangar attached to it.

Thereafter matter was reconsidered. On the letter of Shri Bangar the Member

Secretary has clearly stated that the papers be placed again before the High Power

Committee with recommendation with reference to the 58 persons mentioned in the

list which included the name of Respondent. The High Power Committee reviewed

earlier findgins because of the said letters. The Commission therefore finds that the

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

forthwith and recommends accordingly.

File Case No.262 (Respondent No.262)

Sahebrao Raoji Chavan (Deceased) represented by widow Savitribai.

He applied for pension on 30.10.1987, on the ground that he is underground

freedom fighter. It appears that he had filed one application earlier in the year 1984.

He filed affidavit dated 30.10.1987.

In the application dated 30.10.1987 he has stated that he took part in burning

Karodgiri naka and giving slogans and he suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- as his

application filed in the year 1984 was not considered.

He filed affidavit dated 30.10.1997 in which he stated that he took shelter at

Mirajgaon Camp as police were after him. Notice was issued to him on 18.06.1987

and it appears that by the time notice was sent he had expired and his son accepted the

notice and his wife Savitribai appeared and filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

and Sona Rama Jaybhay who were sentenced to two year imprisonment. Sahebrao

Raoji Chavan died on 16.08.1992. Savitribai filed further affidavit dated 16.07.1997

- 403 -

making further improvement and stating the names of Ramling Swami. She is

claiming as wife and legal heir of Sahebrao Chavan.

However, in the supporting affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 4.8.1997

name of Savitribai and Sahebrao are added in ink in the blank space. It is stated that

Sahebrao as well as Savitribai were working in the freedom movement along with

him and similar statement is made in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated

26.7.1997 wherein the names of Sahebrao and Savitribai are added in blank space

stating that both of them worked in the freedom movement. This is to be considered

in the light of the fact that Savitribai claimed pension as legal heir of Sahebrao and

not in her capacity as freedom fighter.

Thereafter Savitribai filed another affidavit dated 20.4.1999 in which she

stated that her husband Sahebrao established Sevadal and took part in the freedom

movement and she was preparing bread (bhakari) and providing them to the freedom

fighters and many other ladies were doing the same work. Thereafter she made further

improvement and stated that she did the work along with her husband of burning naka

and police were after them and she worked with Ashraji Raoji Jagtap for one year.

She and one Lakshmibai provided ammunition to the Camp for freedom movement

and She was working with Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule and Namdev Aher in the freedom movement.

In the supporting affidavit by Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 20.4.1999 it is

stated that Savitribai worked in the freedom movement but there is even no reference

that Sahebrao Chavan worked in freedom movement along with them.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 28.8.1997 referred to her

affidavit dated 16.07.1997 and affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama

Jaybhay and recommended grant of pension.


there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter Savitribai sent a letter dated 21.04.1999 to the Member Secretary

Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar stating that she is filing affidavits of Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay who were also sentenced to two year’s

- 404 -

imprisonment and the Member Secretary made endorsement that her case be re-

examined and put up with further comments.

The High Power Committee however stated that in respect of application of

Sahebrao Chavan his wife has made affidavit and she has also produced certificate

showing that she is legal heir and has described the suffering of her husband in

freedom movement and has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters who were

sentence to two years’ imprisonment and therefore pension be sanctioned to Savitribai

who is widow of Sahebrao Chavan and the same was sanctioned.

She appeared before Mane Committee and in her statement she stated “she

produced certificate from Gram Panchayat that she is legal heir of Sahebrao Chavan

and when she married she was not of the age of understanding and she does not know

whether her husband worked in the freedom movement. The application was filed by

her husband for grant of pension”.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission she has claimed pension as legal

heir of Sahebrao Chavan and not claiming herself to be freedom fighter.

Although in the affidavit filed by Savitribai dated 16.7.1997 she claimed the

pensionary benefits as wife of Sahebrao Raoji Chavan and did not make any claim in

her personal capacity as freedom fighter, the supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane is to the effect that Savitribai and Sahebrao both were freedom fighters and

their names are added in the ink in blank space and similar statement is contained in

the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay. When Savitribai does not claim to be freedom

fighter it is surprising that the supporting freedom fighters, who were sentenced to

imprisonment, mentioned in their affidavits that she was also a freedom fighter along

with her husband. The further affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule, Namdev

Balawant Aher do not make reference to Sahebrao Chavan as freedom fighter and

claim that it was Savitribai who worked in the freedom movement. It was because

she had claimed in her affidavit dated 20.4.1999 that she had taken part in the

freedom movement. It is obvious that these persons filing supporting affidavits were

ready to go to any extent and therefore supported the claim of Savitribai as freedom

fighter when she herself never applied for the same and only claimed to be legal heir

of Sahebrao Chavan. The Sanmanpatra was given after the death of Sahebrao

- 405 -

Chavan and the same is obviously granted on the grounds which are not at all

sustainable. The Sanmanpatra granted to Savitribai deserves to be and be cancelled

forthwith because she obviously had no role to play in the freedom movement and the

Commission accordingly recommends the cancellation of the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to her.

File Case No.265 (Respondent No. 265)

Dagadu Ganapati Dongre

Dagadu Ganapati Dongre applied for pension on 27.1.1999 on the basis that he

was underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavit dated 3.2.1999 and stated therein names of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap, Bhima Umabji Bangar, Namdev Balawant Aher, Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule and also stated that he was required to live away from house for 9 to 10

months.

He filed supporting affidavit of Narayanrao Keshavrao Pawar.

- 406 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relied on the affidavit of

Narayanrao Keshavrao Pawar Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar who was not sentenced to two

year’s imprisonment.


was no compliance with Government Resolution.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he used to collect

contribution from public for freedom movement and he used to distribute the same to

the freedom fighters. He was aged 15 to 16 years but he has not stated specific

incident in which he was involved.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has named Swami Ramanand

Tirth and Ramling Swami for the first time as his leaders.

Out of two supporting freedom fighters, Dnynoba Jijaba Bangar was not

sentenced to two year’s imprisonment in the freedom movement and as such his

affidavit filed in support is not as per the requirement of 4th July 1995 Government

Resolution. The Respondent had therefore failed to comply with the Government

Resolution of filing affidavits of two freedom fighters. More over from his statement

before Mane Committee it is clear that he was quite young aged about 15 to 16 years

and claims to have collected contributions and bread (bhakari) and did not take part in

any other activity in the freedom movement.

The Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to claim Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits and the same deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the


- 407 -


Ambadas Maruti Wanave

Ambadas Maruti Wanave applied for pension on 24.07.1990 claiming to have

worked as underground freedom fighter. In the application he has stated that during

the period of 12 to 13 months he provided food to the persons in the different camps

and in his affidavit dated 13.7.1990 also no particular activity in the freedom

movement in which he was involved has been stated.

He filed further affidavit dated 11.4.1998 in which there is sufficient

improvement and names of number of freedom fighters specially Sahabrao Ganapati

Sanap, Namdev Balawant Aaher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

Sona Rama Jaybhay are added and reference is made to different incidents. It is also

stated that he was required to live away from his house for 9 months and this assertion

- 408 -

is also made for the first time. He stated that he has produced affidavits of Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. However, he has produced affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 11.9.1998 and affidavit of Bhima Umaji Bangar

which are stereotype.

There is also on record letter of State Minister dated 10.7.1999 in which his

case is recommended to the Government and on the said letter there is endorsement of

Member Secretary of High Power Committee to put up the matter with necessary

note.


affidavits of two freedom fighters supporting his case namely Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and Bhima Umaji Bangar and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 23.10.1998 that there

was no compliance with Government Resolution. Even Bhima Umaji Bangar was not

qualified to file such affidavit.

The High Power Committee however referred to his affidavit and the

supporting affidavits and accepted the recommendation and sanctioned pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that in the freedom

movement he worked for 8 to 9 months by supplying bread (bhakari) to Sahebrao

Sanap. He was aged 16 to 17 years and he provided bread only at Wanacha (dongar)

hill and no warrant was issued against him and he filed affidavits of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Anna Eknath Telap, and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane but he did not

know to which place they belong.

Affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane are not on

record.

Before the Commission he filed detailed affidavit naming number of freedom

fighters. In this affidavit there is clear improvement and number of incidents and

names of number of freedom fighters are stated in addition to his earlier affidavits.

From the above stated fact it is clear that even the supporting affidavits filed

by him only Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap was qualified as per the Government Resolution

- 409 -

dated 4.7.1995 as Bimrao Umaji Bangar was neither sentenced for two years nor was

there arrest warrant against him for two years, but warrant against him was for the

period of 9 months. He, therefore, did not qualify himself to make a supporting

affidavit.

Another aspect of the matter is regarding activities in freedom movement

stated in his affidavit is contradicted by his statement before Mane Committee

wherein he stated that he was only providing breads and did no other activity. As he

was providing breads from his house obviously he was not required to live away from

his house.

In view of this the Commission finds that he has failed to comply with the

requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and therefore he failed to

establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted

to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Bhiku Maruti Tupe

He applied for pension on 14.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter and in

the application he stated to have worked with Kashinathrao Jadhav. He referred to

warrant and copy of it was produced.

He filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

3.5.1997.

He filed further affidavit dated 2.1.1999 wherein there are number of

additions of the names of freedom fighters and also of different incidents. He

produced affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 2.9.1999.

- 410 -


affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended his

case.


was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of supporting freedom

fighters and accepted the recommendation.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded. He

stated that he was working underground. However in the statement he has not

referred to the names of supporting freedom fighters viz. Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane but stated that he has filed affidavit of Namdev Balawant

Aher. He has filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane but he does not know to which

village he belong but Manik Tulsiram Anubhule is from his village. He was providing

breads (bhakari) to the workers at the camp. He has not done any other work.

Before the Commission he filed affidavit and stated names of Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane although he had mentioned the names of Namdev

Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. He stated that he was absconding for

13 months this statement was made for the first time.

In his statement he has quoted one of the incidents that in 1947-48 one

Ahmed Pathan of his village had killed one cock in front of Maruti Temple and

therefore he along with Namdeo Gena caught hold of him, snatched the sword and

took him out of the village. Namdeo Gena was holding his hands and he (Bhiku)

assaulted him with sword and killed him on the spot. There is no record of this

incident. If this was a fact then it is surprising as to how he made no reference of the

aforesaid facts in the application or in the earlier affidavits. All this shows that with a

view to claim benefits he can go to any extent. His statement either in his affidavit or

before the Mane Committee is not trust worthy. The fact that he was providing breads

- 411 -

(bhakari) during freedom movement, as stated by him before Mane Committee

disproves his assertion that he was required to live away from the house and thus he

had failed to establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the

same granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.


Shri Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande

He filed application for grant of pension as freedom fighter on 12.6.1995.

However, did not state in the application that he was working as underground freedom

fighter.

In his affidavit dated 11.2.1997 filed after the receipt of notice issued in

pursuance of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and stated for the first time that

he was required to live away from his house. In this affidavit also he has not stated

that he was working as underground freedom fighter.

- 412 -

In the supporting affidavit of Maroti Mahadev Kakade dated 11.2.1997, it is

stated that he was required to live away from his house. It is however, not stated that

Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande or freedom fighter supporting him i.e. Maroti Mahadev

Kakade were working as underground freedom fighter.

One more affidavit was filed on 11.2.1997 of Yougiraj Santram Raut. It is

similar to the affidavit of Maroti Mahadev Kakade and in that also it is not stated that

he was working as underground freedom fighter.

He filed further affidavit dated 16.1.1998 wherein there is further addition of

names of freedom fighters and further description of activities of freedom movement.

In this affidavit it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his

house for 4 to 5 months and took education in private school and thereafter could not

pursue education. This portion is however added to the typed affidavit by scoring out

the earlier portion by whitener and there is no signature or initials.

He filed supporting affidavit of freedom fighter Namdev Balawant Aaher

dated 22.2.1998, which is stereotype like other affidavits of the said freedom fighter

in number of cases and in which the name of Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande, his residence

etc. are added in the blank space left for that purpose, which is not signed or initialed

by anybody and similar is the case of another affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

dated 12.2.1997 in which also the name is added in ink to the stereotype typed

affidavit.


for grant of pension in view of the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna

Eknath Telap.

- 413 -

The Additional Collector, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 9.7.1997 that there

was no compliance with Government Resolution of 4.7.1995.

There is a letter dated 15.7.1999 written by State Minister Badamrao Pandit to

Secretary High Power Committee, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar, recommending his

case with a note to Member Secretary to put up file with remarks.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation in view of

affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters and the facts stated in the application

made by Murlidhar Bhaurav. However, the Member Secretary Advocate Rajabhau

Zarkar put up a note on 4.2.1999 requesting to confirm as to whether the name of the

claimant freedom fighter was Lande or Kashid.

He filed further affidavit dated 13.4.1999 in which it is stated that in the

certificate issued by Gram Panchayat his surname was mentioned as Lande.

He filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who

were sentenced to two years imprisonment for taking part in the freedom movement.

These affidavits are of 13.4.1999 and in both the affidavits it is only stated that earlier

affidavit was given in support of Murlidhar Bhaurav Lande who worked as

underground freedom fighter but in that affidavit the name of Murlidhar Bhaurao

Lande is typed by mistake as Murlidhar Bhaurav Kashid.

In the earlier affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 11.7.1998 the name of the

persons securing affidavit his residence, age etc. are all mentioned after erasing the

earlier portion by using whitener and there is no signature or initial to the said

alteration/addition and in this affidavit the name is mentioned Murlidhar Bhaurav

Kashid r/o Ghatsawali and the similarly in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

who was also sentenced to two years imprisonment the name is mentioned as

- 414 -

Murlidhar Bhaurav Kashid. These two names in these affidavits of 11.7.1997 are

corrected by filing another affidavit as stated earlier.

The explanation given by these latter affidavits was accepted and pension was

accordingly sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he filed affidavits of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He has also not specifically stated

that he was underground . However, he has stated that he was providing bread

(bhakari) for three to four months to the freedom fighters in the camp.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has however stated that he was

underground freedom fighter.

There is further contradiction in his statement beforeMane Committee wherein

he stated that his age was 19-20 years and at the later stage he stated that he was of 10

years. He was providing breads (bhakari) to residents of camps and was therefore

residing in his own house. The explanation given regarding different surnames stated

is also not satisfactory. In fact he has not specifically stated anywhere he was

working underground. The supporting affidavits are not trust worthy as

additions/alterations are not initialed. There are also erasures.

The Commission therefore finds that the evidence produced in support is not

reliable. He failed to make out case as required by the Government Resolution dated

4th July 1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted be cancelled and


- 415 -


Shri Eknath Baburao Kolhe (Deceased represented by wife Rakhamabai)

He filed application for grant of pension on 29.7.1995 as underground

freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated 20.6.1995 in which he stated that he was

harassed by Razakar but did not state any other freedom fighters.

In support of his claim he has filed affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia dated 1.8.1997 in which the name of Eknath Babu is inserted in

handwriting in the blank space left. Dr. Changedia was sentenced to imprisonment

for taking part in the freedom movement of India against British Government. He

filed another affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth dated 1.8.1997 in which also the name

of Eknath Babu is added in handwriting. Mohan Narhari Deth also worked in the

freedom movement of India.

- 416 -

He filed another affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal in which also his name

is added to the typed affidavit afterward and the typing on the face of it appears

different. Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal was also sentenced to imprisonment for taking

part in the freedom movement of India.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 recommended

sanction of pension on the basis of affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth.

The Additional Collector by his letter dated 15.7.1998 to the Deputy Secretary

recorded that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred and accepted the recommendation of

Zilla Gaurav Samiti and affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia , Mohan

Narhari Deth and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal. The Member Secretary has made a note

that the supporting affidavits are filed by the freedom fighters from Nagar district.

The then Deputy Chief Minister had informed that if in cases of freedom

fighters of Beed district, there were recommendations from the freedom fighters from

Nagar district, same should be accepted and therefore pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he did not know Dr.

Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Deth and Achyut Rasal and he worked

with Bhaurao Bhagat.

The supporting affidavits produced by him are of the persons who had taken

part in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

The affidavits also suffer from the infirmity that his name is added to the type written

affidavit afterwards and there is no signature or initial. As pointed out by the High

Power Committee in one of the matters, the High Power Committee itself suspected

bonafides of Dr.Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and

inquiry was ordered against them as the information received by the Member

Secretary of High Power Committee was that they were collecting money for giving

supporting affidavits. Moreover their affidavits did not disclose any incident in

which they had taken part which was in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom

Movement. That is why in his statement before Mane Committee he has gone to the

- 417 -

extent of saying that he did not know Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Chagedia and Dr.

Achyut Amrut Rasal or Mohan Narhari Deth which clearly shows that they had not

worked in the Freedom Movement of Hyderabad with him. His case of having taken

part in the freedom movement is not at all trustworthy and the statements of the

supporting freedom fighters are also not credit worthy and therefore the Commission

finds that he has failed to comply with the requirements of Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995 and he had failed to establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits and the same granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the



Shri Kakasaheb Damodar Chavan

He applied for pension on 14.8.1994 and in the application he stated to have

worked under Ashraji Raoji Jagtap and Kakasaheb Chavan and he used to provide

secret information.

In his affidavit dated 3.8.1995 he has stated that he used to give slogans and he

worked under the Ashraji Raoji Jagtap. However, he did not name any other freedom

fighter.

He filed affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia dated 1.8.1997

wherein apart from the fact that it is a stereotype affidavit the name of Kakasaheb is

- 418 -

added in ink in the blank space left. Similar is affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth dated

1.8.1997 in which also the name is added in ink in the blank space. These additions

are not signed or initialed by anybody. He again filed affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut

Rasal dated 25.7.1997.


for sanction relying on affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr.

Achyut Amrut Rasal. These two freedom fighters took part in the freedom movement

of India.


there was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter he addressed one letter to the Member Secretary, High Power

Committee and along with it enclosed affidavit of his own, wherein further

improvement was made and he has stated that for 9 to 10 months he was required to

live away from his house. In support he filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule,

Namdev Balawant Aher dated 8.12.1998 whose names were not stated by him earlier

at any time.

However, the High Power Committee referred, to his own affidavit and to the

suffering narrated therein and to the affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr.

Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth, Namdev Balawant Aher

and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and accepted the recommendation.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he stayed at Mirajgaon

camp for one or two months but he used to go home in the night. He worked only in

Gevrai Taluka and not outside Gevrai Taluka.

In the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters filed earlier namely Dr.

Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth, Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal

apart from the fact that they are stereotype, the name of Kakasaheb Chavan was added

to the typed affidavit in ink which was not signed or initialed by anybody. Moreover

all these three freedom fighters were sentenced to imprisonment in the freedom

- 419 -

movement of India and they have not stated the incidents in which they took part in

the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. The affidavits of other two freedom fighters

were not before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in as much as they were filed afterwards and

were sent directly to High Power Committee. Although he has stated that he was

living away from house, when examined before Mane Committee admitted that he

used to come home at night which falsifies the version that he was required to live

away from his house and thus there is no compliance with Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995 and he has failed to prove his entitlement. The Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission



Raghunath Khandu Wanve

Raghoji Khandu Wanve filed application for grant of pension as underground

freedom fighter dated 6.9.1996. In the detailed statement contained in the application

he has not named freedom fighers whose affidavits he filed later on in support.

He filed affidavit dated 11.7.1997 wherein he has added names of other

freedom fighters not referred to earlier specially Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama

Jaybhay and filed their supporting affidavits. In both these affidavits the name of

- 420 -

Raghunath is added in ink to the typed proforma and not signed or initialed by

anybody. He filed affidavits of Thaksen Shankar Dhase dated 29.1.1998 and

Narayan Dagadu Chaure dated 29.1.1998.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.7.1997 recommended grant of

pension relying upon the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 26.7.1998 stating

that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap,

Sona Rama Jaybhay, Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure etc. and

the statement that he had to live away from his house and gave up his education and

accepted the recommendation.

It is pertinent to point out that in his affidavit he has not stated that he was

required to live away from his house and gave up his education. Even the two

supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters relied upon have not made such

statement.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was only supplying

breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters for 5 to 10 months. He has not done any

other work. He could not name any other freedom fighters. He further stated that he

filed supporting affidavits of Karbhari Tatya and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and he had

served breads (bhakri) in his own field.

In his affidavit filed before the Commission there is sufficient improvement

with specific reference to provisions of Government Resolution.

Thus apart from the infirmity in the affidavits of the supporting freedom

fighters Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay regarding addition of his name

in ink to the type written affidavit without there being any signature or initials, the

- 421 -

statements in their affidavits that he was required to live away from his house is

contrary to his version. In affidavit there is no such averment and when he appeared

before Mane Committee he merely stated that he was providing breads (bhakari) to

the freedom fighters and that to in his own field. Thus he was living in his own

house. He did not claim in the said statement that he was involved in any particular

incident in the Freedom Movement. Therefore even his role in the freedom movement

is doubtful and apart from it, he has failed to comply with the provisions of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and thereby failed to prove his entitlement

and Sanmanpatra as well as allied benefits granted to him therefore deserve to be



Shri Dattatraya Babasaheb Badge

He applied for pension on 1.2.1999 as underground freedom fighter and stated

there in that earlier he had given application, which is missing. Therefore, this is new

application.

In the application he stated to have worked at Domri camp under Govindbhai

Shroff, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Bhima Umaji Bangar.

He filed affidavit dated 1.2.1999 in which apart from the earlier assertion, he

added names of Namdev Balawant Aher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and also stated

that for 10 months he was required to live away from his house.

- 422 -

He filed affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar, dated 3.2.1999, Bhima Umaji

Bangar dated 4.2.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relied upon the

affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar stating that against

Bhimrao Umaji Bangar there was arrest warrant for nine moths.

However, Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for grant of pension on

the basis of these two affidavits. Neither any of them was sentenced to two years

imprisonment nor was there arrest warrant against any of them for two years.


mentioning the facts and stating that Bhimrao Umaji Bangar was sentenced to nine

month. In fact there was only arrest warrant against Bhimrao Umaji Bangar and there

is no evidence that he was sentenced, Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar was also not qualified.

The Additional Collector however reported that there was no compliance with


The High Power Committee referred to the detailed affidavit of freedom

fighter and the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

In the note put up, there is only reference to his activity against the Nizam

Government and that he worked as underground and the affidavits of two freedom

fighters without any reference to the fact that they were either sentenced to two year

imprisonment or there was warrant against them for two years and recommendation

was accepted with these remarks.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing breads

(bhakari) and giving secret information to the freedom fighters and he did work of

preparing bread (bhakari). For 9 - 10 months he stayed away from his house. He

stated that he filed affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar but

the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule is not on record. He also stated he filed

affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, which is also not on record. There are

Affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar. Their names are not

stated by him in the statement recorded.

- 423 -

He filed affidavit before the Commission on service of notice but the

statement in the affidavit is vague and he has not even stated names of the supporting

freedom fighters.

The affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters namely Gyanoba Jijaba

Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar are not as per the requirements of the Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995 because neither of them was sentenced to two years’

imprisonment. There was warrant against Bhima Umaji Bangar for nine months and

not for two years and although in his own affidavit he stated the names of Namdeo

Balwant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, he did not file their affidavits and

inspite of that he asserted before Mane Committee that he had filed their affidavits

and affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap which are not on record. The statement that

he was required to live away from his house for 9 - 10 months is also not reliable and

he has thus failed to comply with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated

4.7.1995 and failed to prove his entitlement and so Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

and the same granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission



Janrao Kisan Misal

Janrao Kisan Misal applied for pension on 11.6.1997 and in the application he

stated to have worked underground from the Kharda camp referring to the names of

Wamanrao Vaze and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In his affidavit filed on 12.6.1997 for the first time he named Ramling Swami

and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

He filed supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 27.1.1997 in

which the name Janrao Kisan Misal is added in ink in the typed affidavit in the space

left blank. And similar is the case of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated

- 424 -

5.9.1997 wherein also name Janrao Kisan Misal is added in ink in the blank space and

both the affidavits are stereo type.

He thereafter filed another affidavit dated 3.2.1999 wherein he mentioned

some more names of freedom fighters Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Kashinath Tatyaba,

Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant Aher as well as Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.

He produced supporting affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 3.2.1999

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.12.1997 referred to his

supporting affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakae and Sona Rama Jaibhaye who sere

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and recommended his case for grant of

pension.


reporting that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation referring to the

statements in the affidavits regarding suffering and two supporting affidavits of

freedom fighters.

He appeared before Mane Committee in which he stated in the statement

recorded that he was supplying bhakari (bread) from his house and was residing in his

house only. He further stated that Sahebrao Sanap is his uncle. It is specifically

mentioned that he was not required to live away from his house.

He filed affidavit before the Commission referred to affidavits of two freedom

fighters and also stated to have worked under Wamanrao Vaze, Suwalal Kakaji and

others.

Thus apart from the infirmities in the affidavits of the supporting freedom

fighters that his name is added in the ink to the already typed affidavit in the space left

blank for that purpose, his entire claim appears to be doubtful for the simple reason

- 425 -

that when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on

oath he categorically stated that he was not living away from his house and therefore

the statement in the affidavit of himself and supporting freedom fighters appears to

have been made with the intention of getting Sanmanpatra and allied benefits. When

he himself contends that he was just providing breads from his house and was living

in his own house only that shows he had failed to comply with the provisions of the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and failed to prove his entitlement and so

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



Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar

Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar filed application for pension on 25.8.1995

(28.8.1995) as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavits of himself and Ansar

Bhople, Bhagwan Baba Puri. These two persons were not sentenced to two years

imprisonment.

Thereafter he sent one more application after receipt of notice and thereafter

he filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

- 426 -

In his further affidavit dated 16.7.1997 he has referred to Sona Rama Jaybhay

and name of Ramling Swami. He also filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and

Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Bhima Umaji Bangar, Anna Eknath Telap.

In supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 10.7.1997 Sona

Rama Jaybhay dated 17.7.1997 the name of Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar is added in ink

in the typed affidavits and there is no signature or initials to the said additions.

He then filed another affidavit in which he stated the names of Manik

Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aher, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Nivruti

Fakira Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaibhaye and Bhima Umaji Bangar

and for the first time stated that he was required to live away from his house for ten

months.

He filed supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 22.2.1999 in

which there is no statement that Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar was required to live away

from his house.


affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended case

for sanction.


that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case stating that he did not

produce anything except the affidavits of two freedom fighters that is to say that he

did not produce any evidence about his suffering or his having been required to live

underground and no other document is produced.

The Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar remarked that the claim be

rejected and it was signed by the further authorities including the State Minister.

However, thereafter further note was put up on the file, that file was kept

pending as it was tagged with other files and there was recommendation not to

- 427 -

sanction the pension which the High Power Committee accepted and intimation was

given to Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar.

However in the meantime he filed another application along with his own

affidavit and affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The note further states that there is also specific mention of his suffering in his own

affidavit and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case. After this

Under Secretary Nalawade discussed the matter and the Member Secretary agreed and

the pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and in the statement recorded he stated

that he lived at Domri camp for ten moths. He used to collect bread (bhakari) and

water from adjoining villages for the freedom fighters residing in the camp. He

produced affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. He

referred to the affdavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay. The

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the basis of their affidavits.

Before the Commission he filed affidavit in which he stated that he was

required to live away from house for ten months and stated the names of aforesaid

freedom fighters.

The perusal of the notes put up at the different times to the High Power

Committee clearly show that High Power Committee was also convinced earlier that

the case was not fit for sanction of Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits and so his

application was rejected and he was also informed after which he gave his additional

affidavit and the supporting affidavit of Manik Tullsirak Anbhule and Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap. The statement “he was required to live away from his house” was

made for the first time in later affidavits and if it were a fact, the same would have

appeared in his earlier affidavits. His statement before Mane Committee clearly

negatives his ascertion because there is a statement that he used to collect bread from

adjoing villages and provide same to the persons residing in the camp which

obviously means that he was living in his house and was not living away from his

house. He had therefore failed to prove his entitlement and the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 428 -


Shri Vithal Nivrutti Misal

Vithal Nivrutti Misal filed application dated 3.12.1996 claiming to be an

underground freedom fighter. In his affidavit dated 5.8.1996 he alleged that warrant

was issued against him so he had gone underground.

In support of his claim he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

20.1.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 5.11.1996. Both the affidavits are in

typed format and the name of Vithal Nivrutti Misal is inserved later on by ink.

- 429 -

Thereafter Vithal Nivrutti Misal filed his own affidavit dated 3.2.1999 wherein

the name of eight freedom fighters who had participated in the freedom movement

along with him are mentioned. In addition to it he filed affidavit of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 3.2.1999 supporting his claim.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.2.1997 recommended the case

of the applicant by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane.

The Collector, Beed in his report dated 15.6.1998 observed that there is no

compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, so it is not a fit case to grant

pension.

The High Power Committee on 24.9.1999 granted the application by relying

on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

Vithal Nivrutti Misal appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was

recorded on oath wherein he stated “he has not done anyother work. He supplied

bread, water and other miscellaneous things for a period of ten months to the activists

in the freedom movement”.

Thus apart from the infirmity pointed out in the affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivrutti Phakira Dhakane, the supporting freedom fighters, whose

affidavits are relied upon by Zilla Gaurav Samiti the statement before Mane

Committee and that apart from providing bread and water to the freedom fighters for

10 months he did nothing and did not take part in any activity in the freedom

movements clearly falsify his claim of being a freedom fighter. The statements in the

other affidavits i. e. affidavit of Sanap and Anubhule are contrary to the statements

contained in the affidavits of Dhakane and Telap as they refer to the different

incidents. These affidavits are also after thought as they contain clear improvement

which is not in the earlier application and the affidavit of the Freedom Fighter

himself.

- 430 -

He had therefore failed to comply with the requirements of Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and therefore failed to prove his entitlement and so

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



Shri Kashinath Apparao Doiphode

Kashinath Apparao Doiphode filed application on 11.6.1997for freedom

fighter’s pension claiming to be underground freedom fighter.

In support of the application he filed his own affidavit dated 2.6.1997 which is

in a typed format. In support of his claim he filed affidavit dated 5.2.1997 of Sona

Rama Jaybhay and affidavit dated 5.4.1997 of Anna Eknath Telap. The affidavits of

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap are in typed format and the name of

Kashinath Doiphode is added with pen in the affidavits of both the deponents. He

- 431 -

also filed affidavit of one Bhimrao Umaji Bangar. The affidavit is also in typed

format wherein the name of Kashinath Apparao Doiphode is inserted in ink. Bhimrao

Umaji Bangar is not qualified to file lsupporting affidavit.

Thereafter on 28.3.1999 Kashinath Doiphode filed additional affidavit

inserting therein the names of many freedom fighters and in support he filed

affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher dated 20.3.1999 Manik Tulsiram Anubhule

dated (Nil).

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.12.1997 recommended the

application of the Kashinath Doiphode by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated

15.7.1998 did not recommend the application as there was no compliance with the


The High Power Committee on 16.7.1999 granted the application relying on

the affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

Kashinath Doiphode appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement

was recorded. He stated that he attended the meeting of Ramling Swami and he being

follower of Ramling Swami acted on the instructions of Namdev Khade and

Wamanrao Vaze in burning office of police patil, Daskhed, Pachangri out post. He

expressed his inability to account for names of other participants in the said incident.

His application was dated 11.6.97 and his own affidavit was of 2.6.97 whereas

affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhaye is of 5.2.1997 and affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap

was of 5.4.1997 whereas the affidavit of Bima Umaji Bangar is of 6.11.1996. In the

normal course it is not probable that affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

would be sworn earlier. All affidavits to the application mention incident of

Pachangri naka and burning of Police Patil Wada and Office. Similiarly Anna Eknath

Telap has mentioned the incident of Pachangri Naka and burning of Anterwali naka.

In the supporting affidavits name of the claimant freedom fighter is added in ink

- 432 -

without any signature or initial. Similar is the affidavit of Bhima Umaji Bangar which

was prepared long before the filing of application in which also his name is added to

the typed affidavit and the same incident is mentioned. All this considered together

shows that these freedom fighters had kept ready typed written affidavits which were

sworn before the competent authority and were provided to the persons approaching

them. Therefore even though he filed affidavits of two freedom fighters, the entire

claim in the application becomes doubtful.

When his statement was recorded before Mane Committee, he could not even

state the names of the supporting freedom fighters participating in the incident of

burning of Pachangri Naka or Police Patil Wada and Office and vaguely stated that he

was accompanied by 10-15 persons. Even according to his statement he was not

involved in any incident along with Ramalingswami, Namdeo Khape, Wamanrao

Waze. The claim is doubtful and the Commission therefore finds that he has failed to

make out case required by the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The statement

of the supporting freedom fighters can not be relied upon and therefore Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the



Shri Sarjerao Khandu Wanve

Sarjerao Khandu Wanve filed application on 22.12.1998 claiming to be

underground freedom fighter. In support of his claim, he filed his own affidavit dated

17.12.1998, and affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 15.12.1998, Dnyanoba

Jija Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar dated 17.12.1998. The later two are not

qualified to file supporting affidavits as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

- 433 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relying on the affidavit

of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Dnyanoba Jija Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar

recommended case of Sarjerao Khandu Wanve.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 9.3.1999 reported that there

was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a fit

case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. Even one of the supporting freedom

fighters was having arrest warrant issued against him for nine months only.(Bhima

Umaji Bangar)

The High Power Committee on 10.6.1999 granted the application by relying

on the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the affidavits of supporting

freedom fighters.

Sarjerao Khandu Wanve appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he

was of ten to twelve years of age when the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze was attended

by him. He further stated that for two three months he was providing breads, water to

the freedom fighters from the field and he had not done any other work than providing

breads (bhakari). He was unable to state where and how he came in contact with the

Bhima Umaji Bangar and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.

From the above stated facts, it is clear that only one out of three freedom

fighters who filed supporting affidavit i.e. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was qualified in

as much as there was arrest warrant against him for two years whereas against Bhima

Umaji Bangar the arrest warrant was effective only for 9 months and Dyanoba Jija

Bangar was neither sentenced to imprisonment nor was there any such warrant for

two years against him.

Application therefore lacked in the requirement prescribed by the Government

Resolution dated 4th July 1995. This fact has not been noticed by the Zilla Gaurav

Samittee. However, the Additional Collector had pointed out the said defect in his

letter dated 9th March 1999 and also pointed out regarding other deficiencies.

- 434 -

However, despite the letter of Additional Collector the note put up before the

High Power Committee was silent regarding this material aspect and it is stated that

he has filed affidavits of persons who were sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed

by Government Resolution.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances he had failed to comply with

the provisions of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution. He even admitted before the

Mane Committee that he merely provided bread (bhakari) and water to the freedom

fighters from his field and did not do any other work. It means he was living in his

house and was not away from house.

Therefore he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the

same granted to him deserved to be and be cancelled forthwith. The Commission



Adinath Vithoba Mule [deceased] represented by wife Shrimati Kusum Adinath

Mule.

Adinath Vithoba Mule filed application on 20.12.1989 for Freedom Fighter’s

pension alleging therein that he was underground freedom fighter. He has placed on

record Xerox copy of his affidavit dated 12.12.1989 in support of his application. In

addition, he placed on record certificate dated 09.08.1995 of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal,

- 435 -

Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changediya, Ashraji Raoji Jagtap about his participation

in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

Thereafter, he filed his additional affidavit on 14.07.1997 and in support of his

affidavit he also placed on record affidavits dated 14.07.1997 of Anna Eknath Telap

and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne. Affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are in

typed format and some portion thereof is wiped out by applying whitener.He filed

affidavits of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Thereafter, he moved application dated 05.09.1999 to Adv. Rajabhau Zarkar /

Member Secretary of High Power Committee and in support of his claim he filed his

own affidavit dated 15.03.1999.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 07.08.1997 recommended the

application of the applicant relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 18.08.1997 did not

recommend the application as there was no compliance with Government Resolution

dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee vide its order dated 10.06.1999 granted the

application relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne,

Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Adinath Vithoba Mule died on 31.12.2002 so his wife. Shrimati Kusum

Adinath Mule appeared before Mane Committee and stated that she has no personal

knowledge of participation of her husband in freedom struggle against Nizam

Government.

He earlier filed affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Dr.

Achyut Amrut Rasal and Aasaraji Raoji Jagatap. It has been noticed earlier that Dr.

Rasal and Dr. Changdia were sentenced to imprisonment in the freedom movement of

India and there is no documentary evidence of their participation in the Hyderabad

freedom movement and Aasaraji Raoji Jagatap was not sentenced for any offence in

the Hyderabad freedom movement. It is probably for this reason that later on he filed

- 436 -

affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknah Telap. In the affidavit of Anna

Eknath Telap the incident of pachangri naka and antarveli naka is quoted stating that

there were 50 to 60 persons with him including Aadinath Vithoba Muley and in the

affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane the incident of pachangri naka and burning of

Daskhed police patil office and wada are stated mentioning that there were 50 to 60

persons along with him including respondent. The aforesaid two freedom fighters

filed affidavits of similar contents in support of number of persons but as pointed out

in another part of this report their versions that those 50 to 60 persons included

Aadinath Muley are far from truth.

The assertion that he was required to live away from his house is made by him

for the first time in later improved affidavit of 15th March 1999 and the supporting

affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aaher are practically

similar as regards contents thereof. Therefore neither the version of the Respondent

regarding his participation in the freedom movement with reference to the particular

incidents nor the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are trustworthy and thus

he had failed to prove his entitlement as required by the provisions of 4th July 1995

Government Resolution. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him

therefore deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.


Shri Raghunath Parsuram Shinde.

Raghunath Parsuram Shinde filed application on 04.01.1985 claiming to be

underground freedom fighter. Thereafter, he moved another application on

09.06.1997. He filed affidavit dated 03.06.1997 along-with application dated

09.06.1997 and in addition to it he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and

- 437 -

Anna Eknath Telap dated 03.06.1997. ** [Thereafter, he filed additional afiidavits

dated 20.01.1998 and affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati

Sanap dated 20.01.1998 to support his case. The affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher

and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap are stereotype affidavits in which in the typed format the

name of Raghunath Parsuram Shinde is added in ink.] **


application relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath

Telap.

Statement of Raghunath Shinde was recorded by Mane Committee on

27.02.2003. In this statement, he stated that he was aged 15 to 16 years and he had

cut Shindee trees and supplied breads and he had not done any other work. He added

that he did not know Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Anna Eknath Telap and Namdeo

Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpat Sanap, who were the supporting freedom

fighters.

He filed affidavit before the Commission in which he stated ‘he has filed

affidavits. He has worked with Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap’ and

also stated for the first time that for 13 months he was required to live away from his

house so as to show compliance of requirement of G.R. dated 04.07.1995.

On going through the notes put up before the High Power Committee, it is

noticed that Member Secretary Rajabhau Zarkar had earlier put up a note that

supporting freedom fighters namely Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane

had given affidavits in support of number of persons, so the same are not reliable and

claim be rejected. Thereafter the Sabhapati made a note that inquiry be held against

the said persons. Note directs that the District Collector, Beed be asked to hold

inquiry against Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay

and that note is made on a different file and inquiry has been ordered, however, it is

now found that such inquiry was ever held.

Further note was put up that Raghunath Shinde had taken part in freedom

movement and he was living away from his house for 5 to 6 months. There is also

- 438 -

recommendation of MLA Shri Bajirav Jagatap and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav

Samiti. Orders have been issued for inquiry to the Collector. However, in addition he

has filed affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap in which

the sufferings of the freedom fighter are detailed.

In the affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aaher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

name of Raghunath Shinde is added in ink in the blank space left open in affidavit

which was already typed and contents of both the affidavits are stereo type. Namdev

Balawant Aher stated that Raghunath Shinde was beaten by the police along with him,

which fact is not stated by Respondent in his own affidavit. Both the freedom fighters

state merely about the incident for which they had to suffer and merely added that

Raghunath Shinde was also with them. It is obvious from the above that it is due to

the recommendation of the MLA that the approach of the High Power Committee

changed and taking a turn around positive note was put up and the same Member

Secretary who had earlier directed inquiry made a note favourable for sanctioning the

claim.

However when he was examined before the Mane Committee he did not make

reference to any of the incidents which he had earlier stated or to which the

supporting freedom fighters have made reference in their affidavits and he only stated

that he cut trees and provided bread (bhakari), and had not done any other work and

this work was also done at Padelsinji. He was collecting breads (bhakari) for about 15

days to one month for freedom fighters but he could not even state as to for how many

persons he provided the same. He even stated that he did not know Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap, who filed supporting affidavits. Therefore the entire case of Raghunath

Shinde and statement contained in his affidavit and affidavits of supporting freedom

fighters become very suspicious. It is clear that if at all he was providing breads

(bhakari) , he was residing in his house and not away from his house and there is

absolutely no compliance of the Government Resolution with 4th July 1995 and

Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him therefore

deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 439 -


Shri Keshav Maruti Wanve

Keshav Maruti Wanve filed application on 29.1.1991 claiming pension on the

ground that he was underground freedom fighter. In support he filed his own affidavit

dated 21.1.1991 and additional affidavit dated 22.9.1998. He also filed affidavit of

Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 22.9.1998 in support of his

claim. Against Bhima Umaji Bangar there was arrest warrant only for nine months.

- 440 -


application of Respondent Keshav Maruti Wanve relying on affidavits of Bhima

Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 23.10.1998 expressed that

there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a

fit case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension.

The High Power Committee granted application on 20.5.1999 by observing

that in the affidavit of Keshav Maruti Wanve there is compliance with Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995, and the affidavit of Keshav Maruti Wanve dated 29.1.1991

is self explanatory and two freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for

two years have supported his claim.

The statement of Keshav Maruti Wanve was recorded before Mane Committee

on 17.3.2003 in which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp and had provided

breads to freedom fighters. He has specifically stated that he has not done any other

work than providing breads (bhakari).

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he stated the names of freedom

fighters with whom he worked and he further stated that he did not remember the

names of two freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support of his claim.

From the aforesaid facts it is clear that out of two supporting affidavits filed

by him only Sahebrao Ganapati sanap was qualified as required by the Government

Resolution as Bhima Umaji Bangar was having arrest warrant for nine months against

him. His statement before Mane Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari) at

Domri camp shows that he was living in his house. He therefore failed to make out

case as is required by the provisions of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and was

not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be


- 441 -


Shri Keshav Maruti Wanve

Keshav Maruti Wanve filed application on 29.1.1991 claiming pension on the

ground that he was underground freedom fighter. In support he filed his own affidavit

dated 21.1.1991 and additional affidavit dated 22.9.1998. He also filed affidavit of

- 442 -

Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 22.9.1998 in support of his

claim. Against Bhima Umaji Bangar there was arrest warrant only for nine months.


application of Respondent Keshav Maruti Wanve relying on affidavits of Bhima

Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 23.10.1998 expressed that

there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a

fit case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension.

The High Power Committee granted application on 20.5.1999 by observing

that in the affidavit of Keshav Maruti Wanve there is compliance with Government

Resolution dated 4.7.1995, and the affidavit of Keshav Maruti Wanve dated 29.1.1991

is self explanatory and two freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for

two years have supported his claim.

The statement of Keshav Maruti Wanve was recorded before Mane Committee

on 17.3.2003 in which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp and had provided

breads to freedom fighters. He has specifically stated that he has not done any other

work than providing breads (bhakari).

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he stated the names of freedom

fighters with whom he worked and he further stated that he did not remember the

names of two freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support of his claim.

From the aforesaid facts it is clear that out of two supporting affidavits filed

by him only Sahebrao Ganapati sanap was qualified as required by the Government

Resolution as Bhima Umaji Bangar was having arrest warrant for nine months against

him. His statement before Mane Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari) at

Domri camp shows that he was living in his house. He therefore failed to make out

case as is required by the provisions of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and was

not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be


- 443 -


Shri Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar

Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar filed application on 27.10.1989 claiming Freedom

Fighter’s pension on the ground that he acted as underground Freedom Fighter. To

substantiate his application, he filed his own affidavit dated 24.10.1989 wherein he

- 444 -

alleged that he worked in Kharda camp under the leadership of Namdeo Khade and

Nivrutti Gopalrao Khade and performed all underground activities till 17.09.1948.

In the affidavit dated 28th February 1997 filed by him it is noticed that there is

no signature of Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar either below the contents or even at the

place where the authority before whom it is sworn has signed and the authority is not

less than the Avval Karkun . The Avval Karkun, who is a Government officer, has

signed on the said affidavit in the absence of signature of the deponent any where in

the entire format.

He filed further affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap

dated 27.7.1997 and both the affidavits suffer from infirmity that they were already

typed having similar contents as filed by the said freedom fighters in many other cases

and the name of Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar is added in ink to the typed format where

there is no signature or initial of any person or authority. However the Zilla Gaurav

samiti recommended his case in the meeting dated 9th July 1997.

The Additional Collector however pointed out by his letter dated 10th July

1997 that there was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4th July

1995.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim in view of the note of the

Member Secretary, but thereafter again he sent one more application to the

Sabhapati. After that the note dated 4th December 1998 was put up that the freedom

fighter Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar met the Chief Minister and there was discussion

with the Principle Secretary Chief Minister’s office and the matter was directed to be

placed again before the High Power Committee.

Even after this the Member Secretary had noted on the file ‘already there is

direction of inquiry against Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane in

number of files and the Zilla GaluravSamiti does not appear to have examined the

evidence’. There is also contradiction in his affidavit filed at this stage and earlier

affidavit and the claim be rejected.

- 445 -

After this note of the Member Secretary, the Sabhapati made a note with

reference to aforesaid endorsement that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti should get it analyzed

what Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar wanted to say, as the statement cannot be said to be

contradictory as pointed out in the note of Member Secretary.

After this, further note was put up which was positive and in view of that the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High Power

Committee.

It is clear from the above discussion that even the High Power Committee was

made aware of the fact regarding suspicious nature of affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and others not only in this file but in number of files

and even inquiry was ordered against them. The defect in the affidavits of Sahebrao

Bapurao Bangar that it was not bearing his signature at any place was not brought to

the notice of the High Power Committee in any of the note although different notes

have been placed before the said Committee from time to time. The note of the staff

member of the Mantralaya however strong cannot cure the defects in the documents

and the affidavit produced by Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar. The file also contained

letter dated 13.12.1998 written by the Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samittee Babasaheb

Bangar to the Member Secretary in his individual capacity to reconsider the case and

this letter was sent along with affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Bhima Umaji

Bangar out of whom Bhima Umaji Bangar was not having the necessary qualification

to file affidavit. There is also recommendatory letter of Deputy Chief Minister dated

28th July 1995 and it is obvious that the High Power Committee changed its approach

in view of the recommendations from various persons and authority like Deputy Chief

Minister, MLA etc. Although in his affidavit dated 30.12.1998 he has quoted various

incidents and the supporting freedom fighters have also quoted various incidents

stating that he was also involved along with them, when he appeared before Mane

Committee and his statement was recorded on oath, he stated that he was present in

the meeting held by Wamanrao Vaze and Ramling Swami and the only work he had

done was of cutting shindi trees and providing breads to the freedom fighters and he

used to collect about 25 breads (bhakari) every day and provide to the freedom

fighters and although he has filed affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher and Bhima

- 446 -

Umaji Bangar he die not came in contact with them at any time earlier and he also did

not come in contact with Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

From the above discussed fact and circumstances it is clear that although he

had failed to make out case as required by the Government Resolution and even the

High Power Committee was not earlier convinced, the case came to be reconsidered

in view of various recommendations including that of Deputy Chief Minister and

Chief Minister. The fact remains that he had failed to make out case as per the

requirement of Government Resolution and had failed to procure reliable evidence of

freedom fighters. The affidavits filed in support of his application were not

trustworthy and the Commission therefore finds that not having made out the case of

entitlement under the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, the

claim should have been rejected. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him

deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Rama Manik Wanwe

- 447 -

Rama Manik Wanwe filed application on 16.08.1995 for Freedom Fighter’s

Pension on the ground that he worked as underground Freedom fighter. To

substantiate his application he has filed his own affidavit dated 14.08.1995 which is in

typed proforma and his name is inserted thereon in ink. In support of his claim he

filed affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar dated 14.08.1995 and Babasaheb Ganpati

Bangar dated14.08.1995. The affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Babasaheb

Ganpati Bangar are proforma affidavits typed on stamp paper wherein nameof Rama

Manik Wanwe is inserted as above. Thereafter, he placed on record on 19.07.1997

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 01.01.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama

Jaibhaye dated 02.07.1997 which are proforma affidavits wherein name of Rama

Manik Wanve is added in ink.


case relying on the affidavits of SonaRama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 01.08.1997 addressed to the

Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai endorsed

that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 so it was

not a fit case for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension. However, he further asked

Government to take decision in the matter.

The High Power Committee rejected the application on 20.12.1997 relyingon

the report of Additional Collector, Beed as there was no compliance with Government


The said decision was communicated to Rama Manik Wanwe vide letter dated

15.09.1998.

Thereafter, Rama Manik Wanwe addressed letter dated 12.12.1998 to

Member Secretary, High Power Committee and submitted additional affidavits of

himself dated 24.11.1998, affidavit of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar dated 24.11.1998 and

affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated nil. It is significant to note here that the

affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap does not bear signature or verification by the

competent authority or even the stamp or seal of the competent authority. The file

contains Xerox copy of letter dated 01.09.1998 of Private Secretary to Deputy Chief

Minister addressed to Member Secretary High Power Committee wherein he has

stated that he is submitting alongwith said letter the representation of Babasaheb

Ganpati Bangar r/o Bhayala Post. Waghira Tq.Patoda Dist. Beed in respect of the

- 448 -

pension claims of Freedom Fighters and requested for necessary action The Member

Secretary endorsed the letter to the Deputy Secretary to take appropriate action.

Alongwith the said letter a copy of the letter addressed to Member High Power

Committee by the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti is appended with the list of 58

freedom fighters complying with the defects found in their applications and amongst

those 58 persons there is name of Rama Manik Wanve at Sr. No.28 and along with

that list the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti placed on record the copy of the application

of Manik chanaji Bangar and affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar dated 24.11.1998,

and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated nil.

The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap does not bear the endorsement and

signature of the authority competent to verify the affidavit. The said affidavit is

without verification. It is not even worth the stamp paper on which it is typed. It is

further significant to note that the affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar, Manik

Chanaji Bangar, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap are irrelevant as they were not qualified to

file supporting affidavits as per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

Moreover, those affidavits pertain to the matter of Manik Chanaji Bangar and not to

that of Rama Manik Wanve. There was no reason to include these documents in the

file of Rama Manik Wanwe.

The High Power Committee granted the application on 12.05.1999 relying on

the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhaye, in addition to affidavits of Dnyanoba Jjaba

Bangar and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and considering the request made by President,

Zilla Gaurav Samiti Mr.Babasaheb Bangar.

Thus from the above stated facts it is clear that the affidavits of Anna Eknath

Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay were suffering from the same infirmity that the name

of Rama Manik Wanave was added to the typed written affidavit in ink and there

were no signature or initial to that addition and the so called affidavit of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap cannot be said to be affidavit as it is not even signed and sworn in

presence of authority competent to sign and competent to administer oath. It is

however treated as affidavit although not worth the paper on which it is typed.

In fact Mantralaya staff preparing and putting up note to the High Power

Committee ought to have brought this to the notice of High Power Committee.

However in this case there was recommendation letter in his individual capacity from

the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti including list of 58 persons along with letter.

- 449 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is no doubt competent to examine the cases and forward the

same with recommendation of the Committee but the recommendation of the

Chairman in his individual capacity cannot be substitute or cannot be considered as an

additional factor in support of the claim. Whatever incidents stated in his own

affidavit by Rama Wanave and in the supporting affidavits are not stated by him,

when he was examined by Mane Committee on oath wherein he stated that he only

supplied breads (bhakari) for four months to ten freedom fighters involved in the

struggle and he even did not know Sona Rama Jaybhay and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

as well as Anna Eknath Telap. It is on such material that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and

High power Committee have sanctioned Sanmapatra and allied benefits to Rama

Wanave. The earlier order of the High Power Committee rejecting his claim was

correct order but a different approach was taken after endorsement by the Secretary to

Chief Minister regarding discussion with the Chief Minister and the letter of

Babasaheb Bangar Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti in his individual capacity. As per

the Government Resolution dated 10th March 1999 sub clause 5 the Government had

no power to review its own decision after it was rejected.

The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to prove his entitlement as

required as per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and Sanmanpatra and

allied pensionary benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith and recommends

accordingly.


Shri Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware

- 450 -

Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware filed application on 01.09.1995 for grant of

Freedom Fighter’s pension on the ground that he worked underground. To

substantiate his claim he filed his own affidavit dated 21.08.1995. Thereafter, he filed

his additional affidavit dated 07.07.1997 and affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

02.07.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 02.07.1997 alongwith the record of their

conviction. The affidavits ofAnna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay are

proforma affidavits wherein name of Pandharinath Baburao is added in ink to the

typed format. In the said affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap the

name of applicant is mentioned as Pandharinath Bakirao Nanaware whereas infact

Pandharinath’s father’s name is Baburao.


application for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and

Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 08.08.1997 addreesed to

the Deputy Secretary General Administration Department reported that it was not a

fit case for grant of pension as it was falling short of the requirements of Government

Resolutation 04.07.1995. However, endorsed for taking final decision at Government

level.

Thereafter, on 15.12.1997 Pandharinath Nanaware addressed letter to the Desk

Officer, General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mumbai and submitted his

own affidavit dated 16.12.1997, the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated

07.10.1997 and Namdeo Balant Aher dated 16.12.1997.

From the affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher it is evident that the affidavit was

already typed and the name of Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware is subsequently

inserted therein. The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap is silent about

Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware having worked with him in the freedom moment at

any time.

- 451 -

The High Power Committee granted pension on 30.05.1998 by relying on the

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Namdeo Balwant Aher and

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

Pandharinath Baburao Nanware in his statement dated 19.03.2003 recorded

before the Mane Committee, stated that he cut shindee trees, participated in burning

Pachangri naka and supplied breads to the freedom fighters.

Thus affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are defective as detailed

below:-

In the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dt. 7.10.1997 blank space left for

filling the name has remained blank and it is sworn without even writing the name. In

the affidavit of Namdev Balwant Aher dated 16.12.1997 name is typed by different

type in different ink in the blank space kept for that purpose. Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap did not even mention that Pandharinath Nannavare took part along with him in

any incident. In fact this affidavit speaks only of the activities of Sahebrao himself. It

is difficult to appreciate how the Government Officer like Avval Karkun did not

notice the defect that there was blank space and the sentence was incomplete which

shows that he did not verify as to what contents were stated and whether the deponent

was aware of the contents. These defects in the affidavit were not brought to the

notice of High Power Committee by the staff that put up the note before the High

Power Committee. These documents cannot be treated as affidavits in the proper

sense of the term as the additionS have not been signed or initialed by anybody even

the deponent much less the authority and in one case the blank space is not even filled

in. This gives a clue as to how affidavits were prepared and sworn by the freedom

fighters who were sentenced to two year’s imprisonment.

All these facts considered together create serious doubt regarding the

involvement of Pandharinath Baburao Nannvare in the freedom movement and as

these facts were not considered, the approach of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the High

Power Committee was without application of mind to the documents placed on

record.

- 452 -

His statement before Mane committee recorded on oath on 19th March 203

further falsifies his claim made and the contents of the affidavits of himself and the

supporting freedom fighters as he stated before Mane Committee that he took part in

burning pachangri naka which is not stated in the earlier affidavit but stated that he

was providing bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters.

The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to make out case as

required by the provisions of the Government Resolution and to establish that he was

entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be

and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Suryabhan Baliram Jagtap

- 453 -

Suryabhan Baliram Jagtap filed application on 04.11.1995 claiming Freedom

Fighter’s Pension with allegation that he acted as under ground freedom fighter. To

substantiate his application he filed affidavit on 29.04.1997 and affidavits of Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne dated 29.01.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dt. 28.04.997.

The High Power Committee rejected the application on 20.02.1998 on the

ground that there was no compliance with 4.7.1995 Government Resolution. It is

specifically stated that the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama

Jaybhay the name of Suryabhan Baliram Jagtap was not even stated. The said blank

affidavits are on record.

Thereafter Bajirao Jagtap, MLA, Majalgaon sent letter on 04.06.1998 to the

Sabhapati High Power Committee Freedom Fighter’s Cell alongwith fresh application

dated 04.06.1998 of Suryabhan Baliram Jagtap, affidavit dated 2.9.1997 and affidavits

of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. It is pertinent to note that the

affidavits dated 20.01.1998 of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap

are affidavits wherein name of Suryabhan Baliram Jagtap is written in ink later on

and not signed or initialed by anybody. Thus in place of earlier blank affidavits these

affidavits with additions and alterations not even initalied by any body were

substituted. It is clear that what weighed with the High Power Committee was the

letter of MLA Majalgaon and those affidavits which are not affidavits in the proper

sense were accepted and relied upon. The Commission has already commented upon

such affidavits of freedom fighters who were indiscriminately filing affidavits in

support of any body approaching them. They had least regard for truth. The

comments are in the part relating to general reasons of cases of Underground Freedom

Fighters.

The High Power Committee granted application on 07.12.1998

When he appeared before Mane Committee he stated on oath that he did not

know freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support. He specifically stated that he

did not know Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane, they were not in his group, he worked near about Pathardi only. Thus the

- 454 -

entire evidence in the form of affidavit produced by him was not at all reliable and his

claim could not have been granted on such documentary evidence. He had failed to

comply with the requirements of Government Resolution by producing reliable

documents and was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the

Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and other benefits granted to him


accordingly.


Shri Vithal Madhavrao Nirale

- 455 -

Vithal Madhavrao Nirale filed application on 14.08.1995 claiming Freedom

Fighter’s pension on the basis of his activities in freedom movement against Nizam

Government as underground freedom fighter. To substantiate his claim he filed

affidavit dated 01.08.1997 of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changediya, affidavit dated

11.02.1997 of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal 16.07.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay

21.07.1997 and Asraji Raoji Jagtap 19.11.1997. It is significant to note here that

Dr.Premchand Uttamchand Changediya claims to have participated in struggle against

British Government as well as Nizam Government and according to him Vithal Nirale

acted as a active worker in 1947-48 in Hyderabad freedom movement as per his

directions. He admitted that he was sentenced for his activities against British

Government. According to Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal, Vithal Madhavrao Nirale

worked alongwith him in the movement against British Government. He has not

stated a single word that he himself have taken part in the movement against Nizam

Government. Even he has not stated about Vithal Madhavrao Nirale having taken part

in movement against Nizam Government. The affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and

Asaraji Raoji Jagtap are the typed affidavits wherein the name of Vithal Madhavrao

Nirale is added later on.


application of Vithal Madhavrao Nirale relying on the affidavits of Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changediya and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 14.07.1998 sent to the

Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighter’s Cell,

Mantralaya, Mumbai expressed that as there was no compliance with Government

Resolution dated 04.07.1995 on the part of the Vithal Madhavrao Nirale, it is not a fit

case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. However, the Government may take final

decision in the matter.

- 456 -

Mr. Sahebrao Darekar, MLA Ashti-Patodi Constituency vide his letter dated

02.11.1998 requested Deputy Secretary, freedom fighter’s cell ,Mantralaya, Mumbai

to grant the application of the Vithal Madhavrao Nirale for pension.


the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the affidavit of Dr. Rasal and

others.

On 19.03.2003 statement of Vithal Madhavrao Nirale was recorded before

Mane Committee wherein he stated about his active participation as under ground

freedom fighter in the struggle against Nizam like burning Police post, hoisting flag,

giving slogans. He also stated that he had given monetary aids to the activists.

In his reply dated 05.12.2005 given to the notice issued by this Commission

and he filed affidavit dated 05.12.2005. He again submitted a written reply dated

29.05.2006 which is styled as affidavit but not verified and sworn before the

competent authority wherein all details of his active participation in the freedom

movement are stated.

He has stated in his so called reply dated 29.05.2006 that he was required to

live away from his house and family members for about 13 months. He made this

statement for the first time on 29.05.2006 so as to fulfill the requirement of


It is pertinent to point out that when he appeared before Mane Committee he

produced one school record in the form of certificate of Head Master. He claimed to

have taken admission in Zilla Parishad School Beed. However the certificate received

from the Head Master is to the effect that on examining the record of the school from

the year 1942-43 and checking of the admission for the subsequent years, there is no

entry found of a person having surname Nirale and therefore no school leaving

certificate can be issued.

He also produced one entry of criminal case register at Ashthi to show that he

was prosecuted in case No. 121/4 of 1356 Fasli dated 14 Isfandar 1356 F i.e. 14

January 1948 to according to which the offence took place in 1356 Fasli equivalent to

14.5.1947. The accused in that case was arrested on 5 Azur 1357 Fasli equal to

- 457 -

5.10.1947. In that case four persons appeared to have been prosecuted which included

one name Vittal Madhavrao. This case was ultimately withdrawn by the police and as

such there was no prosecution. He produced the identity card issued by Election

Commission in which the name is written as Vittal Madhavrao Misal. However he has

nowhere explained earlier that his surname was Misal as well as Nirale and

throughout he has stated his name as Vittal Madhavrao Nirale. He also filed affidavits

of his brother Pandurang Madhavrao Nirale before Mane Committee to explain that

the Nirale is also known by surname Misal. In any of the affidavits filed in support of

his application he has nowhere stated that his surname is Nirale alias Misal. Moreover

he did not even claim in the application and the affidavits filed with the application

that there was criminal case against him. He has not stated as to what was the case and

what were the allegations. He was prosecuted under the sections 212 of the

Hyderabad Penal Code. If there was a criminal case in fact against him he could have

narrated the incident on the basis of which the prosecution was lauched. The school

leaving certificate of his brother is produced by him before Mane Committee wherein

also surname Misal is not mentioned. This contradiction in the surname has not been

properly explained to accept that the criminal case was in respect of the same person.

Apart from this he has relied on supporting affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut

Rasal, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Asaraji Ravji Jagtap and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia. As pointed out in many other cases Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr.

Premchand Uttamchand Changedia were sentenced for the activities in the freedom

movements of India and there is no document on record to show their rule in the

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of

Vittal Madhavrao Nirale is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit where there is

no signature of any person. Similarly in the affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia his name is written in ink to typed format of affidavit. A perusal of the

affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal makes it clear that he has not stated to have taken

part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and even the statement is to the effect that

Vittal Madhavrao Nirale was taking part in the freedom movement of India along

with Dr. Achutrao Amrutrao Rasal.

There is also no evidence about compliance with the other requirements of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The incidents stated by the respondent in his

- 458 -

own affidavit are not borne out from the affidavits of freedom fighters working in

Hyderabad Freedom Movement. As the record of criminal case does not mention his

name and there is no reliable evidence that Nirale or Misal are the surnames by which

his family is known. He has failed to produce reliable evidence in support of his claim

of having taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and he had also not complied

with the requirements of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and his late

assertion in the affidavit filed before the Commission that he was required to live

away from his house for 13 months is after thought and unreliable.

The Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and


- 459 -


Shri Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad

Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad filed application on 14.8.1995 for freedom fighter’s

pension on the ground that he acted as underground freedom fighter in struggle

against Nizam Government. In support of the application he placed on record Xerox

copy of his affidavit dated 5.8.1995 and recommendation letters Barsi city and Taluka

freedom movement committee, Ambajogai taluka freedom movement committee and

Bhoom Paranda Kalamb Freedom Movement Committee. Later on he filed affidavit

of Anna Eknath Telap Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 26.6.1997 in support of his

claim. The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane are the typed

affidavits in which the name of Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad is inserted with pen.

He filed his additional affidavit dated 05.08.1997.


application of Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad relying on the affidavit of Anna Eknath

Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 11.08.1997 submitted to

the Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department Freedom Fighter’s Cell,

Mantralaya, Mumbai expressed that there was no compliance with Government


The High Power Committee rejected the application on 18.02.1998 and

informed Gyanba Gaikwad him accordingly.

Thereafter, Mr. P.V. Joshi, Member, Zilla Gaurav Samiti addressed a

recommendation letter on 09.12.1998 to Member Secretary, High Power Committee,

Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya Mumbai and requested for grant of application of

Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad stating that his claim is genuine. In addition to it Gyanba

Gaikwad placed on record his own affidavits dated 19.11.1998, 10.03.1999, and

affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher dated 11.03.1999, Manik Tulshiram Anbhule

dated 11.03.1999 so as to remove the defects found by the High Power Committee

while rejecting his application on 18.02.1998. Thereafter, High Power Committee

granted the application on 22.05.1999 relying on the recommendation of P.V. Joshi,

- 460 -

Member Zilla Gaurav Samiti , Beed and additional affidavits of supporting freedom

fighters placed on record.

Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad in his statement dated 19.03.2003 before Mane

Committee accounted for his under ground activities in the freedom movement

against Nizam. According to him, he had absconded as Razakars (Servants of Nizam)

killed his brother.

In the affidavit dated 05.12.2005 submitted to this Commission by Gyanba

Baburao Gaikwad he accounted for, in detail, his underground activities.

Thus there is consistent statement of the respondent that his brother was killed

in Hyderabad Freedom Movement which is borne out from the letters of

recommendation and one of the letters is given by the member of Zilla Gaurav Samiti

Shri. P. V. Joshi. As his brother was killed in his house, it is natural that he must have

left the house and his statement that he was required to leave the house and live away

need not to be suspected and the same appears to be genuine. He produced additional

affidavits before the High Power Committee and considering the facts, the

Commission does not find it proper to interfere with the order of the Government

granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and be contined.

- 461 -


Shri Bhagwan Bajirao Latpate

Bhagwan Bajirao Latpate filed application on 13.03.1989 for Freedom Fighter

Pension stating that he was underground freedom fighter. He also placed on record

Xerox copy of his own affidavit dated 09.03.1989 in support of that application.

Thereafter, again he filed on record another application on 30.08.1995 supported by

his own affidavit dated 11.08.1995. He then filed additional affidavit dated

06.06.1997 and affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 06.06.1997, Anna Eknath

Telap dated 5.4.1997. It is significant to note here that the affidavits are typed

affidavits wherein the name of Bhagwan Bajirao Latpate is added in ink.


application by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama

Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 05.07.1997 addressed to the

Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, Freedom Fighter’s Cell,

Mantralaya, Mumbai submitted that there was no compliance with Government


The High Power Committee rejected the application on 31.12.1997 by

observing that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995 and informed him accordingly. Thereafter, on 16.11.1998 Bhagwan

Bajirao Latpate sent a letter to the Sabhapati High Power Committee , Freedom

Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai alongwith affidavit dated 06.10.1998 and

affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule dated 04.09.1998 and Namdeo Balwant Aher

dated 05.04.1998 for reconsideration of his application. The High Power Committee

granted the application on 19.01.1999 relying on the additional affidavits of Bhagwan

Bajirao Latpate and supporting freedom fighters.

Bhagwan Bajirao Latpate in his statement dated 19.03.2003 recorded before

Mane Committee stated about his under ground activities in the movement against

Nizam Government.

- 462 -

In his affidavit dated 08.12.2005 submitted to the Commission he narrated

about his underground activities.

On the basis of affidavits earlier produced by him out of which the affidavits

of the supporting freedom fighters were found defective his claim was rejected.

Thereafter his application with additional documentary evidence of additional

affidavits of other freedom fighters his claim has been reconsidered. The incidents

quoted earlier by him are mentioned in these supporting affidavits and there appears

no reason to reject this statement regarding his involvement in the incidents stated.

The Commission therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order of the

Government granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends


- 463 -


Shri Balkrishna Dnyanoba Misal

Balkrishna Dnyanoba Misal filed application on 31.12.1996 for freedom

fighter’s pension claiming to be underground freedom fighter. In support of the

application, he filed affidavit of his own dated 31.8.1996 and affidavits of Nivrutti

Fakira Dhakne dated 28.10.1996 and Anna Eknath Telap dated 20.1.1997. The

affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne is a readymade typed affidavit wherein name of

Balkrishna Misal is inserted with ink whereas in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap

the name of Balkirshna Misal is added subsequently by typing it in already typed

format.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti Beed in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 recommended

the application of Balkrishna Misal relying on the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne

and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 25.07.1998 submited to the

Deputy Secretary General Administration Department Freedom Fighter’s Cell,

Mantralaya, Mumbai stated that the requirements of Government Resolution dated

04.07.1995 were not fulfilled and therefore the application was not fit for

recommendation however further requested Government to take final decision.

Thereafter, on 10.03.1999 Balkrishna Misal sent letter alongwith affidavit of

his own dated 02.02.1999 and affidavits of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap to the Sabhapati.


the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed and the affidavits filed by

Balkrishan Misal before Collector as well as High Power Committee.

In statement of Balkrishna Misal recorded on 21.03.2003 by Mane Committee

he stated that he supplied breads (bhakari) to the activists for 4/5months by collecting

it from his relatives as well as from his own house and he did nothing more beyond

that.

In his affidavit dated 03.12.2005 submitted to the Commission he accounted

the role played by him in the struggle against Nizam Rule. What he stated in affidavit

- 464 -

dated- 03.12.2005 does not find place in his earlier statement before Mane Committee

and earlier affidavits.

Thus the affidavits filed earlier that of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Eknath

Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity that the name of Balkrishana Gyanoba Misal

is added to the already typed affidavit and there is no intial or signature of the person

to the addition.

However, there after he filed further affidavits of himself and two other

freedom fighters. In these affidavits dated 2.2.1999 he has stated the incident in which

the Nizam Police and Pathan attack Wadzari Village and killed two persons. He

claims to have given this information to Domri Camp and to have attacked Wadzari

Village along with 500-600 Congress workers in which the freedom fighters had fired

on the Nizam Police and two police were killed in said firing. He also stated that he

was living away from his house for about 10 months. These incidents are referred to

even in the supporting affidavit. However when examined on oath before Mane

Committee as late as 21.3.2003, he merely stated that he was providing breads

(Bhakaries) to the freedom fighters for 4-5 months. He used to collect the same from

different houses and from his own house and this work he was doing by residing in

his own house and added further that apart from this he had not done any other work

in the freedom movement which statement clearly falsifies his earlier version

regarding part taken by him in the freedom movement and therefore obviously the

later evidence and the supporting affidavits can be said to be after thought which are

further falsified by his own statement on oath recorded in 2003.

The Commission therefore finds that even his involvement in any activity in

the Hyderabad Freedom Movement is not satisfactorily established and he was not

entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as there was no compliance with the

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends

accordingly.

- 465 -


Shri Balbhim Tatyaba Khillare

He applied for pension on 3.5.1989. In his affidavit dated 20.5.1989 he has not

referred to any incident in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in

which he had taken part. In his further affidavit dated 25.5.1997 names of Anna

Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay are added to the typed written affidavit and

there is no signature of any person on the addition and even the affidavits of Anna

Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same infirmity of addition of

his name in the blank space and the affidavits of both the freedom fighters who have

supported him contain the same incidents as they have stated in other affidavits. Thus

the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are not reliable.

His statement made before the Mane Committee is also contradictory. He

claims to have taken part in burning Karodgiri Naka. In the affidavits of Sona Rama

Jaybhay these facts are not stated.

Thus the statements in affidavits of the respondent freedom fighter and the

statement contained in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are

contradictory and as such he had failed to produce reliable evidence in support of his

claim and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted on the basis of such evidence


accordingly.

- 466 -


Shri Maruti Nana Golhar

Maruti Nana Golhar filed application on 30.08.1995 for Freedom Fighter

Pension stating the role played by him in the freedom movement against Nizam. He

filed Xerox copy of his own affidavit dated 14.08.1995. Lateron in compliance with

Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 he filed his own affidavit dated 03.07.1997,

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 23.07.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay

dated 02.07.1997. His own affidavit is a typed affidavit wherein his name is added by

pen. In affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the earlier substance typed is erased with the

whitner and name of Maruti Golhar is added in ink. The affidavit of Anna

EknathTelap and Sona Rama Jaybhay are typed affidavits. In the affidavit of Sona

Rama Jaybhay also nameof Maruti Golhar is added in ink.


application relying on the affidavit of the Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay

whereas, the Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 28.08.1997 addressed to

the Depty Secretary, General Administration Department asserted that Maruti Golhar

failed to comply with the requirement of Government Resolution dated04.07.1995

and so it was not a fit case for grant of pension.

Thereafter, Maruti Golhar submitted application on 12.11.1998 alongwith

affidavit of his own dated 06.10.1998, affidavit of Manik Baliram Anbhule dated

05.09.1998 and affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 14.09.1998 to the

Sabhapati, High Power Committee. He removed lacuna that was found by the

Additional Collector, Beed while giving his report dated 28.07.1997.

The High Power Committee granted application on 22.05.1999 relyng on the

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed and the supporting affidavits.

In Statement dated 28.03.2003 recorded before Mane Committee Maruti Nana

Golhar stated that he took part in the freedom movement he was living in his own

house. He expressed his inability to tell names of the persons with whom he worked.

According to him, he does not recognize Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay,

- 467 -

Manik TulshiramAnbhule and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and further added that he

cannot tell where he worked with them.

In his affidavit dated 12.12.2005 presented to the Commission Maruti Golhar

stated the facts which he had not stated before and it appears that the said facts are

narrated not only to support his own claim but to substantiate the claim of others who

are found to be of tender age.

Thus supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay

suffer from the infirmity of addition of name to the already prepared affidavit. A close

look at the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap shows that earlier the name of some other

person was written who was resident of Padalsingi, Taluka Gawarai which letters are

legible even though that portion has been erased by using whitener and there after the

name of Maroti Nana Golhar is added as there was some space between two

paragraphs. It was added in ink and to the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay also the

name is added in ink to the typed format. The aforesaid two affidavits contain the

same incidents which they have said in their affidavits filed in support of other

freedom fighters. After this he filed further addidavits dated 6.10.1998 in which

further improvement is made and the names of Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik

Tulshiram Anubhule are added and different incidents are stated. In the supporting

affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule dated 5.9.1998 the name of Maroti Nana

Golhar is added after erasing name written earlier by use of whitener and the

statement that he was required to live away from his house has come for the first time

in these affidavits. However, when examined before Mane Committee on oath on

28.3.2003, the truth came out from his mouth. He stated `he was living in his own

house and he was not required to live away from his house and he never resided in

any camp and does not know who were the camp leaders. He also does not know

Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule and Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap’. Thus he does not know the persons who have filed the affidavits

stating his involvement along with them in different incidents connected with the

freedom movement and it is therefore clear that the statements contained in his own

affidavits and that of the freedom fighters supporting are not trustworthy. He had

failed to produce reliable of evidences in support of claim and therefore the

- 468 -

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



Shri Bhujang Nivrutti Hange

- 469 -

Bhujang Nivrutti Hange filed application on 02.01.1997 for Freedom Fighter’s

pension without giving details therein about the role played in the freedom movement.

Thereafter, on notice from the Collector, Beed to substantiate his claim as per the

requirement of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 he filed affidavits of his

own dated 23.07.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 20.08.1997 and

Anna Eknath Telap Dated 0-6.08.1997. All the three affidavits are typed affidavits. In

his own affidavit, his name, age and place of residence is typed subsequently whereas

in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap his name is added in

ink. The additions are not signed or initialed.


case relying on the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap whereas

Additional Collector, Beed in his report Dated 15.07.1998 did not recommend the

application for want of compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4th July

1995.

Thereafter, on 09.03.1999 Bhujang Nivrutti Hange sent letter to the Desk

Officer, along with affidavit dated 15.02.1999 of his own and affidavits of Namdeo

Balwant Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap of the same date.


the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed and the contents of the

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters placed on record.

In the statement of Bhujang Nivrutti Hange recorded on 21.03.2003 before

Mane Committee he stated that he did not know against whom the movement was

then going. However, he supplied breads to Domri Camp and according to him

except supplying breads he did nothing. He further added that he worked with

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap.

- 470 -

In the affidavit of Bhujang Nivrutti Hange Dated 08.12.2005 presented to the

Commission he has given total history about his active participation in the freedom

movement which is contrary to his statement recorded before Mane Committee.

Thus apart from the infirmity noted in the affidavits of the supporting freedom

fighters his statement before Mane Committee falsifies his assertion that he took

active part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. When examined on oath on

21.3.2003 he stated ‘he does not know what was the movement but he used to

provide bread to the persons at Domgri who were in that movement. He does not

know who was the head of Domri Camp. He was servant of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap

and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was paying him salary for grazing cattles and

application is made on advice of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. He does not know who

has filed the supporting affidavits and he does not know Anna Eknath Telap and Sona

Rama Jaybhay’. He has thus falsified the entire statement contained in his own

affidavit and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters. It clearly shows that he

had no concern with the freedom movement but since he was servant of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap the application had been failed for claiming the pensionary benefits.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 471 -


Shri Sopan Deoji Doiphode

Sopan Deoji Doiphode applied for pension on 11.06.1997 claiming that he

was underground freedom fighter and stated in his application that as underground

freedom fighter he took part in buring Pachangrinaka and faced the attack of police

Razakars at Ghumre and also took part in burning the office of Police Patil at

Daskhed. He worked under the leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and Sona Rama

Jabhaye.

He filed affidavit dated 02.06.1997 referring names of Ramling Swami,

Wamanrao Vaze and Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Namdeo Khade, Bhima Umaji

Bangar and Anna Eknath Telap.

He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay Dated05.02.1997 wherein the name

of Sopan Deoji Doiphode and his place of residence is added in ink to the typed

affidavit. He filed another affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 05.04.1997 in which

name of Sopan Deoji Doiphode added in ink to the typed proforma affidavit and

there are some other erasures by whitner. He also filed affidavit of Bhima Umaji

Bangar dated 06.11.1996 in which also the name is added as in the other two

affidavits.

He sent one reminder on 30.03.1999 and alongwith it additional affidavits of

himself, Namdeo Balwant Aher and Manik Tulshiram Anbhule.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 07.09.1998 recommended his

case relying on his own affidavit and supporing affidavits of Bhima Umaji Bangar ,

Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. However, one of the member P.V. Joshi

doubted the genuiness of the signature of deponents.

The Additional Collector, Beed wrote to the Section officer dated nil that there

was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.0.1995. The High Power

- 472 -

Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned

the pension on 25.5.1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee and reiterated the same facts.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission there is nothing worth noting.

The infirmities noticed in the earlier affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona

Rama Jaybhay are not in the later affidavits of Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik

Tulshiram Anubhule. His application, his statement recorded on oath before Mane

Committee on 21.3.2003 totally falsify earlier assertion made in the affidavits of

himself and his supporters. In his statement he stated that in order to oppose the

recovery of levy he pelted stones at the house of Kulkarni (As Kulkarni was the

person collecting levy). In his statement he has not referred to any activity against the

Nizam Government in which he has taken part and the only act stated is of pelting

stones at Kulkarni’s house which is not contained in his affidavit or supporting

affidavits. Therefore the statements contained in those affidavits are not reliable and

he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him

deserved to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.


Shri Kisan Yadav Pawar

- 473 -

Kisan Yadav Pawar applied for pension on 11.03.1989 claiming pension as

underground freedom fighter and in his application stated that he worked under

Asaraji Raoji Jagtap. In the earlier affidavit Dated 09.03.1989 he had not named any

of the freedom fighters who have now supported his case.

In his affidavit 12.08.1997 he stated the names of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand

Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth alongwith the names of other well known

freedom fighters and filed the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth Dated nil. On this

affidavit although there is rubbar stamp of the authority before whom it is to be sworn

in, there is no signature of the authority. Mohan Narhari Deth was freedom fighter

who took part in the freedom movement of India. He also filed affidavit of Dr.

Premchand Uttamchan Changedia. He was also sentenced in the freedom movement

of India and not in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. And on these affidavits there are

rubbar stamps of the authority but there is no signature of the authority before whom

the affidavit is sworn. Even on the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth there is signature

of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and there is no signature of Mohan Narhari

Deth.

The Zilla Gaurav Samit in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 relied on the affidavits

of respondents and supporting affidavits of Dr. Changediya and Mohan Deth and


The Additional Collector by letter dated 15.07.1998 reported that there was no

compliance with the provisions of Governement Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation in view of the

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters and granted application of Kisan Yadav

Pawar on 2.4.1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing breads

to the freedom fighters. He used to collect Bhakaris from different houses in villages

for that purpose. He was required to live away from his house for one month. He

specifically stated that he has not worked with the freedom fighters who are from

Nagar though he stayed with them at Nagar.

- 474 -

In the affidavit filed before the Commission his has made further

improvements by narrating various incidents and he suffering in the freedom

movement.

From the above discussion it is clear that the supporting affidavits are in fact

not affidavits as much as the affidavits of Mohan Narhari Deth as well as affidavit in

the name of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia are signed by Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changedia at two places and on both these affidavits there is no

endorsement and signature of the authority competent to verify. Moreover as already

pointed out Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth had not

taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and there is no evidence regarding their

involvement in any activity concerned with the Hyderabad freedom movement. They

were sentenced for their acts in the freedom movement of India.

Whatever Kisan Yadav Pawar stated in his earlier application and affidavit is

falsified by his statement before the Mane Committee wherein he only stated that he

used to give breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters and has not referred to any of the

incidents in which he took part during the freedom movement of Hyderabad. He even

stated that he has not worked with Mohan Narhari Deth and Dr. Premchand

Uttamchand Changedia. Thus the statements contained in his affidavit and the

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are not reliable. There is no evidence on the

basis of which his claim could be accepted. Sanmanpatra and allied benefits are

granted to him inspite of the fact that he had failed to make out the case as required by

the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 supported by necessary documentary and

oral evidence and the same deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 475 -


Jagannath Govindrav Javkar (deceased) represented by wife Shrimati

Yamunabai Jagannath Javkar

Jagannath Govindrav Javkar applied for pension on 11.8.1995. However, he

expired on 15.1.2000 and thereafter he is represented by wife Yamunabai.

He claimed pension as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavit of

Balkrishna Mahadev Patwardhan dated 14.8.1995.

He filed his own affidavit dated 14.8.1995 wherein he stated to have worked

under Kashinath Jadhav and Balkrishna Mahadev Patwardhan. He did not name any

other freedom fighter.

He filed a letter on stamp paper dated 26.12.1996 stating various activities

including collection of funds on instruction of Dr. Balkrishna Mahadev Patwardhan

and stated that Sukhdev Mule and Gangaram were killed in front of his house. Dr.

Patwardhan was confined to the house of Dhondiba Teli wherein he entered as he was

a bangle seller (kasar) and he informed Dr. Patwardhan about well being of his family

and also convenyed the well being of Dr. Patwardhan to his family. He had also

given secret information about Dr. Patwardhan that he was likely to be killed by

Razakars and on this letter which appears like an affidavit but it is not signed by any

authority as statement on oath, there appears an endorsement of Dr. Patwardhan

stating that he worked along with Dr. Patwardhan in the freedom movement.

Thereafter he filed another affidavit dated 7.7.1997 in which he stated for the

first time the names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Vaze,

Bhima Umaji Bangar and Namdev Khade, as well as Anna Eknath Telap. He filed

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaibhay dated 25.6.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

23.6.1997 respectively and in both the affidavits name of Jagannath Govindrav Javkar

is added in the typed affidavit.

- 476 -

In the file there is one letter of recommendation by the then M.L.A. and

Leader of Opposition Gopinathrao Munde dated 26.10.1993 on which the then

Member Secretary, Kewalchand Jain has given direction to immediately place the file

before him for consideration.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting 9.7.1997 recommended his case relying

on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Son Rama Jaybhay.


there is no compliance with 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim on 6.10.1998 earlier on the

ground that he did not comply with the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

Thereafter however, note was put up on 15.5.1999 in which it is stated that he

is not informed about rejection of his claim and thereafter member secretary raised the

point when the case is rejected in view of the fact that no adequate evidence is

produced, he has now produced further affidavits which are sufficient to show that he

took part in Hyderabad freedom movement and thereafter concluded by stating that

the case is fit for sanction of which the Member Secretary mentioned that in the old

file there is recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and thereafter the claim is

sanctioned on 25.9.1999.

Before Mane Committee his wife Yamunabai appeared. She could not make

any statement as she had no personal knowledge.

Before the Commission also she has filed affidavit which need not be

considered as she has no personal knowedge.

Thus apart from the fact that the supporting freedom fighters affidavits are

defective as his name is added afterwards in the blank portion and the affidavits

contain the same statement of fact these freedom fighters stated in various other cases.

The additions in the affidavits are not signed or initialed by anybody.

- 477 -

Apart from the fact that his claim was rejected on 6.10.1998 on the ground of

non-compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995

and the note for reconsideration was put up on 15.5.1999. However in view of

Government Resolution dated 10.3.1999 the Government could not have reconsidered

the case as after that Government Resolution in view of the provisions of para 5 in no

case the Government could reopen or review the cases already rejected.

Thus for the aforesaid reasons the Respondent had failed to prove his

entitlement to the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to

him are on the grounds which are not existant and which in any case are not proved

deserve to be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

- 478 -


Shri Dattatraya Vithalrao Murtekar

Dattatraya Vithalrao Murtekar applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension

on 7.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated 4.8.1997

wherein he stated names of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and produced

affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 5.4.1997. In this affidavit the name of

Dattatraya Vithalrao Murtekar is added in ink in the blank space left for that purpose

in the typed format. Similar is the case of affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

14.8.1997.

He thereafter filed affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule dated 20.4.1999, alongwith his own affidavit of the same date. In the

affidavits of these two persons contents are similar.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 22.9.1997 referred to his own

affidavit and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and

Anna Eknath Telap and recommended case for grant of pension.

The Additional Collector, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 5.11.1997, that

there was no compliance with 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and

Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram

Anubhule and accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and

sanctioned pension.

He apeared before Mane Committee and referred to the affidavits of

supporting freedom fighters.

Thus apart from the defects in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters

pointed out above, his case is falsified by his own statement before Mane Committee.

- 479 -

Although he has made references to some incidents regarding burning of Karodgiri

Naka, he had clearly stated that he had no occasion to work with Sona Rama Jaybhay,

Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as well as Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. He

applied for pension as he was asked to apply for the pension by the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and the recommendations in his favour are given by those persons on being

asked to do so by the members of Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Thus the statement in his

affidavit and affidavits of supporting freedom fighters is falsified by his statement on

oath recorded by Mane Committee. He was therefore not entitled to the Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits which were claimed on the ground which did not exists and the

same therefore deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 480 -


Shri Haribhau Yadav Rakh

Haribhau Yadav Rakh applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension on

2.10.1990 claiming pension as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated

12.2.1997 referring to the names of Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Vaze, Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 25.2.1997 in which the

name of Haribhau Yadav Rakh R/o Therla is added in different type afterwards to the

affidavit already typed and similar is the case of affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated

25.2.1997.

He further filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1999 relied on affidavit of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended grant of pension.


there was no compliance with 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti and relying on the affidavit of Haribhau Yadav Rakh and two supporting

affidavits granted pension on 18.1.2000.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded. In the

statement recorded he stated for the first time that for 10 to 12 months he was required

to live away from his house.

Thus the affidavits of both the supporting freedom fighters contain additions

not signed or initialed. Thus there was no reliable evidence to support his application

as required by the provisions of Government Resolution. Even his own affidavit dated

12.02.1997 is a carbon copy of somebody else’s affidavit and his name is added in

blank space left open for that purpose. The statement of supporting freedom fitghters

are inconsistent and unreliable. He failed to make out case as required by

Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and so Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him deserve to be and cancelled forthwith and the Commission


- 481 -


Govind Bhagwan Janjire (Deceased) Represented by wife Shrimati Yamunabai

Govind Janjire.

Govind Bhagwan Janjire applied for pension on 09.06.1989. In the first

affidavit dated 24.04.1989 he has not referred to the Freedom Fighter’s who

supported his case. However, thereafter he sent one reminder to the Collector on

05.09.1997 and he filed his own affidavit dated 29.06.1997 in which he stated that he

was required to live away from his house for 4 to 6 months at Mirajgaon camp under

the leadership of Asraji Jagtap. He filed affidavit in which he has stated names of

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap and Dr.Achyut Amrut Rasal. He filed

affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 19.07.1997 in which his name is added in ink

and the similar is the case in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

19.07.1997.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 06.11.1997 relying on the affidavit of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended his case.


there is no compliance of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to statement in his own affidavit and the

affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as well as Manik Tulshiram

Anbhule and Zilla Gaurav Samiti’s recommendation and granted pension on

28.10.1999.

Before Mane Committee his wife appeared. She stated that she and her

husband used to supply breads (bhakaries) to the freedom fighters in one camp in

Ahmadnagar District. She and her husband had fled to Bongurde in Ahmadnagar

District.

- 482 -

However, the statement in the affidavit filed before Mane Committee is

different from her statement recorded by the Mane Committee.

As pointed out earlier, she had clearly stated before Mane Committee that

along with her husband she was providing food to the freedom fighters at Hatolna in

Ahmadnagar District as there was Freedom Fighter’s Camp. She had also stated that

both of them were living in their house and doing this work and later on added that

they left the house fled to Bangurde village in Ahmadnagar District. This statement

was recorded on 24.3.2003 and if it was truthful she would have stated the same facts

in the affidavits filed before the Commission. However, in this affidavit she stated

that her husband was working with Ashraji Jagtap, Wamanrao Vaze, Sahebrao

Ganpati Sanap and he attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze. She further stated

that when her husband was underground the Police used to visit her house and used

to inquire regarding whereabouts of her husband.

Apart from this the application of her husband Govind Bhagwan Janjire does

not make reference to these facts. He has stated that he had fled Solapurwadi, Loni,

Takli and he worked under the leadership of Swami Ramanand Tirth.

In the affidavit dated 24.4.1989 he had merely stated that he worked for

Congress party and was volunteer of Seva Dal and used to give slogans. He even did

not state that he was working underground.

After the notice was issued to him on 19.6.1997 he filed his own affidavit

dated 9.7.1997. This is stereotype affidavit typed in a particular format wherein his

name is added in ink to the typed affidavit without any signature or initial and similar

is the case of the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters Anna Anna Telap and

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne wherein his name is added in ink in the blank space to typed

format.

Thereafter by letter dated 7.4.1999 he forwarded directly to the Member

Secretary of High Power Committee two Affidavits of other freedom fighters namely

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manikrao Tulsiram Anbhule along with his own

affidavit dated 6.4.1999. In this affidavit he stated for the first time that he took part in

- 483 -

the incident of burning of Daskhed Police Patil Wada and office and Rohatwadi

Karodgiri Naka.

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap in the supporting affidavit dated 6.4.1999 referred to

the incidents in which two police constables of Nizam Government were killed and

two freedom fighters were killed by the Nizam Police at Wadzari namely Limba

Bappaji Sanap and Yadav Patilbooa Sanap. No reference was made to there incidents

by the respondent himself or by the two freedom fighters who had earlier filed

supporting affidavits. The affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule contains the same

version as containts of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. Thus the statement in his application,

earlier affidavit dated 24.4.1989 and the certificate of Kendra Pramukh describes

different and contradictory versions. One affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap is just a

carbon copy of the affidavit prepared for somebody else and similarly affidavit of

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane is also a carbon copy of the affidavit prepared for someother

persons and in both affidavits the name of Govind Bhagwan Janjire is added in ink to

the typed format after erasing the name written earlier.

Thus affidavits can not be stated as affidavits in the proper sense as term and

can not be given sanctity of a statement on oath. The entire evidence produced in

support of the claim is totally unreliable and is also contradicted by his wife when she

appeared before Mane Committee. The Commission has already described in detail

how indiscriminately there freedom fighters were filing supporting affidavits. It is

stated in a separate part of this report.

In view of this the Commission is of considered view that the respondent had

failed to make out the case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution

dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be

and be cancelled.

- 484 -


Kisan Limbaji Kadam (Deceased) represented by wife Radhabai Kisan Kadam

Kisan Limbaji Kadam filed application on 8.3.1996 claiming pension as

underground freedom fighter. In support of his application he filed affidavits of

Sitaram Eknath Gavhane dated 28.2.1996, Shrirang Bhujang Gavhane dated

28.2.1996. He again submitted affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 29.1.1997

and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 5.2.1997 after he was called upon to

comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 by the

Collector, vide notice dated 17.6.1997.

The affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay are typed

affidavits wherein the name of Kisan Limbaji Kadam is added in ink.


application relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama

Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 4.7.1997 submitted to the

Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department reported that there was no

compliance with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee rejected the application on 29.12.1997 as there

was no compliance of the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter Kisan Limbaji Kadam complained to the Lokayukta and along with

it submitted additional affidavits of his own dated 12.5.1998 and affidavit of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap dated 27.4.1998 and affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher dated

27.4.1998 to remove the lacunae which High Power Committee found while rejecting

his application on 29.12.1997. The said complaint was forwarded by Lokayukta

alongwith affidavits and his letter dated 28.5.1998. It is significant to note here that

- 485 -

affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher are the typed

affidavits wherein the name of Kisan Limbaji Kadam is added subsequently with

another typing machine.

The High Power Committee relied on the additional affidavit submitted by

Kisan Limbaji Kadam and granted his application on 3.7.1998.

Thereafter Kisan Limbaji Kadam died so his wife Radhabai appeared before

Mane Committee on 25.3.2003 and stated that she has no personal knowledge of the

role of her husband in freedom struggle.

Radhabai Kisan Kadam in her affidavit dated 1.12.2005 submitted to the

Commission narrated story, which her husband made out in his affidavit and his

witnesses. However, whatsoever she stated in her affidavit before the Commission

was not stated when her statement was recorded before Mane Committee.

Thus the supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama

Jaybhay, Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap suffer from the same

infirmity regarding addition of name to the typed affidavits and these additions are not

signed or initialed by anybody. The affidavits filed afterwards are obviously to

remove the lacuna even then the affidavits filed, suffer from same infirmity. On the

basis of such affidavits it was improper on the part of High Power Committee to

accept the contents of his application and affidavits as trustworthy. Later affidavits

were sent directly to the High Power Committee and were not before the Zilla Gaurav

Samiti at all. The contents of the affidavits of Aasraji Raoji Jagatap, Anna Eknath

Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Namdev Balawant Aher, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap

are inter-se contradictory. Thus there was no reliable evidence of his involvement in

any incident connected with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement which could be

accepted by the Government and so the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to

him are on the basis of evidence which is not at all reliable and deserve to be and be


- 486 -

File Case No. 354 (Respondent No.354

Namdeo Sakharam Zagde (Deceased) represented by wife

Anusayabai Namdeo Zagde

Namdeo Sakharam Zagde filed application on 21.8.1995 for freedom fighter’s

pension alleging there in that he acted as underground freedom fighter. He further

added that he had filed application in the year 1987 and there after he had filed

another application but no action was taken thereon. In support of his application he

filed affidavits of Ashraji Raoji Jagtap dated 25.7.1997 and Affidavit of Achyut

Amrut Rasal dated 25.7.1997 and affidavit of Mohan Narhar Deth dated 18.8.1997,

affidavit of Dr. Premraj Uttamchand Changedia dated 18.8.1997.

Affidavit of Ashraji Raoji Jagtap is typed affidavit wherein the name of

Namdeo Sakharam Zagde is added subsequently in already typed affidavit.


application while relying on the affidavits of Ashraji Raoji Jagtap Achyut Amrut

Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 14.7.1998 sent to the

Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department stated that the requirements of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 were not fulfilled.


the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the affidavits of Mohan Narhar

Deth, Dr. Changedia and Ashraji Raoji Jagtap.

Namdev Sakharam Zagade died on 4.8.1999 so his wife Anusuyabai appeared

before Mane Committee and on 25.3.2003 and stated that she had no personal

knowledge about participation of her husband in struggle movement against Nizam.

Thus the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters are of the persons who were

not involved in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. They had taken part in the

- 487 -

freedom movement of India and they have not stated any particular incident in

connection with the Hyderabad Freedom movement in which Namdev Sakharam

Zagade was involved along with them. Even the affidavit of Asaraji Raoji Jagatap

suffers from the same infirmity of addition of name to the typed format. Thus

Namdev Sakharam Zagade had failed to produce adequate material and evidence

supporting his contention of being a freedom fighters who had taken part in

Hyderabad freedom movement and he was granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

on the basis of evidence which was not reliable and the same deserves to be and be

cancelled forthwith. The Commission recommends accordingly.

justice ab palkar commission of inquiry report volume-ii

Documents

commission cases

respondent cases

freedom fighters pension

warrants of arrest cases

freedom fighter shri

vitthal bhanudas dhas

commission annexures

man commission justice