-0-

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 I)
2007
 -1-

INDEX
Part Subject Page No
VOLUME I
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 16-31
CONVICTION OR OTHERWISE DETENTION IN
CUSTODY FOR SOME PERIOD BY THE
RESPONDENT
VI. CASES RECOMMENDED BY ZILLA GAURAV 32-40
SAMMITI OR CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS
SANCTIONED BY THE HIGH POWER
COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF
GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 4.7.1995
VII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES OF 41-54
UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS
VIII. GENERAL REASONS IN CASES BASED ON 55-71
WARRANTS OF ARREST
IX. CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED ON 72-140
ARREST WARRANTS AND ALSO ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PERSON WAS WORKING
UNDERGROUND IN HYDERABAD FREEDOM
MOVEMENT
X. CASES IN WHICH DATE OF BIRTH IS 141-215
DISPUTED
VOLUME II
XI. CASES IN WHICH FILES WERE NOT MADE 217
AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION
XII. CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT AS WELL AS 218
HIS OR HER SPOUCE IS REPORTED DEAD AND
HENCE CLOSED BY THE COMMISSION
XIII. PARTICULAR CASES OF UNDERGROUND 219-487
FREEDOM FIGHTERS
VOLUME III-A & B
XIV. PARTICULAR CASES OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS 489-838
CLAIM BASED ON ARREST WARRANT
XV. CONCLUDING REMARKS OF THE 839-848
COMMISSION
XVI. ANNEXURES (KEPT SEPARATELY) 849-862
XVII. LIST OF ALL 355 CASES (354, 354A) 863-872
 -2-

PART-I

INTRODUCTION

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

(Retd), Former Judge of High Court in respect of 354+1 (as there are
two files 354 and 354A) Freedom fighters alleged to have obtained
bogus certificates i.e. Sanmanpatra and allied benefits admissible to
Freedom Fighters.

The Government of Maharashtra has constituted the Commission

by Government Resolution No. POS 1205/Beed/61/CR-1205/Freedom
Fighter Cell-2, dated 1st October 2005. The State Government
constituted the Commission in pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in special Leave Petition Nos. 11344 to 11349 of 2004
and Civil Application Nos. 5162 to 5167 of 2005 decided on 22nd
August 2005. The appointment was made by the orders of the Supreme
Court and in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, the above
stated Government Resolution has been issued. The Supreme Court
initially directed by the order dated 22nd August 2005 that the report be
submitted to the Government within a period of 4 months which period
was subsequently extended.

N.B.;
Although the cases of underground freedom fighters, freedom
fighters claiming on the ground that arrest warrant was issued and
those claiming on both the grounds are considered in separate parts,
the reasons stated in the parts of general reasons for warrant cases,
general reasons for the cases of underground freedom fighters as
well as the concluding remarks are to be considered in addition to
the reasons stated in the particular type of case. The reasons
contained in the aforesaid three parts apply “mutatis mutandis” to
the particular type of case.
 -3-

LIST OF ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED BEFORE

THE COMMISSION

Following Advocates Appeared before the Commission :

Shri R.M.Deshpande, Advocate for the Commission

Shri Kishor J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the State

Advocates for Respondents:-

1) Shri B.K.Sanap
2) Shri P.D.Bachate
3) Shri Sahebrao Nagargoje
4) Shri Shivajirao Karhad
5) Shri A.G. Chapalgaonkar
6) Shri L.N.Kulkarni
7) Shri M.R.Andhale
8) Shri K.J.Suryawanshi
9) Shri S.T.Deshmukh
10) Shri T.B.Bhosale/Shri D.B.Bhosale
11) Shri B.F.Chavan
12) Shri S.D.Hivare
13) Shri B.A.Darak
14) Shri S.D.Thigale
15) Shri S.J.Tupe
16) Shri S.A.Nagarsoje
17) Shri Mohammad Muniruddin
18) Shri V.A.Gangal
19) Shri V.D.Rakh
20) Shri B.F.Chavan
21) Shri B.E.Yele
22) Shri T.A.Shaikh
23) Shri B.S.Porwal
24) Shri K.S.Chaure
25) Shri. N.L. Jadhav
26) Shri. Sachin Raut
 -4-

Part - II

Brief History

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

was passed in the above stated Special Leave Petitions, as the Supreme Court
set aside order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing
the Public Interest Petition bearing 2619 of 2002. The Petitioners in the said
Petition (PIL) filed petition contending inter-alia therein that in Beed district
there were as many as 354 cases of persons who have obtained Sanmanpatra
as freedom fighters and consequent allied benefits of pension etc, on the basis
of totally false and concocted documents although they had not taken part in
the (Hyderabad Liberation Movement) freedom movement known as
Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and also Goa Liberation (Mukti Sangram).

It needs to be pointed out here that there are only two cases pertaining
to Goa Liberation Movement and the remaining cases are in respect of
Hyderabad freedom movement. The petitioners filing the Public Interest
Petition namely Advocate Ajit Murlidharrao Deshmukh and Bhaurao Dagadu
Paralkar claimed in the petition that they had come to know that several
persons were getting pension and allied benefits as freedom fighters on the
basis of claims sanctioned by the Government on the false and fabricated
documents and false representation made by the said persons claiming to be
freedom fighters although they had no concern with the freedom movement.

Advocate Ajit Deshmukh is President of Beed District Bhrastachar

Nirmulan Samatti (committee for eradication of corruption) established by
Shri Anna Hajare and Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar had taken part in Hyderabad
Mukti Sangram alleged that they had come to know several persons had
secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits although they were not involved in
the freedom movement. A news item was published in local daily on 16th
October 2001 in respect of arrest of one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan, who was
alleged to be preparing bogus documents like warrants for substantiating the
claim as freedom fighters.
 -5-

Various allegations were made in the said petition and number of

reliefs were claimed. At the relevant time i.e. in the year 2000 one Ramrao
Avargaonkar was President of Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed, Advocate Ajit
Deshmukh had made representation to the Collector for securing names of the
freedom fighters who were granted benefits during the period 1998-99. He
had also made representation to the concerned Minister and the Sub-Divisional
Officer.

Petitioners approached the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti Ramrao

Avargaonkar for securing the list of the persons and necessary information on
the basis of which these persons had secured the Sanmanpatra. The petitioners
learned that the Collector Beed had given adverse remarks or refused to
recommend the cases of these persons, and in some cases even in the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the cases.

Shri Ramrao Avargaonkar had also filed a complaint to the Chief

Minister in this regard.

In the petition before the High Court affidavit was filed by the
Collector stating that 26 out of 354 persons were either minors or of extremely
tender age and some of them were not even born. The High Court had called
all the 3000 files.

After perusing 3000 files the Hon’ble High Court retained 354 files
and appointed a Committee for inquiry. The Committee was headed by one
retired Judicial Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Shri M.
R. Mane and consisted of two other persons one of whom as a practicing
lawyer and the other was a freedom fighter.

The Inquiry Committee (Hereinafter referred to as Mane Committee)

issued notices to 355 freedom fighters and not 354 as file No.354 was divided
into 354 and 354-A. The Committee recorded their statement on oath and
considered the material on record including their statements. The Committee
did not hear any submissions. It also did not allow the parties to be
represented by lawyers.
 -6-

The Inquiry Committee submitted its report stating that 349 cases do
not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.

After the report of the inquiry committee many of the freedom fighters
whose cases were found to be not covered by the aforesaid Government
Resolution and consequently who were found not to be entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits filed Civil Applications to implead them as
Respondents or as interveners. The Hon’ble High Court, however, declined to
allow them to intervene or to implead them as Respondents. However, on the
basis of the report of Inquiry Committee, the High Court had directed the
Collector, Beed not to release the pensions of the persons whose cases were
covered by the report. The persons whose Civil application for impleading
them as Respondents or interveners was rejected approached the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court passed the following order :

“We decline to grant permission to file the Special

Leave Petitions but give liberty to the petitioners to file
independent writ petitions, challenging the order of the enquiry
Committee, if so desired.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners
states that certain observations made in the impugned order
will come in their way and/or affect the case of the petitioners
on merits. We make it clear that the observations made in the
impugned order shall not affect the merits of the case of the
petitioners in the writ petitions that may be filed.”

In view of the aforesaid order, the High Court also dismissed the Civil
Applications with liberty to the Respondents to file independent Writ Petitions
challenging the report of Enquiry Committee. Thereafter number of them
filed Writ Petitions and those petitions as well as the Public Interest Petition
were heard together and order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court
dismissing the Public Interest Petition and allowing the Writ Petitions of the
freedom fighters.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court of India by the
petitioners in the PIL in which the Supreme Court passed the order as a result
 -7-

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

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

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

Justice A. B. Palkar a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court
to examine the 354 cases. The relevant files shall be handed
over to the commission immediately. The commission is
requested to complete the verification within four months and
submit its report to the state Government for necessarily action.
The claimants whose cases are to be examined shall be given
opportunity to have their say before the Commission. The
records of the Zilla Gaurav Committee, High Power Committee
and the Committee appointed by the High Court shall be
examined by the Commission before issuing notice to individual
applications to decide the acceptability or otherwise of the
claims for freedom fighters pension. On getting report of the
commission, the State Government shall take necessary action.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
acceptability or otherwise of the claims as the Commission
appointed by this Court shall examine those aspects.

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

the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed the Commission with a view to give
finality to the controversy in the 354+1 cases.

The Commission has divided the cases into different parts for the sake
of convenience. The Commission has also given general reasons of particular
type of cases in different parts which are applicable mutatis mutandis to the
individual cases and has considered the individual cases on merits after
perusal of the file on the basis of the material found in the file, oral and
documentary evidence produced before the Commission by the parties and the
material produced before the High Court, as well as material available to the
Mane Committee as contained in the direction of the Supreme Court.
 -8-

PART-III

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

After the Notification was issued by the Maharashtra Government, the

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

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

well as some disturbing and disquieting aspects. The Commission has given in
2 separate parts, the general reasoning in the cases of claims based on warrants
and general reasoning in the cases of claims based on the ground that the
claimant (respondent) was underground during the Freedom Movement.

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

noticed that in almost all cases only true copies had been produced and this
aspect has been considered in detail in the part pertaining to the general
reasons of warrant cases. Similarly, in the cases of underground freedom
fighters the Commission noticed that very few freedom fighters who were
qualified to file supporting affidavits had filed affidavits in number of cases
and most of the affidavits contained certain additions or erasures, without
there being signatures of either the deponent or the authority before whom the
affidavit was sworn or of the person identifying the deponent before the
authority. This has also been considered at length in separate part of this
report.

The Commission also noticed that the respondent freedom fighters

were not joined in the Public Interest Petition. Only few of them were made
respondents, many others who were not joined as respondent's had applied for
being joined or for intervention. However, they were not joined as respondent.
They were given opportunity to file separate Writ Petition and the same
position was maintained even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even Mane
Committee merely issued notices and recorded the statements of the person
who appeared in response to the notice. These statements were recorded on
oath. However Mane Committee did not give any opportunity of being heard
to these respondents. They were also not allowed to engage advocates. The
Commission had noted that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court contained
directions only to go through the files and to issue notices to the respondent
freedom fighters and give them opportunity of filing affidavits in reply.
 -9-

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

Commission comes to the conclusion that the respondents who have been
granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by the Government have either not
proved their entitlement as per law or can even be said to have secured the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by fraudulent means and as such the same are
liable to be cancelled and discontinued, it would be necessary and in
consonance with the principles of natural justice that before passing any
adverse order against them cancelling their Sanmanpatra and discontinuing the
benefits granted to give them full opportunity of being heard.

The Commission therefore directed first the petitioners in Public

Interest Petition or their witnesses to file affidavits in support of various
contentions raised in the Public Interest Petition. Many of the respondents also
applied for giving opportunity of cross examining the petitioners and the
witnesses. The Commission found that the cross examination of the petitioners
and their witnesses for and on behalf of 355 respondents would take
considerably long time but the same was absolutely necessary. Taking into
consideration the fact that many of the respondent freedom fighters belong to
the poor class of the society and are resident of district Beed which is in far
interior and most of them were above the age of 70 years, the Commission
thought it desirable not to compel them to come and stay at Mumbai for the
purpose of proceedings of the Commission and decided to hold sittings at
Beed. In order to avoid any adjournment of the proceedings on the ground that
the respondents are not aware of the statements made against them by the
petitioners in their affidavits filed before the Commission, the Commission
issued summons to the respondents and attached with the said summons zerox
copies of the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners so as to enable them
to instruct their advocates properly and to have effective cross examination of
witnesses on their behalf. The cross examination was held during the first
sitting of the Commission at Beed.

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

a petitioner in the Public Interest Petition but was and according to the
respondents responsible for filing complaint to the Chief Minister and even the
Public Interest Petition in the High Court. The only other witness offered for
cross examination was one of the petitioners in Public Interest Petition
Advocate Ajit Deshmukh. The other petitioner Mr. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar
did not appear and did not offer himself for the cross examination and as such
 - 10 -

his affidavit has been kept out of consideration by the Commission and the
petitioner and their advocates were informed accordingly. However Advocate
Ajit Deshmukh had not challenged the order of the Hon'ble High Court by
filing Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The two witnesses who appeared before the Commission were cross
examined at length for and on behalf of the respondents by their respective
advocates. Shri. Ajit Deshmukh who is a practicing advocate of Beed was not
born when the freedom movement was going on and had no personal
knowledge. However, Shri. Ramrao Awargaokar who was the Chairman of the
Zilla Gaurav Samiti and has again been appointed as Chairman, Zilla Gaurav
Samiti Beed district recently, is himself a freedom fighter receiving pension
from the Central Government as well as from the State Government. He also
said that he had taken part in Goa Mukti Sangram but is not getting pension on
that ground because one person can not claim more than two different
pensions as Freedom Fighter.

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

when questioned by various respondents that he has no personal grudge or
enmity. He complained to the Chief Minister only on realising that some of
the claimants were not concerned with the freedom movement on examining
the record of various cases. He also realised that atleast few of them were not
born or were of extremely tender age during the freedom movement. He later
on obtained their school record entries. On examining the files he had also
noticed that the Additional Collector Beed who was member Secretary of Zilla
Gaurav Samiti had consistently raised objection after the recommendations of
the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that the person did not comply with the provisions of
the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. One of the objections raised on
behalf of the respondents is that the Collector has no authority after
recommendations of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti to convey to the Government his
opinion one way or the other. Even if the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not
recommend he has no authority to comment much less to remark that the
person has not made out case as required by Government Resolution.
According to the arguments by the Shri. Bachate advocate the Collector is
only like postman who is bound to forward the report of Zilla Gaurav Samittee
to the Government (High Power Committee) for decision according law.
However, by Government Resolution No. ZGS 1095/CR 438/95/Beed/FFC,
Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 19.3.1996 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was
 - 11 -

reconstituted appointing Shri. Babasaheb Bangar as Chairman and 4 other

members namely Mr. Ganpat Etke, Mr. Pandurang Joshi, Mr. Shripad
Maindkar, Mr. Harishchandra Pawar as members and the Government
Resolution further states that the resident Deputy Collector shall be the
member Secretary to help the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and on the
recommendations of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Collector will be the final
authority to recommend the case to the Government. The Collector is also
expected to attend the meetings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti from time to time when
available. The Additional Collector being member Secretary remained present
in almost all meetings and in his capacity as member Secretary of the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti, after the case of a particular person was considered by Zilla
Gaurav Samiti and he found that the recommendation was improper, the
additional Collector used to inform to Government in detail as to what was
lacking in the claimant’s application or the affidavit produced by him and how
the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not proper. It is therefore not
correct to say that the Collector has no powers and is mere a postman to
forward the decision of Zilla Gaurav Samiti to the Government for further
action. The Commission also found that although one and the same person
was acting in two different capacities, one as Member Secretary and one of
Additional Collector he noted objection to the recommendations in the
meetings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti in very few cases but in all cases invariably
after the decision of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, he sent letters to the Government
noting his objections to grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

After the cross examination of the two witnesses produced by the

petitioner was over the petitioners applied for permission to cross examine the
respondents, the petitioners’ advocate was informed that it would be
impracticable to call all 355 persons for cross examination and he may select
some of them restricting the numbers to few who can be called for cross
examination and by their cross examination some light can be thrown on facts.
When summons were issued to some of the respondents on request of the
petitioners to appear for the cross examination, almost all of the respondents
who were so summoned filed different applications raising their objections to
offer themselves for cross examination either by the petitioners or even by the
advocate appointed for the Commission. They even went to the extent of
alleging that the work of Commission is going in favour of one party, the
petitioners have no right to cross examine them, there is no direction from the
 - 12 -

Hon’ble Supreme Court and so a detailed common order has been passed in all
such applications by the Commission informing them that although the
Commission could not and was not forcing them to offer themselves for cross
examination, the Commission was entitled to draw inference in accordance
with law on this conduct of refusing to offer themselves for cross examination.
In retrospect the Commission now finds that it would have been not only
inconvenient but would have amounted to placing themselves in very
awckward position, had they in fact appeared for cross examination. There
were various improvements in their affidavits made from time to time and
various contradictions in the different statements made and that appears to be
reason why they all consistently contended that they would not offer
themselves for cross examination and the petitioners have no right to cross
examine them. It is pertinent to point out that when the petitioners filed
affidavits making allegations against, them they had themselves applied for
permission to cross examine the petitioners and their witness. At that stage
they did not even consider that there was no such directions from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. In view of the fact that at no stage they had the opportunity to
challenge the contentions of the petitioners specially by engaging advocates
and to put up their contentions effectively, the Commission had given them
opportunity to cross examine by engaging advocates and to effectively put up
their defence.

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

the respondents refused to offer themselves for cross examination, the
Commission heard arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the
petitioners and the learned advocates appeared for the different groups of the
respondents.

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

However, in view of the fact that the Government had already made statement
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Government proposes to appoint one
man commission to scrutinise individual cases and decide the question of
eligibility of person and whether benefits given to the freedom fighters who
are not genuine should be continued or not, he did not advance any argument.
He however assisted the Commission effectively in scrutinising various files.
The Commission had also appointed Shri. R. M. Deshpande as Commission’s
advocate.
 - 13 -

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

the warrant cases the Commission having found the entire bunch of warrants
received from the 3 different authorities suspicious decided to send these set of
warrants for examination by hand written expert as the Commission had also
found certain documents which can be said to be undisputed documents
containing undisputed signatures of the Tahasildar Mr. Mir Moiddin Ali Khan
and accordingly all the warrants and the undisputed documents were sent to
the hand writing expert and his report is on record.

When the warrants were being got translated at Beed and arguments
were going on, none of the advocates showed any interest even to look into the
warrants, didn't even seek inspection, probably they did not expect that
examining the same my reveal anything.

It needs to be made clear that the Commission has not drawn any
adverse inference against any of the respondent on the refusal to present for
cross examination and has proceeded on the basis of material before it.
 - 14 -

Part-IV

Goa Liberation Movement

Case File No. 46 ( Responddent No. 46)

Govind Gopal Jadhav r/o Ambejogai.

Govind Gopal Jadhav filed application for grant of pension stating that
he had taken part in Goa Liberation Movement. The criteria for the Goa
Liberation Movement are different and the applicant has fully complied
with the criteria prescribed in this Government Resolution and petitioners
have not objected to the pension sanctioned to him.

Mane Committee recommended grant of pension to him.

He took part in Goa liberation movement and worked under the

leadership of Wamanrao Deshmukh. He took part in the Satyagrah held
on 14th August 1955 and he and other persons working with him hoisted
tricolour flag on Government school.

As required by the Government Resolution he has produced

recommendation letter of Wamanrao Deshmukh, freedom fighter who took
part in Goa liberation movement. There appears no infirmity in the claim
put up by the freedom fighters. His file was also cleared by Mane
Committee.
 - 15 -

File Case No. 110 (Respondent No.110)

Shri Sayed Jamal Syed Hasan.

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

not challenged. As the petitioners have considered before Commission and
probably the Mane Committee also cleared his case.

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

has produced certificate of Shri Jayawant Rao Tilak, Secretary of Goa
liberation movement.

The Commission therefore finds that in the case of these two freedom
fighters who took part in Goa liberation movement was rightly granted
pension and no interference is called for with findings of the Government for
grant of pension to the said freedom fighters.
 - 16 -

PART-V

CASES IN WHICH CLAIM IS BASED EITHER ON

CONVICTION OR OTHERWISE DETENTION IN
CUSTODY FOR SOME PERIOD BY THE
RESPONDENT

The cases of freedom fighters who claim to have been convicted for
the activities or for part they took in Hyderabad Freedom Movement are of a
separate category and are treated as in this Part.

Sr.No. Case Name of Freedom Fighter Page No.

File No.
1. 26 Ramchandra Krishna Dhat 17
2. 48 Manik Nagu Malekar 20
3. 49 Ashruba Sakharam Ugale 21
4. 107 Tukaram Purushattam Pathak 23
(Deceased) represented by Shrimati
Snehalata Tukaram Pathak.
5. 131 Yeshwant Kulkarni (deceased) 26
represented by wife Kaveribai.
6. 132 Dattu Ranuji Jogadand 28
 - 17 -

Case File No. 26 (Respondent No.26)

Shri Ramchandra Krishna Dhat

Applied for the pension on the ground that he was in the prison on 14th
July 1958. He stated in his letter dated 8th December 1989 that he was not
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200 and enclosed copy of the order of Court along
with translation thereof.

In the letter dated 31st May 1989 sent by the Collector to the Deputy
Secretary it is mentioned that he was an accused and right from 1938-39 had
taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement he was not arrested.

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

District Collector, he had stated that he was working with Swami Ramanand
Thirth, Babasaheb Paranjape and Kalidas Deshpande as underground freedom
fighter and he had to live away from his house. Kalidas and Dattu were
arrested at Chincholi but he was not arrested. However he was made accused
in the case. He filed copy of judgement. He stated that his name appeared in
it as Ramu.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.6.1997 stated that
‘Ramchandra’ and ‘Ramu’ whose name appears in the judgment of criminal
court is the same person. The High Power Committee accepted the
recommendation.

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

July 1997 that in the judgment of criminal case he is referred to as Ramu as
one of the accused. He has not produced any arrest warrant or its copy,
certified or otherwise and in the copy of judgment of the criminal court dated
10th Bahman 1358 Fasli (10.12.1947) his name appears and according to
applicant he is described as Ramu without mentioning his father’s name or
community or caste. He, however, does not claim that he was also convicted.
The main accused in that case Kalidas Deshpande and others were convicted
and sentenced and Kalidas was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six
months and other accused were sentence to pay fine.
 - 18 -

It is, however, stated by Kalidas Deshpande in his letter that Ramu was
not arrested as he ran away and therefore there was not tried or convicted.

He has not produced copy of any arrest warrant nor has he produced
the affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced for not less than
two years imprisonment.

However there is a letter for taking action on his application

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

Before the Mane Committee he did not appear.

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

affidavit.

In his affidavit he has stated that he was one of the accused along with
Kalidas Deshpande and others in criminal case No.20 of 1348 F. and his
name is mentioned in the judgment of the case as Ramu. He is the same
person Ramu, who was then aged about 13 years or so. According to his
own statement the case was filed against five persons and his name is
mentioned as Ramu studying in Nutan Vidyalaya, Ambejogai.

A perusal of the judgment shows that accused Kalidas Deshpande was

sentenced to imprisonment for six months on two different counts whereas
accused Ranganath was sentenced to fine of Rs. 200/- and accused Dattu
and Ambadas were sentenced to fine Rs. 100/-. The boy Ramu which
according to the Respondent is his own name, was as stated in the
judgment, one of the persons in the company of the accused and it is
stated that apart from the persons named as accused there were some other
persons named Ramu Bhimrao, Tatya,Maruti, Sujjadin and Ramu. Ramu
was not arrested as he ran away. He was not even arraigned in the
criminal case as accused and there is no question of his conviction or
sentence.

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

sentenced and taking his claim at its best, he can be said to be the same
school going boy ‘Ramu’ accompanying six to seven other persons
arrested and prosecuted but he escaped. There was no warrant of arrest
against him.
 - 19 -

Merely because he was in the company of some persons who were arrested
, prosecuted and sentenced, he does not become a freedom fighter and his
case is not covered by any of the clauses of any of the Government
Resolutions and in the opinion of the Commission he has been granted
freedom fighter’s pension without considering the provisions of the
Government Resolution on non existant grounds. His claim should have
been rejected and the Commission recommends accordingly that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him to be and be cancelled
forthwith.
 - 20 -

Case File No. 48 (Respondent No.48)

Manik Nagu Malekar

Applied for grant of pension on 16th May 1995 and stated in the
application that he was arrested and he was imprisoned from 27-2-1357 Fasli
to 19-3 1357 Fasli for a period of 26 days. He has also produced certificate
from Superintendent of District Prison, Beed that he was admitted to prison
under sections 33 and 34 of the Nizam Government Protection Act on 27-2-
1357 Fasli for taking part in civil disobedience movement .

In view of this certificate and his imprisonment Zilla Gaurav Samiti

recommended his case and High Power Committee also granted pension.

Mane Committee also held valid the grant of pension to him and the
petitioners have as on today no objection to the sanctioned in for the fact that
he suffered imprisonment in the freedom movement.

He has also filed affidavit stating that he was required to live away from
his house during the freedom movement.

Having suffered imprisonment for taking part in the Hyderabad freedom

movement, his case has been rightly considered by the Government and
Commission finds that he was rightly granted pension. No interference is
called for with the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.
 - 21 -

Case File No. 49 (Respondent No.49)

Ashruba Sakharam Ugale

Applied for grant of pension in the year 1986. In his application he has
stated that he was arrested and a case was filed against him in criminal court.
He was obstructing recovery of levy and working underground. He has
produced certified copy of the Court record. The original is in Urdu. Its
translation in Marathi shows that he was not even arrested.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 12th August 1995 noted
that chargesheet was filed against him and the offence was in connection with
the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and his case was recommended.

However, the Additional Collector by his letter dated 17th August 1998
addressed to the Deputy Secretary recorded his objection expressing suspicion
on the ground that he was released and not convicted and sentenced.

Thereafter the High Power Committee considered the case on the

ground that he joined Hyderabad Mukti Sangatna and recommended the case
as he was in custody and therefore the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav
Samiti deserves to be accepted.

It appears that earlier his application was rejected and thereafter he

filed writ petition. However the concerned papers of the file were not
traceable as stated in its note dated 12th October 1998.

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

stated that he was arrested by the police at Kamaleshwar Dhanura in the year
1947 as he was obstructing the recovery of levy when he was produced before
the court and was in custody for two to three months. Thereafter he was
released.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has reiterated the same
facts.
 - 22 -

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

observed that the documents produced by him as warrant was sent for
verification to the Court and the Court has informed that his name appears
as accused No.1 in F.I.R. However the police did not file any charge-sheet
and the case was filed on 29 Tir 1356 F. equivalent to 29th May 1947 in
view of the police report, no charge-sheet was filed no further action was
taken.

In letter dated 17th August 1997 sent by the Additional

Collector to the Deputy Secretary, it is clearly mentioned that his name
was in the FIR but no charge-sheet was filed against him and final report
was sent to the Court. There is no mention in the record that he was even
arrested and therefore his case is not fit for sanction of freedom fighter’s
pension.

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

the High Court, a note was put up before the High Power Committee that
the Court has recommended his case, whereas direction of the Court was
to consider his case within a period of six months. It appears that in view
of the note put up pension was sanctioned to him from the date of his
second application dated 5th July 1997.

The note put up to the High Power Committee was completely

misleading. He did not claim pension on the ground that arrest warrant
was issued against him. There was only F.I.R. and he was not even
arrested or prosecuted as the case was filed. As his name was in the FIR,
the note to High Power Committee stated that his name was in warrant.
What is referred to in the note as warrant is only F.I.R. and not arrest
warrant.

There does not appear any application of mind to the facts of the case.
The claim appears to have been sanctioned hurriedly, in view of direction
of the High Court for early decision. He had not made out case of being a
freedom fighter entitled to freedom fighters’ pension under any of the
provisions in any of the Government Resolution and claim should have
 - 23 -

been rejected and the Commission accordingly recommends that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith .
 - 24 -

File Case No. 107 (Respondent No.107)

Tukaram Purushattam Pathak (Deceased) represented by Shrimati
Snehalata Tukaram Pathak.

Tukaram Purushottam Pathak filed application on 25.4.1994. Earlier he

had filed application on 20.11.1981 and had sent several reminders. He stated
that he had taken part in the freedom movement, armed revolt (Sashtra Uthav)
and was involved in armed action against the Nizam Government along with
Digambar Virghe, Vinayakrao Rampurkar.

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

the freedom movement with Betuke Guruji and Govindbhai Shroff. He was
collecting funds and secretly colleting and storing weapons. He was arrested
on the report of police patil and was prosecuted under section 53 of the
Defence of Nizam Government Act. He was however acquitted. He has
produced copy of Court record in Urdu with Marathi translation, which shows
that he was found in possession of arms and ammunition. He had also
produced license for possession of arms. He was acquitted as there was not
evidence against him.

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

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court haddirected to grant him provisional pension
and to decide his claim within 9 months Thus he was arrested for offence
under Arms Act but he was not convicted and sentenced. Even in his
application dated 07.11.1990 he has stated that he was acquitted. He has also
filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

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

the warrant (which is not warrant but copy of Court register regarding criminal
case) and stated that one of the members Shripad Madekar who knows Urdu
stated that it was against Nizam Government and therefore recommended
sanction of pension.

High Power Committee considered this case and note was put up for
early decision in view of the directions of the High Court. Further note was
put up that in view of the provisional pension granted by the High Court his
case can be considered.

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

the High Court. Orders for Provisional Pension were issued and thereafter it
 - 25 -

was observed that in view of the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti
further time was sought from the High Court. Thereafter, High Power
Committee also relied on the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti in which one of the
member knowing Urdu stated that warrant was in connection with the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. It was stated that warrant be sent to the
translation department. After the translation was received it was observed that
the warrant document is of 22 Amardad 1357 Fasli (22nd June 1948) which
shows that he was prosecuted under Section 53 of Defence Act for violation of
Section 119 and his name appears in the warrant and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has
recommended his case therefore, pension be sanctioned.

He appeared although summons issued by the Commission was

returned unserved. He filed written argument through his Advocate which has
been kept in the file.

In his application dated 25.4.1994 he has stated that he took part in the
Hyderabad freedom movement and was underground freedom fighter. He
took part in war against the Nizam Government and offence was registered
against him. He was acquitted. However, he has produced affidavit of
Digambar Haribhau Virdhe and Vinayak Vaijnathrao Rampurkar to the effect
that he took part in the freedom movement against Nizam Government.

Thus even according to the application, he does not claim that any arrest
warrant was issued against him. He was no doubt prosecuted under
section 53 of the Protection of Nizam Government Act, as during his
personal search some weapons like knives, 200 cartridges were seized
from him. As admitted by him he was acquitted in that case. There is no
evidence produced by him to show that he was ever arrested. It is also
stated in the extract of the Court order that even on accepting that 200 live
cartridges were found with him, the same is not against the provisions of
any law. He has produced necessary documents for possession of such
cartridges. What was therefore found with him was only cash and therefore
there was no evidence of any offence committed by him and therefore the
case ended in acquittal.

The abstract of Court order shows that he was acquitted because

possession of cartridges was not found to be against the provisions of any
law. He must be holding license. He avoided to state it. However, the
 - 26 -

Court accepted that he produced necessary documents for possession

thereof.

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

established that he took part in the freedom movement against Nizam
Government and therefore the case is fit for sanction of pension is not at
all acceptable. He possessed live cartridges. He was found entitled to
possess.

The High Power Committee observed that the name of Respondent

appeared in the copy of warrant which was in respect of Hyderabad
freedom movement showing that part was taken by him in the freedom
movement. Thereafter it was observed in the note that the so called
warrant copy was got translated and from the translation department. It
appears that he was prosecuted under the Defence of Nizam Government
Act Section 53 and Hyderabad Penal Code 119. His name appeared in the
warrant and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case.

However, it is clear from the record that no arrest warrant was issued
against him and he was acquitted in the criminal case. There is also no
evidence to show that he was ever arrested. He also does not claim that he
was ever arrested and imprisoned even as an under trial prisoner. The fact
remains that provisional pension sanctioned by the Court was only an
interim relief granted.

As already pointed out that he did not produce any copy of warrant and the
note put up before the High Power Committee and the observation of Zilla
Gaurav Samiti were misleading as what was produced was only a copy of
abstract of Court register in respect of case which ended in acquittal which
on the face of it shows that he was neither arrested nor imprisoned and no
arrest warrant was issued against him. Therefore he was not entitled for
pension under the provisions of any Government Resolutions. In fact he
was held legally entitled to possess the cartridges.

The Commission therefore finds that he was wrongly granted pension on

grounds which are on the face of it is contrary to the record produced by
him and the Commission is therefore of the considered view that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled
forthwith and recommends accordingly.
 - 27 -

File Case No. 131 (Respondent No.131)

Shri Yeshwant Kulkarni (deceased) represented by wife Kaveribai.

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

husband Yeshwant Kulkarni was no more. In the application she stated that
her husband had cut shindi trees and he was convicted and sentenced, fine of
Rs.500 and there was ordered to attach his property for recovery of fine. The
copy of order directing him to pay fine is produced. It is certified copy
obtained by Kaveribai. She had filed W.P. in High Court No.1665/95. There
was an interim order for payment of provisional pension.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 20.2.1997 observed that
the warrant was pertaining to attachment of property.

The District Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 10.02.1997

that the original record of the warrant is available with Tahasildar Patoda and
copy has been issued by the Tahasil office. The warrant mentions the name of
Kaveribai’s husband. There was delay in establishment of Zilla Gaurav Samiti
and time limit give by the Court is coming to an end and Government should
therefore take a decision.

Thereafter the High Power Committee sanctioned pension on 2.7.1997.

While considering his case it has not been pointed out in the that the
warrant was in respect of attachment of property because fine was not paid. It
was not arrest warrant as is required by the Government Resolution and there
is no provision in the Government Resolution to grant pension to persons who
was fined for offences of cutting shindi tree.

Before the Mane Committee Kaveribai appeared. She has no personal

knowledge. She has filed a detailed affidavit before the Commission stating
that aforesaid facts and mentioning various orders of the High Court passed in
the petition.

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

attachment of property, in which four names of panchas are mentioned viz.
Dattatraya, Waluba, Jamdarkha and Ranganath. It is stated that the
Panchas appeared on being called by police at the house of Yashwantrao
 - 28 -

Kulkarni and police demanded amount of Rs. 500/- which fine was
imposed for cutting shindi trees etc. He refused to pay the fine but there
was nothing in the house available for attachment, therefore his and was
attached. The warrant was for attachment and not for arrest.

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

dated 10th August 1970 he is entitled to pension as freedom fighter for the
reason that he was sentenced to fine and in the recovery proceeding his
property was attached. His case was rightly considered with reference to
the provisions of Government Resolution dated 10th August 1970 and
Commission does not find it proper to interfere with the order.
 - 29 -

File Case No. 132 (Respondent No.132)

Shri Dattu Ranuji Jogadand

Dattu Ranuji Jogadand was convicted in the Hyderabad freedom

movement and sentenced to imprisonment and in view of this his claim was
approved by the Mane Committee and before the Commission also it is not
challenged.

Dattu Ranuji Jogdand claimed pension on the ground that arrest warrant
was issued against him. However, he never produced copy of any arrest
warrant issued against him. The evidence produced is certified copy of
Register No.1 of the Court which appears to be copy of FIR register
maintained by the Court from which it is seen that offence was registered
against him and three others under section 33(2) and 37 of the Protection
of Nizam Government Act.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 19.3.1997 decided to call for
the verification report regarding warrant and to take decision thereafter.
Therefore the Collector sent a letter to the Civil Court Ashti for
verification of the warrant as the copy was issued by the Ashti Court. The
report in this respect was sent by letter dated 1.8.1995 wherein it is clearly
stated that although FIR was registered against him there is no record of
warrant having been issued against him and the case was closed as no
charge-sheet was filed.

The FIR was in respect of section 32(2) and 37 of the Protection of Nizam
Government Act. However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated
23.04.1997 observed that the name of the person appears in the warrant, its
original record was available with court and the copy was obtained in
regular course from the Court and hence his case is recommended for grant
of pension. This reasoning of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti for recommending
pension is on the face of it is wrong as the report received was that no
warrant was ever issued against him and copy produced was not copy of
warrant but copy of F.I.R. register.
 - 30 -

Thus his case can be treated as a case in which offence was registered but
neither warrant was issued nor was he arrested. No charge-sheet was ever
filed against him and the case was closed by the police by sending a final
report. He was thus not even prosecuted for any of the offences, which
were alleged against him by the police.

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

time, he filed writ petition in the High Court (Aurangabad Bench) bearing
No. 1165/95, in which a Court passed order on 24.4.1995 for and directed
sanction of provisional pension with a further direction to decide his case
on merits within nine months.

The note put up before the High Power committee further states that the
copy produced was copy of warrant register issued by the Civil Court
Ashti, which was in fact not a copy of warrant register but a copy of FIR
register. Therefore his name appeared not in the warrant register but in the
FIR register.

Initially after the Court order, provisional pension was sanctioned to him
and it appears that as provisional pension was sanctioned in pursuance of
the Court order, there was some apprehension on the part of the
Government that if the pension is not sanctioned that may be against the
Court direction and therefore pension was finally sanctioned. As pointed
out earlier reasons for sanction of pension being contrary to the document
produced on record, the case can not be said to be case of conviction and
sentenced or arrest warrant issued for any activity against the Nizam
Government and thus he had failed to make out any case under the
provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July1995 or any other
Government Resolution.

The Commission therefore is of the view that Dattu Ranuji Jogdand was
sanctioned pension on the grounds which were non existant and the
grounds stated in the note put up before the High Power Committee were
contrary to record. He was not entitled to freedom fighter’s pension and
the Commission recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
 - 31 -

sanctioned to him deserves to be and be cancelled forthwith and

recommends accordingly.
 - 32 -

PART-VI

CASES RECOMMENDATED BY ZILLA GAURAV SAMITI

OR CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS SANCTIONED BY
THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF
GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED 4TH JULY 1995.

Sr.No. Case Name of Freedom Fighter Page No.

File No.
7. 111 Tatyaba Bapurao Dhage 31
8. 138 Motiram Vithoba Pakhare 32
9. 192 Shankar Gangaram Kakade 35
10. 354 A Maruti Appaji Kotkar (Deceased) 37
represented by Shrimati Krishnabai
Maruti Kotkar
 - 33 -

Case File No. 111 (Respondent No.111)

Tatyaba Bapurao Dhage:-

He filed applied application for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension on

26.06.1985 and stated in the application that he worked at Pathardi camp
under leadership of Kashinath Jadhav. He filed affidavit on 16.07.1993/
03.07.96 and produced supporting affidavits of Shesherao Changuji Gavhane
and Devidas Kadam dated 27.07.1996. However, there is no evidence of
these two persons had been convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, he filed
another affidavit on 14.05.1997 and produced the affidavit of Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti unanimously recommended his case for grant of

pension. The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Anna
Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and sanctioned pension.

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

year 1992.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded.

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

In view of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommendation prior to

13.08.1993 the further rejection of his claim and its reconsideration by the
Government and its long pendency at the Government level will not bring the
case within the purview of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution as on the date of
publication of said Government Resolution his claim was not pending with the
Collector. It was pending with the Government. The Commission finds that
on the ground of noncompliance of Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995 sanctioned of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits cannot be interfered with
by the Commission and the Commission accordingly recommends
continuation thereof.
 - 34 -

Case File No. 138 (Respondent No. 138)

Motiram Vithoba Pakhare:-

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 4.12.1996

and stated in the application that he worked under the Ramling Swami and
also named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Bhima Umaji Bangar. He claims to have
applied earlier in 1983 for grant of pension but the original application is not
traceable and the District Collector wrote to the Joint Secretary on 29.1.1992
that although he claims to have sent application by registered post on
25.12.1983 and has produced a receipt, there is no entry in the Register of that
year. He filed affidavits dated 4.12.1992 and stated therein that he worked in
Hyderabad Freedom Movement under Ramling Swami, Advocate Vaze as
well as Namdev Khade and Bhima Umaji Bangar.

He has filed supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated

4.12.1996 in which his name is written in ink in the typed affidavit in the
space already left blank for that purpose and it is further added in handwriting
that he worked at Kharda Camp and he was underground, collecting and
coordinating information. He filed the certificate of imprisonment. Another
affidavit filed is of Bhima Umaji Bangar in which it was stated that there were
90 to 95 groups which were working against the Razakars. He was providing
secret information to Kharda Camp and the name of Motiram Vithoba and the
contents of Kharda Camp and secret information are added in handwriting to
the typed affidavit and there is no initial on this of the person whom affidavit
was sworn or the authority before whom it was shorn.. He again filed affidavit
of Anna Eknath Telap dated 1.1.1997, in which also his name is added in
handwriting to the typed format which was already typed.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti has observed that Motiram Vithoba Pakhare had
taken part in freedom movement and that after query it was found that he was
working underground and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is satisfied. The
proceedings are signed by the Chairman and the Members. However, one of
the members Mr. P.V.Joshi mentioned that only because the Chairman states
that whatever he claimed by the person is true, he has signed. There is no date
 - 35 -

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

affidavits of two freedom fighters.

The District Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 29.3.1997 that

he has filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and and Bhima Umaji
Bangar. Bhima Umaji Bangar was not sentenced to two years. There was
warrant against him only for 9 months and on 20.2.1996 the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti taken decision to forward the case for decision at higher level.

Thereafter applicant filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated

1.1.1997. The High Power Committee referred to two affidavits and the letter
of the Collector. There is further note of the Department with reference to his
work in the freedom movement with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao
Vaze, Namdev Khade and Bangar. He has filed affidavit of Anna Eknath
Telap and in view of the support from the two freedom fighters it is clear that
he took part in the freedom movement. It is further added that the Deputy
Chief Minister had recommended his case for sanction of pension. There is
also letter of Deputy Chief Minister dated 24.6.95 requesting the Sabhapati to
sanction pension to him as freedom fighter.

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

that there was no warrant issued against him and when there was firing at
Dighol he ran away and resided at Jamkhed with his maternal uncle and next
day he went to Kharda Camp. He filed affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.

He has filed detailed affidavit before the Commission stating there

for the first time that for three months he was to leave away from his house
and he could not take education.

A reference to the note placed before the High Power Committee

shows that the Respondents was insisting from beginning that he had filed
application on 25th December 1983. It is true that the said application was not
traceable in the Collector office. He produced a postal acknowledgement for
having sent such an application and his application was forwarded by the
 - 36 -

Collector on 25th January 1990 The note put up thereafter shows that the
application was in proper format. There was recommendation of the Kendra
Pramukh as well as Zilla Gaurav Samiti and he had also filed affidavits of two
freedom fighters.
On going through the entire note of the High Power Committee the
earlier proceedings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the correspondence, it is clear
that the Respondent was insisting from the beginning that he had given
application on 25th December 1983 which in fact has been accepted by the
Government by giving effect to the pension granted to him from that date.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti had considered his case and although not
recommended, it was forwarded to the Government long before the issuance
of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution as is clear from the note put up to the
High Power Committee.
It is true that when the claim was not being considered he filed
affidavits of two freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath
Telap as required by the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
However, since in the year 1991 itself the Collector’s letter was there and the
note to the High Power Committee mentioned that his case was recommended
by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. It appears that thereafter objections were raised
and even it was suspected that the postal receipt produced by him may not be
in connection with the application. However, since it was addressed to the
Freedom Fighters Cell of the District Collector, it could not be anything
different and his contention that it was in respect of application sent for grant
of freedom fighter’s pension had to be accepted. He had no other reason to
send any registered letter to the Freedom Fighters Cell by registered post. If
the application was lost or was misplaced by the Collector office, it is not his
fault and since his case was not pending before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 4th
July 1995 but was pending before the Government. The provisions of 4th July
1995 Government Resolution is applicable and his claim although granted on
consideration of these provisions, the findings deserve to be upheld because it
should have been granted on the basis of Government Resolutions existing
prior to 4th July 1995 with which he had complied with. The Commission
therefore considers that the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits by the
Government need not be interfered with and recommends accordingly.
 - 37 -

Case File No. 192 (Respondent No. 192)

Shankar Gangaram Kakade

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

under Ashraji Raojai Jagtap and he was underground Freedom Fighter. After
notice dated 18.08.1997 was issued he stated that he worked with Dr. Achyut
Amrut Rasal and is producing documents.

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

sentenced to fine of Rs.30/- and imprisoned for 3 days and he has produced
the copy of entry in the Court Register. He filed supporting affidavits of Sona
Rama Jaybhay dated 21.07.1997 and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal dated
05.07.1997. Dr.Rasal was convicted and sentenced in the Freedom Movement
of India and in his affidavit he merely stated that he also worked in Hyderabad
Freedom Movement. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 21.07.1997
his name is added in ink to the typed proforma in which space is kept blank for
inserting name and insertion is not initialed by anybody.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting Dated 09.12.1997 relied on the
affidavits of Achyut Amrut Rasal, Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended
grant of pension.

However, the Additional Collector – Member Secretary by letter dated

14.07.1998 pointed out that there was no compliance with the Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee observed in the note that he worked from
Mirajgaro camp in the Freedom Movement and he referred to the fact that he
was convicted and sentenced to fine and was in prison for three days and the
copy of entry in the register shows his name at Sr.No. 15. He has also
produced two affidavits of Freedom Fighters who were sentenced to two years
imprisonment and pension was sanctioned. However, copy of order of
Criminal Court shows that although other persons were convicted and
sentenced Shankar Gangaram, Dashrath Aba, Dadaba Daji, Babu Hiraman,
Bhanudas Aba, Sahebrao Tatya having tendered apology, personal bonds were
ordered to be obtained from them for one year.
 - 38 -

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

running into 12 pages but he has not stated that in his affidavit that he was
convicted and sentenced to fine of Rs. 30/- and three days imprisonment.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded.

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

In this case on going through the file one thing is clear that he was one
of the accused in criminal case No. 52/18-1356-Fasli which was decided by
the Judicial Magistrate, Ashti. Accused No. 1 Narharrao who was well-known
freedom fighter was sentenced to two years and some others accused were
also sentenced to imprisonment. The claim of the respondent does not appear
to be correct as contended by him that he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 30.

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

along with all the accused after 3 days. He may be under apprehension that it
was conviction and sentenced because he was in custody for 3 days. In any
case the copy of judgment reveals that he was involved in the incident for
which one of the freedom fighters was sentenced for 2 years which obviously
means that the incident was quite serious and he was in custody for three days.
Therefore apart from his other claim of being an underground freedom fighter,
the fact that he was in custody for taking part in freedom fighter movement is
clearly established and on this ground alone the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him deserves to be continued and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
 - 39 -

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

Maruti Appaji Kotkar (Deceased) represented by Shrimati Krishnabai
Maruti Kotkar

Maruti Appaji Kotkar filed application on 30.4.1984 for freedom

fighter’s pension stating his detailed role-played as underground freedom
fighter in the movement against Nizam Government. Thereafter on 1.7.1989
Desk Officer, General Administration Department asked him to filed
certificates of two freedom fighters.

On 10.7.1989 Maruti Appaji Kotkar submitted recommendation letter

of Camp Leader along with his reply dated 10.7.1989. Thereafter on 19th
December 1989, General Administration Department further asked him to
produce the certificates of other freedom fighters. He submitted affidavits of
Yugraj Sambhaji Thorve dated 31.12.1993.

The High Power Committee granted application of Maruti Appaji

Kotkar dated 17.1.1994 and accordingly order was issued on 22.3.1994.
Maruti Appaji Kotkar died on 28.11.1999, so Krishnabai appeared before
Mane Committee on 16.4.2003 and stated that she supplied bread and other
things to the leaders of Hyderabad freedom movement for a period of one year
and she does not know anything more.

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

complied with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 31st
December 1993. His case is therefore not covered by the provisions of 4th
July 1995 Government Resolution as his case was not pending for
consideration before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 4th July 1995 and there is no
question of reconsidering the case of freedom fighter who was sanctioned
pension prior to the issuance of said Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.

It appears that original file was missing and therefore long time was
required for issuance of order sanctioning pension to him. That however, does
not make any difference as the pension was already sanctioned prior to
 - 40 -

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

The Commission therefore finds that there was no reason to reconsider

his case after the issuance of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and
pension granted to him has to be continued and cannot be cancelled now. The
Commission recommends the continuance thereof accordingly.
 - 41 -

PART – VII

REASONS IN GENERAL APPLICABLE TO THE CASES

OF UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTER (UGFF)

While considering the cases of underground freedom fighters (UGFF

for short) it is necessary to bear in mind the relevant provisions of 5th July
1995 Government Resolution. According to clause 3 (E) the freedom fighters
who were working underground are required to produce following
documents:-
1) Certificate describing the different types of suffering as a result of
remaining underground and taking part in the freedom movement.
(A) That he was required to live away from his house,
(B) He was required to give up education or was removed from the
educational institution for the reason that was involved in the
freedom movement,
(C) That he was beaten by the police to such an extent that it caused
him permanent disability.
In addition he has to produce affidavits and certificates of at least two
freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years imprisonment in the
freedom movement or were absconding for a period of two years. For the
aforesaid purpose he is required to produce certificate from the Jail Authority
or any evidence to show that there was publication that the said supporting
freedom fighter was absconding for a period of two years. He is also required
to file affidavits of such freedom fighters.

In the State of Maharashtra, official language being Marathi any

Government Resolution is first drafted and published in Marathi and Marathi
is the original. It is then translated by the Translation Department in English
and is also published in the Official Gazette in English. The Government
Resolution dated 4th July 1995 published in the Official Gazette in English
shows that Column 3 E (1) A. B. C is to the effect that the underground
freedom fighters are required to file along with the application the evidence in
 - 42 -

the form of certificates and affidavits of two freedom fighters who have
undergone imprisonment for a period of two years. As per the original Marathi
version what is required is certificate and / or affidavit of two freedom fighters
who were sentenced to two years imprisonment but not necessarily of freedom
fighters who have undergone imprisonment for two years. This is a very
relevant aspect of the matter, which shows that the English translation is not
correct.

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

months from 15th August 1947 to 17th September 1948. On the Government
of Nizam being taken over by the Union of India after military action, all the
persons in detention either for preventive measures taken or because of
conviction and sentence for their part in the freedom movement were released
forthwith on the State being practically merged in the Union of India. Some
of the freedom fighters were already released either because of grant of bail or
execution of bond for good behavior. Therefore, not a single freedom fighter
had in fact undergone imprisonment for two years. Therefore, the correct
version which is the Marathi version states the correct position. The
Commission is therefore of the view that what is to be produced are affidavits
and/or certificates of freedom fighters sentenced to two years imprisonment
or were declared absconding for two years or against whom there was warrant
of arrest effective for two years. No format of certificate is prescribed. It can
be accepted that affidavit with the record of jail or declaration as absconding
would serve the purpose.

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

certificates stating what type of problems and hardships, he had undergone, it
is not made clear as to who was to issue such certificates. There is no law,
which prescribes the authority required to issue such certificate. Similarly,
regarding the fact that he was required to remain away from his house and
family, also there is no authority which could issue or was expected to issue or
given authority or duty to issue such certificate and therefore the affidavit of
the claimant freedom fighter making positive statement supported by at least
one of the freedom fighter stating that he was required to live away from his
 - 43 -

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

the Government Resolution. Affidavit being a statement on oath has sanctity
in law and must contain statements which are and can be accepted as
trustworthy. Filing affidavits is not a mere technical formality. The statement
contained therein must be found reliable. If there are any changes in the typed
or originally hand written affidavit, the changes or alterations must be signed
or at least initialed not only by the person swearing affidavit but also by the
authority before whom it is sworn.

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

fighter and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters should be found
reliable and trustworthy and if the same is either suspicious and on the face of
it unreliable then it is in the eye of law no evidence to make out the case as
required by the Government Resolution.

So far as the other aspect that he was expelled from school or was
required to give up education, his school certificate or any documentary
evidence from the school record can be produced. If he was beaten by the
police, which caused permanent disablement, medical certificate of disability
connecting the same with the incident of beating by police should serve the
purpose and the Commission finds accordingly.

It needs to be pointed out at this stage only that in the cases placed for
consideration before this Commission no underground freedom fighter has
claimed that he was beaten by the police to such an extent that he suffered
some disability. Similarly, nobody has produced any news paper cutting or
news item showing that he was declared absconding. Neither anyone has
claimed that he was required to give up education (with few exceptions) nor
has produced any school record to show that he was required to give up
education or was expelled from the educational institution as a result of
participation in the freedom movement.

Twenty five freedom fighters have claimed pension on both grounds

i.e. on the ground that he was underground during the freedom movement as
well as on the ground that warrant of arrest was issued against him. The
 - 44 -

Commission has considered these cases by keeping in mind that the claim can
be held valid if either of the ground is satisfactorily established.

The 164 freedom fighters have filed supporting affidavits of two or

more freedom fighters most of which are from out of the following list.
1) Anna Eknath Telap
2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
3) Namdeo Balawant Aher
4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)
5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule
6) Sona Rama Jaybhay
7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal
8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia
9) Mohan Narhari Deth

The above list is restricted to the persons who as per the Government
Resolution are qualified to issue the supporting affidavits in the sense that they
were either sentenced to two years imprisonment or were declared absconding
for two years or against whom there was arrest warrant for two years.

In addition to the above underground freedom fighters have also filed

affidavits of some other freedom fighters out of which many are known for
their work against Nizam Government in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement
or Hyderabad Mukti Sangram, their affidavits can be taken into consideration
to ensure the reliability of the statement of the freedom fighter regarding his
work in the freedom movement but at the same time it has to be borne in mind
that they are not qualified as per the Government Resolution to file supporting
affidavits in order that the claim of freedom fighter as underground freedom
fighter is recommended by the Zilla Gavrav Samiti or sanctioned by the High
Power Committee.

Many of the freedom fighters from the above list have filed
supporting affidavits in number of cases which creates doubt regarding their
statement that the said freedom fighters (Claimants) took part in the movement
 - 45 -

along with them and was involved in the particular incidents stated in the
affidavits of the supporting freedom fighter working with him.

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

the supporting freedom figher has filed affidavits in the cases referred to the
Commission which consist 164 cases of underground freedom fighters.-

Name of the Supporting No. of cases in which

freedom fighter affidavit is filed.

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………. 89

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane…………………79
3) Namdeo Balawant Aher…………………46
4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)…46
5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule………………45
6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………..66
7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal………………14
8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia…13
9) Mohan Narhari Deth…………………….10

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

aforesaid persons have filed supporting affidavits in following number of
cases which are out of 347 cases rejected by the Collector.
Name of the Supporting No. of cases in which
freedom fighter affidavit is filed.

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………………….89

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane……………………….…101
3) Namdeo Balawant Aher………………………..…24
4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap (absconding for two years)..22
5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule……………………….07
6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………………..45
7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal……………………….24
8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia……..…..07
9) Mohan Narhari Deth………………… …….…..07
 - 46 -

There are 2068 files at present in the Mantralaya in which the claims
are rejected and in those cases supporting affidavits are filed by the above
stated freedom fighters (viz):-

Name of the Supporting No. of cases in which

freedom fighter affidavit is filed.

1) Anna Eknath Telap……………………..900

2) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane………………..1068
3) Namdeo Balawant Aher………………. 44
4) Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
(absconding for two years)………………99
5) Manik Tulsiram Anubhule……………… 43
6) Sona Rama Jaybhay……………………..463
7) Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal………………205
8) Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia.. 201
9) Mohan Narahari Deth……………….. 200

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

freedom fighters in 1417 cases from the Beed district in which claim was
sanctioned earlier. However those files have not been scrutinized by the
Commission.

The Commission called these files in addition to the 354 + 1 files when
in number of cases it was noticed that same persons were filing supporting
affidavits with same contents. It was also noted that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as
well as the High Power Committee had also at some stage realised this aspect
and had expressed suspicion.

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

all affidavits of these freedom fighters with exceptions which are far and few
between, the names of the freedom fighter supported, his age and place of
residence is added to the typed affidavit either in hand writing or by typing at
later stage in different type with different ink which difference is obvious to
the necked eye. In many cases the name of the supporting freedom fighter is
 - 47 -

also added after the affidavit was typed. These alteration or additions in the
typed affidavits are neither signed nor initialed by the deponent and much less
by the authority before whom the affidavit was sworn or even by the person
who identified the deponent before the said authority.

Another more important aspect is that the affidavit of one supporting

freedom fighter in one case, if compared with the affidavit of the same
supporting freedom fighter in another case, discloses the same story or the
same incident stating that 50 or 60 persons including the person whom he is
supporting had taken part in the said incident.

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

camp with Wamanrao Vaze and Namdevrao Khade who were head or Kendra
Pramukh. He further states that there were 90 to 95 groups, which groups
used to attack on razakar camps and ransack their Camps. During these
activities they had burnt pachangri naka, antervali naka and in these incidents
the particular freedom fighters whose name is added in the affidavits later on
by ink or by typing had taken part along with 50 to 60 persons. In some
further affidavits he increased the number from 50-60 to 90-95 and at some
later stage he merely stated that many other persons including the named
freedom fighter was with him but the incidents mentioned are the same
namely burning of pachangri naka and Antarvali Naka. If 50 to 60 persons
including him had taken part in these incidents, how could he file affidavits
supporting more than thousand persons as underground freedom fighters
quoting one and the same incident.

Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has referred to the incident of burning of

pachangri naka and burning Daskhed police patil wada and office record in
which there were 50 to 60 persons with him and stating these very incidents,
he has filed affidavits supporting more than 1200 claimants as underground
freedom fighters.

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

naka, Daskhed police patil wada and office record. Sona Rama Jaybhay has
filed affidavits supporting about 575 underground freedom fighters.
 - 48 -

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

Uttamchand Changedia and Dr. Achut Amrutrao Rasal are concerned they
were sentenced to imprisonment in the freedom movement of India and not in
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. Similarly Mohand Narhari Deth was also
sentenced in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad Freedom
Movement. All three are from Ahmednagar District. It is by no means the
intention of the Commission to indicate that freedom fighters from the
adjacent Ahmednagar district are not qualified to file supporting affidavit.
However, regarding the role of these freedom fighters in Hyderabad Mukti
Sangram there is reason to suspect whether they in fact took part in Hyderabad
Freedom Movement. No independent oral or documentary evidence is
adduced regarding their factual involvement in the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement. This aspect as well as the aspect that these very persons have
been consistently filing supporting affidavits and there are such additions and
alterations was noticed by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as by the High
Power Committee.

So far the High Power Committee is concerned the Member Secretary

went to the extent of making statement in his note in file No. 106 of Hemraj
Premraj Meher about Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Changedia who are
from Ahmednagar district, incidentally the said Member Secretary Rajabhau
Zarkar also belonged to Ahmednagar district. He has stated in his note that
these persons have collected money from various claimants and have given
affidavits supporting their claim and it is necessary to hold inquiry against
them. In pursuance thereof the Collector was directed to hold inquiry. The
inquiry was never held and naturally no report was given to the Government.
In spite of the aforesaid observations of the Member Secretary, and
consequent order for inquiry to the Collector, the said Respondent No. 106 i.e.
Hemraj Premraj Meher, was sanctioned pension and even after such
observation the claims of underground freedom fighters supported by the same
freedom fighters were accepted on the basis of supporting affidavits from
them.
 - 49 -

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

Bhagawan Dhondiba Chaure in the note put up before the High Power
Committee by the office recommending sanction, the Member Secretary
Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar noted on 16.4.1998 that the supporting freedom
fighters Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Sahebrao Ganpati
Sanap, Namdeo Balwant Aher have filed supporting affidavits in hundreds of
cases and therefore their affidavits are not reliable and one particular advocate
Tandale had identified the deponents before the competent authority and an
enquiry is required to be made in this regard and the claim be rejected.
Thereafter the claim was first rejected and he was also informed. However,
after that the same member Secretary stated that he filed his own affidavit and
two other affidavits of supporting freedom fighters and thereafter a completely
contradictory note was put up and the claim was recommended for sanction.
Whereafter again the Member Secretary, (Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar) noted
that in view of the new documents the claim is required to be reconsidered and
the same be sanctioned. This clearly shows how indiscriminately the
supporting freedom fighters were filing affidavits which on the face of it are
unreliable.

There is one another aspect that even the freedom fighters themselves
while filing affidavits which were typed in a format keepting blank space for
writing the name of the respondent freedom fighter which was added in ink
later on and that also without signature or initial of anybody much less of the
competent authority. What sanctity can be attatched to the statement contained
in such affidavits of the freedom fighters regarding various incidents in which
they claim to be involved and on the basis of which they are claiming
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane have indiscriminately

filed supporting affidavits which are containing typed material and names
have been later on added in number of cases which creates doubt regarding
truthfulness of the statements of such freedom fighters that the claimant
freedom fighter was working along with them in the freedom movement and
had taken part in the particular incident stated in the said affidavits.
 - 50 -

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

Sadhu Jagatap and file No.310, Raghunath Parshuram Shinde that Anna
Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane have indiscriminately filed
supporting affidavits in number of cases which raises clear doubt regarding
their credibility and the statements contained in their affidavits and it is
necessary to hold inquiry against them.

In addition the Commission found that in some cases the spaces left
blank for addition of the name of the freedom fighter have remained blank and
the affidavit has been sworn in with such blank spaces and even the authority
before whom the affidavit was sworn has over looked the said material
illegality in the affidavit. In fact this raises doubt regarding the credibility of
the said officer/authority who was of the rank of Naib Tahasildar. From the
fact that in some affidavits the spaces for writing names of freedom fighter
have remained blank lead to an irresistible conclusion that the persons who are
holding Sanmanpatra, had kept ready a proforma affidavit which was being
typed on the stamp paper and as and when some person claiming to be
freedom fighter approached them, in the blank space, the names and other
particulars were added. These serious infirmities and illegalities in the
affidavits cannot be over looked and lead to the conclusion that the supporting
freedom fighters were swearing and issuing affidavits on demand to anybody.
The entire credibility of statement contained in their affidavit is therefore
suspicious. Their affidavits are not even worth the paper on which they are
written. In file No.216, Bhanudas Sadhu Jagtap there are blank affidavits of
Anna Eknath Telap dated 5.2.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In Case file No.337 Kisan Yadav Pawar there are blank affidavits
bearing signature of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr.
Changedia has also signed on the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth where in
fact Mohan Narhari Deth should have signed. The affidavit is incomplete and
it has not been sworn in. The Commission noted this very disgusting aspect.

There is one more aspect which is equally shocking and shows that to
what extent the supporting freedom fighters were filing affidavits
indiscriminately with no regard for the truth of the contents. In some cases the
 - 51 -

original freedom fighter died after filing the application. (Two case numbers
and names are given below) After the death of the freedom fighter, his widow
was entitled to continue the proceedings and the final order could be passed
sanctioning the claim in her favour as widow of the freedom fighter
representing him. She herself had not moved any application claiming to be
freedom fighter. However, after the death of the freedom fighter, the affidavit
filed by her was to the effect either that she was the freedom fighter or that she
along with her husband was a freedom fighter. She produced supporting
affidavits from out of the above stated list of freedom fighters and in those
supporting affidavits it is mentioned that she was the freedom fighter and not
that her husband was a freedom fighter. When the widow never applied
claiming to be freedom fighter and entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits,
how could a supporting freedom fighters make statement on oath not only that
she was the freedom fighter but also to the effect that in the particular incident
stated in their affidavit she was involved along with them. It is this type of
conduct of the supporting freedom fighters and affidavits of such freedom
fighters that led the Commission to scrutinize the affidavits of the freedom
fighters as well as the supporting freedom fighters minutely. Although the
Commission was aware of the legal position that the evidence in such
proceedings is not to be scanned as in the criminal cases. When, on the face of
it, it is obvious that supporting freedom fighters are going to such an extent,
then their affidavits lose all sanctity and require a minute scrutiny.

Following are some such cases :-

In file No. 79, (Mathurabai widow of Bajirao Laxman Tarte)
Mathurabai herself had not filed application for grant of Sanmanpatra
and allied pensionary benefits, application was filed by Bajirao Laxman Tarte
who claimed himself to be freedom fighter. In the note to High Power
Committee also it was mentioned that Bajirao Laxman Tarte was freedom
fighter and in his affidavit it is stated that how his family members were
required to suffer because of his part in the freedom movement. Thus the
entire claim of Bajirao Laxman Tarte is contradicted by the affidavit of his
wife and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters as suddenly after his
 - 52 -

death, Mathurabai herself claimed to be freedom fighter and even the

supporting freedom fighters stated on oath to that effect and so all these
affidavits are not reliable. This is one of the classic cases which shows how
the supporting freedom fighters could go to any extent and filed supporting
affidavits when the said person had not even applied .

When called before the Mane Committee Mathurabai stated clearly

that she did not take part in the freedom movement and is claiming pension as

widow of Bajirao Laxman Tarte. She further stated that at the time of freedom

movement her age was 8 to 10 years and therefore she was not aware what

was the exact part played by Bajirao Laxman Tarte in the freedom movement

and she is not aware what documents were produced by her husband along

with application for pension.

Similar is the case of one Dwarkabai in Case File No.84.

In Case File No.231, (Narayan Shankar Waghmode). Narayan

Shankar Waghmode died on 18th March 1996 and record to that effect is in the
file (death certificate), however affidavit in the name of Narayan is sworn in
and verified on 7th September 1999 and he was identified before the competent
authority by Mr. S.N. Kulkarni advocate of Beed. This in fact calls for not
only an inquiry but even prosecution of the concerned Advocate Mr.
S.N.Kulkarni.

There are cases of freedom fighters who were either of extremely

tender age or were not even born and could not have taken part in the freedom
movement but inspite of this the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two
years imprisonment have filed supporting affidavits making positive statement
that these persons have taken part in the Hyderabad freedom movement and
were involved along with them in the particular incident stated in the
affidavit.
 - 53 -

In some of the cases viz. File No. 320 Rama Manik Wanave the
competent authority who has given oath and in whose presence affidavits are
claimed to be sworn has not even signed, which indicates that the affidavit
was never in fact sworn before the authority and is a mere statement in writing
on stamp paper but is filed as if it is an affidavit and was treated by the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti of which the Additional Collector was member secretary and
also by the High Power Committee before whom notes were put up by
Mantralaya staff which included persons of the level of Under Secretary
and/or Deputy Secretary. After having noticed such type of affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment in the
freedom movement either in Hyderabad freedom movement or the freedom
movement of India and after further realizing the fact that at least five of them
have filed supporting affidavits in abnormally large number of cases namely
Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay Dr. Achyut
Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia the Commission
faced the dilemma as to whether every claimant claiming to be underground
freedom fighter who has sought supporting affidavits from these persons, his
claim should be rejected out right for that reason alone.

The Commission sincerely felt that there could be cases of some

freedom fighters who in fact were underground freedom fighters and had
suffered during the freedom movement but had sought the affidavits of these
persons as the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 made a condition
precedent for consideration of the claim as underground freedom fighter. The
Commission therefore dcided that in cases in which it appears to the
Commission that the case of the underground freedom fighter appears to be
genuine but he has filed their affidavits for mere compliance with the
provisions of the said Government Resolution then for that reason alone his
claim should not be rejected. However, that aspect should also not be treated
either casually or lightly or ignored. Therefore the Commission has
rcommended continuation of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits in cases which
are far and few between in which the supporting affidavits are also of these
persons. However, as a general rule their affidavits specially when the same
were defective in the sense that the entire affidavit was not written or typed in
 - 54 -

one stroke and the name, place of residence etc. was added to typed affidavit
which contained almost the similar facts as contained in the other affidavits
filed by same freedom fighters to support others, the cases should be
thoroughly scrutinized and only in exceptional case the defect may be ignored
to avaoid injustice to genuine freedom fighter.

The cases in which there was consistence in the assertion of the

freedom fighter through out or there was some other materials on record to
accept his claim, the fact that he filed affidavits of aforesaid freedom fighters
should not come in his way.

These are general grounds in the cases of underground freedom

fighters and are applicable to the cases of Underground Freedom Fighters
mutatis mutandis. However each case has been considered independently.
These grounds are in addition to other reasons stated in the particular case.
 - 55 -

PART – VIII

REASONS IN GENERAL APPLICABLE TO

CASES BASED ON ARREST WARRANTS

As during the relevant period of Hyderabad freedom movement the

only person posted to Patoda as Tahasildar was one Mr. Moinuddin Ali Khan
B.A. LL.B. all the arrest warrants/letters issued from the office of Tahasildar
Patoda are signed by the said person alone.

In the 354+1 cases referred to the Commission claims are based on

arrest warrants issued against them by 203 respondents. In all there are 32
documents styled as warrants or letters which have been relied upon by the
various respondents in these 203 cases.

On behalf of the petitioner Advocate N.L.Jadhav contended that arrest

warrants could have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda and in any case the
Tahasildar could not issue arrest warrant with a direction to produce the said
person before the Court of Judicial Magistrate. However, Advocate Andhale
appearing for some of the Respondents drew my attention to the Hyderabad
Tenancy Act and pointed out that Tahasil Patoda was a “Mahal” tahasil which
was known in those days as “Sarfekhas”. These were special areas, the
income of which was being used for the maintenance of the family of Nizam.
The officers appointed in such areas had special powers and therefore
Tahasildar Patoda was one of the Executive Magistrate having special power
to issue arrest warrants. Advocate Jadhav did not bring to my notice any
provisions of law to substantiate his contention. He also did not contend that
the Tahasildar was not an Executive Magistrate. Thus, apart from the
argument of Advocate Andhale, the Commission is of the view that being an
Executive Magistrate having duty of maintaining law and order, the Tahasildar
in his capacity as Executive Magistrate was competent to issue warrant of
arrest and if the powers of remand were not with the Executive Magistrate
then, naturally the person arrested would be produced before a Judicial
authority having powers of remand. I am, therefore, not at all impressed by
the arguments of Advocate Jadhav that warrant of arrest could never have
been issued by Tahasildar Patoda.
 - 56 -

After perusal of the files the Commission noted from the translations
provided by the concerned respondents to the Government that the Tahasildar
issuing the warrant addressed or forwarded copies thereof to all police stations
in Beed district as well as to the District Collector (Talukdar), District
Superintendent of Police and all the Courts of judicial magistrate in the
District. In none of the file any certificate of the Tahasildar was produced.
The copies which can be said at least on the face of it to be certified copies
issued as per the provisions of law and rules pertaining to issuance of certified
copies were found in very few files which can be said to be exceptional. The
number being less than ten, in all other cases what was produced was only a
Xerox copy with translation thereof either in English or in Marathi and the
translation work was done by some person not officially or legally authorized
to provide the translation of a document.

The Commission at the first instance issued summons to all the police
stations, office of Collector, Office of Superintendent of Police and all the
Courts of Judicial Magistrates to secure the original documents or at least
copies forwarded from the office of Tahasildar Patoda to these authorities and
also to Tahasildar Patoda. Although from the various notes and
correspondence found in these files, it was noted that the Tahasildar Patoda
had submitted the record of his office to the Collector Beed vide letter
No.88/Record/Ka/ Vi/ 1984 dated 9th June 1988 and when for the purpose of
verification, report was called from the Tahasildar Patoda, he even intimated
the Collector by letter dated 6th August 1999 that the record had already been
deposited with the Collector office vide letter dated 9th June 1988, however,
surprisingly enough the verification reports regarding the genuineness of the
copies submitted to the Government was being called from the Tahasildar
through the Collector and the Tahasildar being a subordinate officer had to
submit the report and therefore he submitted the report by verifying from the
Xerox copy itself by getting the same translated though some person knowing
Urdu language.

Although the Commission issued summons to all aforesaid authorities,

in response the Commission received, one set of documents from Ambajogai
police station and two sets of documents from the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class Georai. The Ambajogai police station forwarded eight warrants
out of which six are concerned with the 354+1 cases referred and Judicial
Magistrate First Class Gevrai forwarded six warrants. There was initially no
response from the Collector office but the Commission brought it to the notice
 - 57 -

of the Collector that as per the correspondence contained in the files, the
Tahasildar has already deposited the original record with the office of the
Collector Beed so the Commission be informed whether the same is traceable
and if not whether it has been destroyed according to rules. Only after this
the Commission received two files from the office of the Collector pertaining
to Patoda Tahsil, containing 15 warrants in addition to other confidential
correspondence. Even the warrants were marked as confidential. The record
received from the Collector contained fifteen warrants as well as some
correspondence and some applications for certified copies given by different
persons to the Tahasildar in pursuance of which some copies were in fact
prepared and kept ready for delivery to the concerned applicants but the said
persons who had applied for certified copies never turned up to the office of
the Tahasildar for collecting the copies on payment of fees.

It was contended before the Commission on behalf of the petitioners

that the warrants which are received from these different offices do not contain
any inward numbers and the outward numbers are not as per the chronology of
dates. In order to appreciate these aspects of the matter it is necessary to note
the position of Fasli calendar dates and its equivalent dates according to
English Calendar.

The Government of Hyderabad (Nizam Government) had by an order

made the dates of Fasli Calendar and the English Calendar months uniform
with effect from 1st October 1946 and corresponding English calendar months
Fasli calendar months and year are shown in the following table:-
English Calendar EnglishCalendar Fasli year Fasli Months
year Months
1946 October 1356 Azur
1946 November 1356 Dai
1946 December 1356 Bahman
1947 January 1356 Isfander
1947 February 1356 Farwardi
1947 March 1356 Ardibehisht
1947 April 1356 Khurdad
1947 May 1356 Thir
1947 June 1356 Amardad
1947 July 1356 Shahrewar
1947 August 1356 Mehir
1947 September 1356 Aban
 - 58 -

1947 October 1356 Azur

1947 November 1356 Dai
1947 December 1356 Bahman
1948 January 1357 Isfander
1948 February 1357 Farwardi
1948 March 1357 Ardibehisht
1948 April 1357 Khurdad
1948 May 1357 Thir
1948 June 1357 Amardad
1948 July 1357 Shahrewar
1948 August 1357 Mehir
1948 September 1357 Aban
The Hyderabad freedom movement was during 15th August 1947 to
17th September 1948. Earlier also there were some incidents but the movement
took grave turn only with effect from 15th August 1947. We are mostly
concerned with the corresponding dates which are after the aforesaid order of
Hyderabad Government of making equivalent calendar months as pointed out
in the said table.

The month equivalent to January as per Fasli calendar is Isfander and

the last month December as per the English calendar is known as Bahman as
per the Fasli calendar. The first month of the Fasli calendar is Azur and its
equivalent month as per the English calendar is October. The first three
months i.e Azur, Dai and Bahman are thus equivalent to October, November
and December in the equivalent year. However, since as per the English
calendar the year changes after the month of December, although the Fasli
year continues for 9 months thereafter. Thus so far as Fasli 1357 is concerned
the first three months are the last three months, October, November and
December of 1947 and the next nine months of 1357 Fasli Isfander to Aban
are equivalent to first nine months that is January to September of the year
1948.

The 32 warrants with which we are concerned in these files are all in
the Fasli year 1357 equivalent to English calendar year 1947-48.

The following Table contains detailed description of the Warrants i.e.

file number, outward number date etc in the table.:-
 - 59 -

Sr. No. File No. Outward Date (Fasli) English date

No.
1 49/57 227 27 Dai 1357 27.11.1947
2 - 217 2 Bahman 1357 02.12.1947
3 7/1357 Fasli 407 2 Bahman 1357 02.12.1947
4 - 101 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947
5 - 310 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947
6 21/2/57F 406 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947
7 1010 - 4 Bahman 1357 04.12.1947
8 530 Nil 11 Bahman 1357 11.12.1947
9 10/11 213 12 Bahman 1357 12.12.1947
10 21/57 Nil 13 Bahman 1357 13.12.1947
11 - 101 14 Bahman 1357 14.12.1947
12 101/1357 190 14 Bahman 1357 14.12.1947
13 101/86/1357 F 217 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947
14 21/57 270 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947
15 402 191/1 15 Bahman 1357 15.12.1947
16 21/57 217 17 Bahman 1357 17.12.1947
17 21/57 201 10 Isfander 1357 10.01.1948
18 21/57 202 11 Isfander 1357 11.01.1948
19 21/57 203 12 Isfander 1357 12.01.1948
20 Nil 205 13 Isfander 1357 13.01.1948
21 201/57 323 14 Isfander 1357 14.01.1948
22 21/57 204 17 Isfander 1357 17.01.1948
23 21/2 490 17 Isfander 1357 17.01.1948
24 21/57 202 21 Isfander 1357 21.01.1948
25 24/01 209 21 Isfander 1357 21.01.1948
26 Nil 205 24 Isfander 1357 24.01.1948

27 205/57 F 209 24 Isfander 1357 24.01.1948

28 21/1 617 17 Thir 1357 17.05.1948
29 10/21/81 221 14 Amardad 1357 14.06.1948
30 21/10 126 16 Amardad 1357 16.06.1948
31 Nil 598 2 Mehir 1357 02.08.1948
32 21/2/57 214 - -

Annexure IV contains list of 18 warrants which were received by the

Commission from three different sources viz, Collector Office, Beed
(pertaining to Tahsildar Patoda), Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Georai and Police Station Ambejogai. These were sent to the hand writing
 - 60 -

expert along with undisputed correspondence and office notes signed by the
same officer (Tahsildar Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan)

Annexure III (A), (B), (C) state the details of different warrants out of these
18 warrants received from one of the particular source referred above.

Annexure VII contains list of 14 warrants which are referred in different files.
However, the originals of these warrants could not be made available from any
source and are reportably not available. As per the report of Superintendent of
Police, Beed all the record of warrant for the said period which was at
different police stations has been destroyed as per rules.

In addition also there are some warrants in different files which are not
referred to or relied upon by any of the 354 respondents. These were not sent
to the expert for examination and report.

So far as warrant Outward No. 205 and Outward No. 209 are
concerned some confusion is lightly arise one's in mind. Warrant Outward No.
205 and Outward No. 209 are amongst the 18 warrants sent to the hand
writing expert. However, there is no warrant bearing file No. 205 and Outward
No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948). Warrant Outward No. 209
bears file No. 24/1 and is dated 21 Isfander 1357 F (21.1.1948) and Warrant
Outward No. 205 does not bear any file No. i.e. File No. is NIL and is dated
24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948). Considering that even the respondent freedom
fighter may have given wrong description due to such confusion in the cases
in which either of these warrant is relied upon, the Commission has given
reasons in regard to both the warrants in such cases.

There is also no logic in file numbers given. However, the Commission

is not aware about the procedure and has no comments.

As contended by the Ld. Advocates for the petitioners there are no

inward numbers on any of the warrants received from the Ambajogai Police
Station as well as Judicial Magistrate First Class Gevrai which in the opinion
of the Commission should normally appear on any correspondence especially
when confidential correspondence is received from any other office. Azur
being the first month as per the Fasli year the outward number would start
with the month of Azur equivalent to October. In these 32 warrants there is no
warrant issued in the month of Azur and there is only one warrant issued in the
month of the Dai which is the second month according to Fasli calendar. It is
warrant bearing outward No.227 dated 27 Dai 1357 Fasli equivalent to 27
 - 61 -

November 1947. Thereafter there are 15 warrants issued in the month of

Bahman commencing from 2nd Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 2nd December
1947 to 17 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th December 1947. If one
considers the outward numbers of these warrants, the outward number of
warrant issued on 27 Dai 1357 Fasli (27.11.1947) should not bear a number
higher than the outward number on the warrants issued in the month of
Bahman 1357 Fasli. There are two warrants dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli one
bears outward No. 217 whereas the other bears outward No.407. Apart from
the fact that outward No. 217 is less than 407 it is highly improbable that there
would be so many numbers of confidential letters outwarded from that office
on the same date especially because in those days the entire correspondence
was in Urdu language and mostly in handwriting. On 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli
(4.12.1947) four warrants are allegedly issued, one containing outward
No.101, other containing outward No.310 the third one containing outward
No.406 and fourth bearing outward No.1010. Here also the improbability of
so many number of confidential letters dispatched on the same day creates
doubt in the genuine nature of the document. The outward number of warrant
issued on 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli (2.12.1947) being 217, the outward numbers
of the warrants issued on 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli could not be 101 and would
normally be higher than 217.

There is another warrant issued on 11 Bahman 1357 Fasli (11.12.1947)

which does not bear outward number i.e. the outward number is nil and
immediately on the next day 12th Bahman 1357 Fasli (12.12.1947) a warrant is
issued bearing outward No. 213 which would mean that between 11 and 12
Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 11 and 12 December 1947 as many as 213 confidential
letters were dispatched which is again highly improbable. Thereafter on 13th
Bahman 1357 Fasli (13.12.1947) another warrant is outwarded.(dispatched)
which bears outward No. Nil. Thereafter on 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli
(14.12.1947) there is warrant outward No. 101 allegedly issued which would
mean that between 13th Bahman 1357 Fasli and 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 13-
12-1947 and 14-12-1947) 101 confidential letters were dispatched which is
also improbable. Again on 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli another warrant which is
dispatched (outwarded) bearing File No. 101/ 1357 Fasli is bearing outward
No. 190 which would mean that on the same date more than 89 confidential
letters/warrants were dispatched (outwarded) from the same office. Warrant
in file No. 101/86/1357 Fasli dated 15 Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947) bears
outward No.217 and another warrant bearing file No. 21/57 allegedly
 - 62 -

dispatched (outwarded) on 15th Bahman 1357 Fasli (15.12.1947) bears

outward No. 270 and the third warrant in file No. 402 bearing the same date
15 Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 15.12.1947) bears outward No.191/1. There are
four warrants in the same file Number 21/57 bearing outward numbers 217,
201, 202 and 203 warrants outward No. 201, 202 and 203 are respectively
dated 10th Isfander 1357 (10.1.1948) , 11TH Isfander 1357 Fasli (11.1.1948)
and 12th Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 13.1.1948). The warrant in file No. Nil issued on
24 Isfander 1357 F (24.1.1948) bears outward No. 205. Although the outward
numbers of warrants issued on these dates from 10to 13 January 1948 upto
No. 204 appears logical, immediately thereafter there is another warrant in
file No. 201/57 dated 14 Isfander 1357 Fasli (14.1.1948) bearing outward
No.323. The difference between 205 and 323 is too large and it is improbable
that so many letters would be dispatched (outwarded) in confidential files
between 13 Isfander 1357 Fasli and 14th Isfandar 1357 Fasli ( i.e. 13 and 14
January 1948).

Thereafter again on 17th Isfander 1357 Fasli (17.1.1948) wherein in file

No. is 21/57 there is warrant outward No. is 204 which is far below 323 and
another warrant issued on the same date 17th Isfander 1357 Fasli (17.1.1948)
in file No. 21/2 bears outward No. 490 and the difference between 204 and
490 is inexplicable. Thereafter on 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli (21.1.1948) in file
No. 21/57 there is warrant bearing outward No. 202 which is far below
outward No.490 issued on 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 17.1.1948).

Warrant in file No. 24/0/1 dated 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli bears outward
No. 209 and even if it is accepted that on 21.1.1948 more than seven
confidential letters/warrants were dispatched. It is not possible to appreciate
how warrant in file No. Nil issued on 24th Isfander (24.1.1948) would bear
lower No. 205.

Warrant in file No. 21/1 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli (17.5.1948) bears
outward No. 617 whereas warrant in file No. 21/10 issued on 16 Amardad
1357 Fasli (16.6.1948) bears outward No. 126, whereas the outward No. of
warrant in file No. 10/21/81 alleged to have been issued on 14 Amardad 1357
Fasli (14.6.1948) is outward No.221 which is not logical. It is however, not
possible to appreciate as to how the outward number reduced on 16 Amardad
1357 Fasli (16.6.1948) to 126 and similarly it is also not possible to
understand as to how warrant in file No. 21/1 alleged to have been issued on
17 Thir 1357 Fasli (17.5.1948) would be so high as 617 when the warrants
 - 63 -

issued in the next month 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli and 16 Amardad 1357 Fasli
( 14.6.1948 and 16.6.1948) bear outward Nos 221 and 126. This cannot be
ignored as a mere irregularities and in fact raises serious suspicion in the very
fact as to whether the warrants/letters were at all issued from the same office
under the signature of the same officer with these outward numbers on the
dates mentioned therein and creates doubt regarding the genuine nature of the
documents.

Another aspect of the same matter is that many of these arrest warrants
contained the names of persons who were either not born or were toddlers or
of the age below 10 to 11 years and were just school going boys. If any
warrant of arrest contains the names of persons of such age that itself is
circumstance to doubt the genuine nature of the document because the
warrants were being issued on the basis of information supplied by the village
officers like police patil or patwari who were knowing the residents of their
villages and would report the names of the persons who were involved in
activity against the Government in order that the Government controls their
activities by issuing warrants and arresting them and would not report the
names of children and in no case names of unborn persons. Furthermore if
warrants of arrest are issued against some persons and they are genuine, the
purpose being to arrest those persons and to produce them before the
competent authority, the warrant issuing authority would be serious in looking
to the aspect execution by arresting the person and would keep follow up to
the action taken by the subordinate police officers who were directed to
execute the warrant.

In none of the warrants of arrest issued, there is mention of any date

for report to the authority issuing the warrant. Normally a warrant would be
issued against one individual so that after his arrest or any action on that
warrant a report would be submitted and the same would be returned to the
issuing authority. Here the warrants issued were like open or standing
warrants. None of the warrant gave any date or time for execution and none of
the persons whose names appeared in the warrant was ever arrested nor was
any action taken against him, if he successfully avoided arrest.

In these very files many of the freedom fighters have relied on the
arrest warrants issued against Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap which it is alleged did
mention a period of two years and since he could not be arrested in spite of the
arrest warrant, his property was attached. There is documentary evidence to
 - 64 -

show that the arrest warrant was for two years accompanying the affidavit of
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. No such action was taken in respect of any person,
persons involved in all these warrants. It is also not any body’s case that they
had no property to be attached. Many of them had at least agricultural lands
and even if they had no property, the police would make attempt to visit their
residence and find out whether property worth attachment is available. In one
of the case with which the Commission had to deal, for recovery of fine of
Rs. 30/- the police visited the house of the person sentenced to fine and
reported that no property worth attaching was available.

It is not that the Commission for the first time noticed these
infirmities, and suspected the genuineness of the warrants. It was also the
suspicion of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

On 3rd April 1995 a meeting of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was held. At
that time Shri R.D.Deshpande was Chairman who was not only a freedom
fighter but was also an Advocate by profession and a staunch communist
leader known for his character and integrity in the region of Marathwada. At
that time one of the member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was Smt. Parvaibai
Ramling Swami wife of Ramling Swami who was a renowned freedom
fighter who took leading part in the Hyderabad freedom movement. One of
the subject before the meeting was regarding suspicious arrest warrants and
the claims sanctioned on the basis of such warrants and in the minutes in
Resolution No.2 it was observed “ There are some cases based on suspicious
(dubious) warrants and claims were sanctioned on their basis. The reasons
being as below:-

1) The claim was sanctioned on the Xerox copies of which nobody

had seen the original. It did not bear date and number.
2) Normally there will be one warrant issued against one
accused(individual) but here it is noted that the warrant mentions
names of hundreds of persons.
3) The warrants did not bear the date of return or the name of the
officer who attempted to execute.
4) There is also no report as to what action was taken whether
executed or not, on the warrant.
5) Normally in the police station after a certain period is over,
documents are destroyed and therefore it is not probable that such
warrants would be available in the record of police station.
 - 65 -

It is further stated that therefore claims based on such warrants

deserved to be cancelled and if it is proved that a person made bogus claim of
being freedom fighter ( on such warrants), he should be prosecuted.

These being the minutes of the meeting of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti,
were on the record of Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Even though the Chairman and
members changed, the record was available with the Collector office as
Additional Collector was the member Secretary. However, the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti which considered the cases which are referred to the Commission and
are based on arrest warrants did not at any time take into consideration either
these minutes or the aspects highlighted in these minutes by the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti and in fact in number of cases the Zilla Gaurav Samiti even though not
satisfied with the copy of warrant produced by the Respondent and noted that
it was not trust worthy the Samiti did state that although the copy produced is
not reliable, still Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that the said person has
taken part in freedom movement. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is required to
consider the applications in accordance with the law which include the
Government Resolutions. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti could not take such liberty
to recommend the claim, even after it was convinced that the document
produced to support the claim are not reliable and its recommendation is in
contravention of the provisions of Government Resolution based only on
subjective satisfaction. Reference to such observation in detail are made in
particular cases dealt with by the Commission.

Even the High Power Committee had at some stage realized that such
suspicious or dubious warrants or copies were produced by some persons.

In his note in file Nos. 233 with 186 on 28.05.1997 Sabhapati High
Power Committee Shri Dattaji Salvi referred to the earlier note put up before
the High Power Committee with reference to verification of the warrant of
which copy was produced in that case that the verification could not be done
through the office of Tahasildar Patoda. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
has informed that original record of warrant is available in his office but it
does not contain the name of the claimant and for this reason the Zilla Gaurav
 - 66 -

Samiti refused to recommend the case and the Collector also did not
recommend.

The warrant (copy) produced by applicant/claimant appears suspicious

and therefore regular pension should not be sanctioned. Here it is pertinent to
point out that in the two particular cases involved, Keshav Kishan Nagargoje
and Nivruti Ganapati Nagargoje, the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court had
sanctioned pension as interim relief pending decision with direction to take
decision within one year. The Sabhapati observed in his note that the copy of
warrant was suspicious. Tahasildar could not verify it because he had
deposited the original record with the Collector office and the Collector should
have verified.

Why the Collector has not verified from the record in his office is not
explained by the Collector in his report dated 4th March 1997. The Collector
be asked to give explanation of this aspect.

The note further observes that warrant issued from Patoda Tahasil in
many cases could not be verified and if necessary enquiry in this entire matter
or aspect should be done through police.

In any case on the basis of suspicious evidence no person should be

sanctioned pension and Government should not be required to sanction
pension on the basis of suspicious evidence.

In fact action ought to have been taken in this regard earlier, however,
at least now action should be taken with priority so that such type of
suspicious cases coming from Beed District would be controlled/curtailed at
least to some extent. (Underlining is of the Commission).

Surprisingly enough despite this note and despite the earlier proposal
of rejection up to the level of Sabhapati and further directions from the office
of Chief Minister for taking action as per note of Sabhapati, at later stage the
note was twisted by mentioning in the note that there was oral discussion with
Member Secretary and the copy of warrant produced by the applicant was
 - 67 -

verified by the Collector whereas in fact there was no verification report from
the Collector.

The note further states that the Tahasildar Patoda had mentioned in his
report that the copy of warrant was obtained from his office in regular course
on payment of fees when in fact what was produced was only a Xerox copy of
the so called certified copy regarding contents of which nobody could verify
by comparison with the original record or even by comparison with the
certified copy issued. Thus with this note it was stated that since the names
are in the warrant the claims of two applicants be sanctioned and the claims
were sanctioned.

Even the Sabhapati who had taken interest in directing enquiry in

respect of such cases accepted aforesaid note of sanction of claim. Thus even
the High Power Committee had come to know regarding existence of
suspicious warrants alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda. But
unfortunately instead of going deep into the matter not only that claims of two
persons involved in that matter but the claims of number of persons based on
such suspicious document styled as true copy of warrant of arrest were
sanctioned from time to time thereafter.

This is only intended to point out that it is not the Commission which
for the first time felt that the alleged warrants were suspicious and copies
produced could not be relied upon as even the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High
Power Committee had realized the same thing but did not logically follow up
the matter further by making appropriate enquiry either through Collector or
Police.

The Commission did make inquiry from the Superintendent of police

by a special letter as to whether at that time there was system of taking entries
in the Station diary, whether such a practice is in force and prevalent to-day
and whether there is any entry made by the officer who is entrusted with the
job of executing the warrant. In reply the Superintendent of Police stated that
at present there is no practice. The earlier practice is not known and all the
documents of relevant period 1947-48 are destroyed as per rules. When
 - 68 -

according to Superintendent of police of Beed district all the documents of the

Beed district are destroyed, how can there be some warrants available at police
station Ambajogai and this also creates suspicious in the genuineness of the
documents described as warrant produced by Ambajogai police station.

Further more when even according to the respondents the warrants

were issued by the Tahasildar, very few persons either sought a certificate
from the Tahasil office or applied to the Tahasildar for certified copy of
warrant. A novel method of producing a Xerox copy signed as true copy was
followed. A Xerox copy issued by police station was produced without
getting it certified from the same police station, and the copy showed that it
was prepared from a true copy signed by some police inspector.

The Xerox copies alleged to be copies of certified copies issued by

Gevrai Court or Ashti Court or Tahasildar Patoda, were certified by the
Assistant Superintendent Patoda Court, who had no authority to certify Xerox
copy of certified copy issued by some other Court. He could only certify a
copy of a document which was in the record of Patoda Court. There is also a
reference to action taken against an employee of Court, for certifying such
type of copies without having the original documents on the record of the
Court where he was posted.

In view of such suspicious circumstances coupled with the fact that

even the such Zilla Gaurav Samiti had noted that many of the persons have
made bogus claims on such documents and the same were sanctioned, the
Commission first examined minutely the signatures of the issuing authority on
different warrants. The Commission also found that there was some
correspondence in the files received from the Collector office pertaining to
Patoda Tahasil office which contained either signature on the endorsement or
on the letter of the same officer Mr. Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan.

The Commission tried to contact the Language department and was

informed that no person having knowledge of Urdu language is working and
three persons are approved in the State of Maharashtra by the Government for
translating Urdu documents.
 - 69 -

Their names are :-

1. Smt. Julehua Bargir

261, Guruwar Peth, Dhanuraj Apartment,
Block No.6, Pune 42.

2. Shri M.A.Siddiqui
Wasantrao Naik Government Institute of
Arts & Social Sciences,
Near R.B.I.Chawk, Nagpur – 440 001

3. Dr.Mohammad Samiullah,
Near Mehboob House,
Ekbapura Camp, Tapowan Road,
Amravati – 2.

Letters were sent to these persons on the addresses available with the
Government and attempts were made to contact them on phone on numbers
mentioned against their names available in the Government record. None of
them either responded to the letter or could be contacted on the numbers
given. The Commission, therefore while camping at Beed tried to find out
whether any person is available to translate the documents and could be relied
upon. The Commission could contact one retired Deputy Collector Shri Syed
Ibrahim, who helped the teachers knowing Urdu language to translate the
warrants. Some of the warrants were translated in Marathi and some of the
warrants were merely written in Devnagri script in the same language. The
difference in the various signatures on the correspondence and on the different
warrants received were also shown to the persons knowing Urdu to get
satisfied as to whether the suspicion felt by the Commission has any basis and
thereafter when the suspicion was confirmed by person knowing the
language, all the concerned warrants along with correspondence in the file
were sent to the Government handwriting expert and his opinion was sought
which confirmed the suspicion earlier felt. The signatures even on the
different warrants received from the same source were not tallying and none of
the signature on any of the so-called warrant was tallying with the signature of
the said person Mr. Mir Moinuddin Ali Khan Tahasildar on the
correspondence which contains undisputed signature of the said person.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners contended strenuously that if

the law prescribes that a thing has to be done in a particular manner then it has
 - 70 -

to be done in that manner or not to be done at all. This principle cannot be

disputed and was not disputed before me by any of the advocates appearing
for respondents. However on this basis what was contended by Mr. M. L.
Jadhav Ld. Advocate for the petitioners was that the High Power Committee
and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti could have relied either on the certificates of the
Tahasildar or on the certified copy issued from that office or from some other
authority to whom the warrants were forwarded officially and in no case
Government could have resorted to the novel method of seeking a report of
verification from various authorities like the Tahasildar, Collector, Judicial
Magistrate or police inspector. The Commission is, however, of the view that
although this procedure may not be prescribed according to any provision of
law, that should not be a reason to suspect the bonafieds of the Government in
seeking the verification report. The documents were as old as of 1947-48 and
if a person produced a Xerox copy which appears to have been initially
prepared from a document issued by some Government office like police
station, court or Tahasildar and if the record from which it is so issued is
available the Government could seek verification report from the said
authority. There was nothing wrong in seeking such verification report.
However, while the method employed was neither dubious nor illegal, it was
the duty to see whether the verification is done at least from the original record
available with the said office. In many cases verification report was sent only
by verifying the Xerox copy by asking some person knowing Urdu to
translate that Xerox copy. This could not be a report of verification and could
not be accepted for relying on the said copy as evidence of the existence of
that document. Surprisingly enough even in cases when Zilla Gaurav Samittee
came to the conclusion that the copy of warrant produced is not reliable, it is
still went on to conclude that in spite of this, the Samittee is convinced that the
said person has taken part in freedom movement and recommended his case.

As pointed out earlier the Tahasildar Patoda had reported to the

Collector that original record is deposited with Collector office, but, even then
the Collector was forwarding reference to the Tahasildar for verification
invariably in all files and the Tahasildar was verifying only on the basis of
Xerox copy sent to him. Many of the verification reports clearly stated that
out of the names referred to in the later of reference by the higher authority
 - 71 -

either the Government or Collector, some names were seen and other names
were not in the Xerox copy sent. In spite of this neither the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti nor the High Power Committee felt that for this reason the genuineness
of the warrant becomes doubtful and relied on the fact that the name of the
said person appears. If there are 100 names in the warrant which are referred
to in the list attached to the letter of reference by the higher authority and if in
reply it is stated that out of 100 names 25 names are there then what about the
other names. Can the document be said to be genuine in respect of few names
and forged in respect of other names. It becomes a forged document and
totally unreliable and no claim on the basis of such verification report can be
granted as the document is unreliable and has to be discarded totally.

In view of the fact that all the warrants received from three different
sources bear different signatures and none of the said signature tallies with the
signatures on the undisputed correspondence and as such none of the so called
original warrant is genuine.

When the so called original warrants secured from three different

sources are found to be forged, the question of relying on the copies produced,
even if, certified, does not arise. There arises no question of relying on the
copies of which no record (so called original) is available any where.

In addition to warrants involved in these 355 cases, there are 11 more

so called original warrants in all, in the documents received from three
different sources. The position of the said documents as regards contents and
signatures is not in any way different. They were however not referred to the
Expert as nobody has based claim thereon in these 355 cases.

The reasons apply Mutatis Mutandis to all cases based on arrest

warrant and are in addition to whatever is stated in the particular case.
 - 72 -

PART – IX

WARRANT CUM UNDERGROUND CASES

In this part the Commission has considered the cases of the respondent
freedom fighters who have claimed Sanmanpatra and allied benefits specially
pension on two grounds viz:-

1) They were underground freedom fighter

2) Warrant of arrest was issued against them.

These cases are taken up in separate part. If on either of the ground,

the claimant person is found entitled, his claim can be considered even Zilla
Gaurav Samiti as well as High Power Committee has considered the claim on
either or both the grounds in different files. The reasoning given in the part in
general in cases of underground freedom fighters as well as the reasoning
contained in the part of general reasons in cases of freedom fighters claiming
pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against him apply mutatis
mutandis to the cases in addition to the reasons stated in each case.

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

No. No.
1. 30 Vitthal Pandhari Sanap 71
2. 34 Ashabai Chagan Sanap 75
3. 50 Manik Patilbua Sanap 78
4. 66 Shahadeo Kerba Ugalmugle 82
5. 69 Waman Narayan Bighane 85
6. 80 Raghunath Khandu Wanve 87
7. 82 Babasaheb Kisan Wanve 89
8. 149 Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve 91
9. 170 Jalinder Narayan Bikkad 94
10. 195 Namdeo Bhau Sanap 96
11. 201 Pandurang Aaba Nagargoje 99
12. 231 Narayan Shankar Waghmode (deceased) 101
Represented by Bhagubai Narayan
Waghmode
13. 235 Karbhari Shivram Sanap 105
14. 247 Tukaram Keru Sanap 107
15. 252 Ramrao Saluji Sanap 109
16. 255 Bhagawan Dagdu Sanap 112
17. 258 Keru Daji Nagargoje 114
18. 259 Thakaji Genu Sanap (deceased) 117
Represented by Kisanabai Thakaji Sanap
19. 277 Mahadeo Namdeo Vighane 120
 - 73 -

20. 299 Nivrutti Bajirao Tambe (deceased) 123

Represented by Prayagbai Nivrutti Tambe
21. 300 Shyamrao Sitaram Jaybhaye 125
22. 313 Arjun Khandu Wanve 128
23. 338 Dattuba Kerabe Wanve (deceased) 131
Represented by Gangubai Dattuba
Wanve
24. 347 Deorav Dagdu Sanap 133
25. 349 Pandurang Shankar Waghmode 135
(deceased) Represented by Kalawati
Pandurang Waghmode
 - 74 -

Case File No. 30 (Respondent No. 30)

Shri Vitthal Pandhari Sanap

Vithal Pandhari Sanap filed application for grant of pension on 12th

July 1990 on the basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in
Confidential file No. 121 bearing outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli
i.e. 2nd December 1947, however his claim was processed as underground
freedom fighter as he also stated that he was underground freedom fighter.

In his affidavit dated 12th July 1990 he has stated that he worked in the
freedom movement of Hyderabad State at Domri camp along with 300 to 400
persons and they had burnt the office of Patwari and Karodgiri naka and he
was required to go underground.

He filed affidavits of Ashruba Bapu Sanap and affidavit of Shamrao

Aba Khatal having similar contents. He filed one more application dated Nil
in 1997 in which he has asserted the same facts and has claimed to have
worked under Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath
Telap.

He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 2.7.1997 and affidavit

of Anna Eknath Telap dated 8th July 1997 which are stereo type and his name
is written in handwriting in the already typed contents.

Thereafter again he filed affidavit dated 23-02-1999 wherein he

named Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Tatyaba Bangar, Bhimrao Umaji
Bangar and five others with whom he worked. In the affidavit filed in
pursuance of notice issued, for the first time he stated that he was required to
live away from his house for ten months. However the persons supporting
him at this stage namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram
Anubhule have not stated that he was required to live away from his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting dated 9th July 1997
recommended his case relying upon the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and
Sona Rama Jaybhay.

High Power Committee accepted the recommendation.

 - 75 -

His statement was recorded by Mane Committee wherein he has

stated that he has supplied bread (Bhakari) to persons working at Domri
Camp. He has however stated that he was prevented by the police to stay in
the village but does not explain why. He was not arrested in spite of the
warrant issued against him.

Commission issued him a notice. He filed another affidavit and

referred to the copy of warrant produced by him.

As is clear from the first paragraph his claim was considered and
processed as underground freedom fighter, although it was based on both the
grounds. The supporting affidavits filed by him are of Sona Rama Jaybhay
dated 2.7.1997 and Anna Eknath Telap dated 8.7.1997 which as stated above
contain the same stereo type material as is stated by the same freedom fighters
in other cases and in addition suffer from the infirmity that the name of Vitthal
Pandhari Sanap is added to the typed affidavit in handwriting and after
issuance of notice in the year 1999 he filed additional affidavits of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule.

In the original application he did not describe any particular incident in

which he was involved in the freedom movement. The contents therein are
general. However, in his affidavit dated 12.7.1990 he referred to the incident
of Bhayala, Therala and Wadzari wherein there was a fight with razakars and
there was firing for two hours. He earlier filed affidavits of Ashruba Bapu
Sanap and Shamrao Babu Khatal in support. These affidavits were filed on
12.07.1990 and 18.07.1990 respectively.

However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered the claim in the meeting
of 09.07.1999 that is after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995 and recommended the same on the basis of supporting affidavits of
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. The infirmity in these two
affidavits is already pointed out. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated
2nd July 1997 in which as in other cases Sona Rama Jaybhay referred to the
incidents of attack on Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil wada and
office and stated specifically that Vitthal Pandhari Sanap was involved along
with him in the said incident in which 50 to 60 persons took part. The
 - 76 -

Respondent himself has not stated that he had taken part in this incident and
similarly in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap also the incident of burning
Pachangri naka and Antarvali naka are stated to which no reference is made by
the Respondent in his own affidavit. These affidavits, as pointed out in a
separate part, are not worth the paper on which they are written as there are
additions and alterations which are not signed by any body.

There after he filed an application directly addressed to the Sabhapati

and along with it he filed his own affidavit as well as affidavits of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. The incidents mentioned in
these two affidavits and the affidavit of Respondent himself, are not stated
earlier in any of the affidavits either by him or by the supporting freedom
fighters. In fact the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule described the
incident in which he was involved and for which he was prosecuted and
although he states that Vitthal Pandhari Sanap was along with him in the said
incident, he was not prosecuted and this statement is therefore doubtful and
unreliable.

The further contradictions in his statement when he appeared before

Mane Committee are noteworthy. He stated that the only work that he did was
of providing breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters for two months. This
also shows that he was not living away from his house. He has not quoted any
of the incidents, which are stated in all the four supporting affidavits of
different freedom fighters. Had he been involved in any of them he would
have made reference to some of the incidents as they are all serious incidents
and one cannot forget the same.

In addition he has relied on warrant of arrest issued by Tahasildar

Patoda in file No.Nil Outward No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent
to 2nd December 1947. He has produced Xerox copy of the warrant. The
Xerox copy shows that certified copy was issued to one Ramrao Madhavrao
by office of Tahasildar Patoda on 17th September 1986 and Xerox bears
endorsement “ certified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by the
Tahasildar Patoda on 17.9.1986” signed as true copy by Nazir-cum-COC of
Patoda Court on 2nd October 1986. The endorsement of Nazir-cum-COC
dated 2nd October 1986 is nearly fifteen days after so-called certified copy
 - 77 -

was obtained. Thus on that date he himself could have applied for the
certified copy because the Xerox copy was from a copy alleged to have been
issued fifteen days earlier to Ramrao Madhavrao. Although the note below
the warrant says that his property was attached he has not stated in any of the
affidavits that his property was attached and if so what was the property which
was attached.

The Commission has already stated in detail in the Part relating to the
general reasons of warrant cases that the signatures of Tahasildar on the
warrants found in the file of Tahasildar Patoda does not tally with the
signature of the Tahasildar Patoda on the undisputed documents and
correspondence and the office notes contained in the same file. The signature
also does not tally with the signatures found on the warrants received from
Ambajogai police station and Gevrai Court.

As discussed in detailed in the concerned Part of the report regarding

warrant cases the Commission got these documents examined from the
Government handwriting expert who has also given the aforesaid opinion as
the Commission doubted the signature after tallying the same with the
signatures on the undisputed correspondence or office notes with the
signatures on the warrant received from Gevrai Court and Ambajogai police
station. Since the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee did not go
into the aspect of warrant and its genuineness or otherwise as the case was
treated as one of underground freedom fighter, there are no comments on this
aspect in the file.

Since the warrants allegedly issued by Tahasildar Patoda which were

called by the Commission on the request of the different freedom fighters and
which are found to be forged, there is no question of relying on the so called
Xerox copy or certified copy on, signed as true copy by a person who had no
authority to sign as true copy issued the same issued it making a show as if he
is issuing a copy from the Court record. The Respondent having relied on
such a document is disentitled to any claim made in the application much less
the Sanmanpatra as freedom fighter and allied benefits and the Commission
recommends the same be cancelled forthwith.
 - 78 -

Case File No. 34 (Respondent No. 34)

Shri Chagan Laxman Sanap (deceased) represented by Smt. Ashabai
Chagan Sanap.

Chagan Laxman Sanap applied for pension on the basis of arrest

warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No. 21/10 bearing Confidential
outward No. 126 dated 16 Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 16th June 1948. Along
with application he has produced Xerox copy of warrant. However, the true
copy is signed by Nazir cum COC Patoda Civil Court, on 27.10.1986 with
endorsement “ it is verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by
the Tahasildar Patoda on 17.10.1986”.

In his affidavit filed on 20.7.1990 he stated that he worked from the

congress camp at Domri under Wamanrao Vaze along with 300 to 400 persons
from his village. Their activities were to obstruct recovery of levy, attack
Nakas etc and therefore warrant of arrest was issued against him by the
Tahasildar. He also filed affidavit of Marotibhau Sanap and Shamrao Aba
Khatal. They were not convicted and sentenced. But they have stated to have
worked along with him and similar averments are there, in his, their affidavits.

A notice was sent to him on 2.8.1996 with reference to his application

dated 20.7.1990 probably in view of the Government Resolution dated 4h July
1995. Thereafter he filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath
Telap who were convicted and in jail for not less than two year.

He has also filed application in the proforma required to be filled in by

underground freedom fighters and in the Proforma A. He has stated that he has
worked against the British regime against Portugal Government as
underground freedom fighter. He worked under the Ramling Swami at
Hyderabad Mukti Sangram, Kharada camp.

In his affidavit dated 13.2.1997 he claims to have worked in the

Hyderabad Mukti Sangram with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Wamanrao Vaze
and filed affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap, in which
to the typed format of affidavit name of Chagan Laxman Sanap is added in
handwriting and similarly is the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated
 - 79 -

8.7.1997. He has never alleged that he was required to live away from his
house or was beaten by the police.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.7.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension in view of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay.

However, the Additional Collector, Beed in his letter dated 4.7.1998

addressed to the Deputy Secretary communicated that case is not fit for
pension as he does not comply with the 4th July 1995 Government Resolution
paragraph.

The note put up to the High Power Committee referred to the

recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and to the fact that his affidavit
mentions that he worked as underground freedom fighter and warrant was
issued against him. He has produced copy of warrant and therefore proceeded
to sanction pension. One of the official mentioned that warrant is not verified
and the Member Secretary stated that warrant be verified and if there is
verification report in some other file Xerox copy of that be kept in this file and
application be granted. Thereafter High Power Committee granted pension on
12-10-1999.

As he was dead, Ashabai his widow sent application to Mane

Committee that she is weak, unable to move out of the house and produced
doctor certificate that she is suffering from hepatitis.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated it as a case of underground freedom

fighter and relied on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath
Telap which suffer from the infirmity as stated above and in the general
discussion on cases of Underground Freedom Fighters regarding addition of
name to the typewritten affidavits containing the same incidents, which the
said freedom fighters have repeated and stated in other cases.

The High Power Committee although accepted recommendation of the

Zilla Gaurav Samiti the note placed to High Power Committee does not show
that it considered the case as of underground freedom fighter and even in the
format of the High Power Committee the names of the supporting freedom
 - 80 -

fighters do not appear. The warrant was not verified in view of the note
placed by the Member Secretary to the effect that if there is verification report
in another file the same be kept in this file. Thereafter the High Power
Committee sanctioned the claim. However, in the file there is no verification
report whatsoever as per the direction of the Member Secretary in his note,
and the note merely states after the remarks of the Member Secretary that the
claim is sanctioned.

The copy of warrant in file No. 21/10 Outward No. 126 dated 16
Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 16th June 1948 is in the file. The original of this
warrant is not found either in the file received from the Patoda Tahasil or from
the two sources namely Ambajogai police station and Gevrai Court. The
report of Tahasildar, which is found in other file shows that the entire record
was submitted to the Collector office which record does not contain the
warrant bearing such number and date. And even other warrants found in the
said file on which claims are based in the cases dealt with by the Commission
are found to be forged and therefore on no ground the Respondent was entitled
to claim Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him, which
deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
 - 81 -

Case File No.. 50 (Respondent No.50)

Manik Patilbuva Sanap

He applied for the grant of pension on 26th March 1990 and had also
filed an application earlier on 2nd May 1988 claiming that warrant was issued
against him. He took part in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram as an underground
freedom fighter.

He has produced Xerox copy of warrant which is a Xerox copy of copy

claimed to have been issued as a certified copy by Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class Gevrai. However the Assistant Superintendent of the Court Patoda
who signed on it has made an endorsement on 30th November 1989 “verified
that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court’’ and the
endorsement in Xerox also shows that it was issued by Gevrai Court. The copy
of warrant bears Confidential file No. 21/57outward No.204 dated 17 Isfander
1357 Fasli ( i.e 17.1.1948)

On 3rd September 1997 the District Collector Beed had written a letter
to the Judicial Magistrate Gevrai for verification of the warrant from the
original record including specific queries. A list of 58 names was enclosed
with request to report whether the name of Manik Patilbuva Sanap was there
as stated in the list.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Geveai gave report on 2nd

November 1997 stating that the original record was available and on going
through the Xerox copy it appears that one Shankarrao Shamrao Doke had
applied for certified copy and the copy was issued to Doke.

The Zilla Gauav Samiti treated it as a case of underground freedom

fighter and recommended for grant of pension on the ground that the
application was supported by two freedom fighters viz. Anna Eknath Telap
and Sona Rama Jaybhay, who were sentenced to imprisonment for not less
than two years. Thus the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend his case on
the basis of arrest warrant but as underground freedom fighter.

In his report the Additional Collector, Beed by letter dated 14th July
1998 sent to the Deputy Secretary, informed that the applicant had not
 - 82 -

complied with the requirements of provisions of Government Resolution dated

4th July 1995 and therefore even though case is recommended by the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti, it is not fit for grant of pension,

The officer who submitted note to the High Power Committee relied
on the warrant and report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate Gevrai to the
Collector regarding verification of the warrant.

However, Under Secretary made endorsement that the Urdu warrant

was not got verified from the original record and the case is not fit for
sanction. Thereafter Member Secretary Advocate Rajabhau Zharkar made
endorsement to sanction the claim and it was accepted by all other members
and Chairman and pension was sanctioned.

He was called by the Mane Committee and his statement was recorded
on 5th February 2003. In his statement recorded by the Mane Committee he
stated that he supplied bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters at Domri Camp
and he clearly stated that he was not required to leave village or go out of
village and no warrant was issued against him and he was not prohibited from
entering the village, and he has not done any other work than providing
breads.

The supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced

to imprisonment for two years namely Anna Eknath Telalp, Sona Rama
Jaybhay show that the affidavits were already fully typed and the name of
Manik Patilbuva Sanap was written in hand in the typed affidavit. Even in his
own affidavit dated 21st June 1997 names of three persons Ramling Swami,
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and deceased Vamanrao Vaze are typed and thereafter
the name of Sona Rama Jaybhay is added in hand writing to the typed
affidavit. There is no reference of the name of Anna Eknath Telap in his own
affidavit. He has produced certificate of one Kashinath Tatyaba Jadhav who
was head of the Pathardi Camp.

Along with application dated 2nd May 1988 wherein he claimed that
warrant was issued against him, he has produced a Xerox copy of warrant
which is not certified copy but is claimed to be Xerox copy of a certified copy.
 - 83 -

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting held on 1st August 1997
recommended his case for grant of pension on the basis of warrant bearing
outward No.204 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli (i.e 17th January 1948 ) It is stated in
the recommendation that the copy of warrant is obtained from Ambajogai
police station and it appears to be in connection with the Hyderabad Mukti
Sangram, and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that he took part in the
Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and therefore recommended the case for grant of
pension. However, one Member Pandurang Waman Joshi noted that there was
no verification of the warrant.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the claim.

When he appeared before Mane Committee truth came out from his
mouth that he was only providing breads (bhakari) only to residents of Dombri
Camp and was not required to go out of village.

In his affidavit he has relied on the warrant issued against him and
stated that at present he has no documents and the documents are filed with the
application.

Even the High Power Committee relied on the warrant verification

report. The Additional Collector, reported that the case was not fit for
sanction and even though there was report from the Gevrai court the note
made by the Under Secretary had brought it to the notice of the High Power
Committee that the warrant was not got verified from the original record after
which the Member Secretary endorsed that the verification report be accepted.

The affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap and

Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same infirmity as noted in the general part
of this report. Even in his own affidavit dated 21st June 1997 the name of
Sona Rama Jaybhay is added later on in hand writing after the affidavit is
typed and there is no reference to the name of Anna Eknath Telap which
fortifies the conclusion that their statements in affidavits are not trustworthy.
 - 84 -

There is no warrant bearing File No. 21/57 F outward No.204 dated 17

Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January 1948 in the file received from
the office of Patoda tahsildar and the so-called certified copy produced is
Xerox copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on which the Assistant
Superintendent of Patoda Court made endorsement that it is true copy of
Xerox copy issued by Gevrai Court, who had no authority to issue such
certified copy in respect of record of other Court and this endorsement is
therefore meaningless. If in fact he was convinced that the certified copy was
issued by Gevrai Court on 7th September 1988, he could have applied for a
certified copy to that Court but the reason for resorting to get the Xerox copy
of the same certified as true copy from Patoda Court, obviously is that he was
aware of the fact that there was never any arrest warrant against him. Even his
statement before Mane Committee that he only provided breads (bhakari) and
he was collecting breads (bhakari) from his own village for providing it to the
freedom fighters shows that he was not required to live away from his house
and that he did not play any other role in the freedom movement.

The signature of the Tahasildar on the warrant bearing file No. 21/57
outward No. 204 dated 17 Isfandar 1357 F received from Gevrai Court is not
tallying with the signature of the Tahasildar Patoda on the undisputed
correspondence and official notes found in the said file and said signature also
does not tally with the signatures on the warrants received from Ambejogai
police station and Patoda Tahasildar. Thus a warrant of which he produced
copy claiming it to be Xerox copy of certified copy was itself a forged
document. The claim of the respondent can not be granted on the basis of a
forged document. Having failed to make out case on either count, and having
produced a forged documents, the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to
him deserve to be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 85 -

File Case No. 66 (Respondent No.66)

Shri Shahadeo Kerba Ugalmugale

The application was filed on the basis of Warrant issued in File No.
10/21/81 bearing Outward No. 221 dated 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli equivalent
to 14 June, 1948.

The copy produced is a Xerox copy of certified copy signed by Nazir

of Patoda Court whereas the warrant is issued by Tahsildar Patoda and as such
Nazir of Patoda could not certify it as true copy. It is a true copy of a Xerox
copy issued by Tahsildar and since it was signed by Court Nazir, it bears seal
of Court and the endorsement on the copy dated 26.6.88 is “verified that this
Zeroz copy is true copy of copy issued by Tahsildar Patoda on 17.10.86” Sd/-
Nazir cum COC Patoda. The case was recommended not as a case based on
arrest warrant but case of Underground Freedom Fighter in view of affidavit
of two Freedom Fighters.

Additional Collector in his letter to Dy.Secretary dated 14.07.98 has

written that there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated
04.07.1995.

The applicant’s affidavit dated 22.06.90 stated that warrant was issued
against him. In his original application he has not stated the names of Anna
Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay whose affidavits have been considered
as the Freedom Fighters supporting him who were sentenced to not less than
two years in the freedom movement.

The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaibhaye shows
that name was inserted in the typed proforma of the affidavit.

The applicant filed another application on 15.06.1999 in which he

included the name of many other Freedom Fighters and also stated for the first
time that he was required to live awary from his house. Affidavits of the the
Freedom Fighters supporting him were sent directly to the High Power
Committee and were not placed before the Zilla Gaurav Samittee.
 - 86 -

The note to High Power Committee referred to the copy of warrant,

affidavits of two freedom fighters and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti
and granted the pension.

Applicant appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was

recorded wherein he stated that he worked against British Government and did
mention that he worked in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.

He has stated that he worked at Kharda camp and Pachangri naka

without mentioning that he took part in burning of Pachangri naka whereas the
supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap stated that he was involved
along with the respondent in the attack on Pachangri naka and Antarveli naka.
The name of Shahdev Kerba Ugalmugale is added in ink in the blank space
left in the already prepared format of affidavit stating therein that 50 to 60
other persons were involved in the said act. Similar is the affidavit of Sona
Rama Jaybhay where in the incident of attack and burning of Daskhed police
patil wada and office is stated to which the Respondent has made no reference
and here also the name is added in ink in the typed format of affidavit. On the
basis of these affidavits the Zilla Gaurav Samittee has recommended the case.

In his application he has referred to the incident of burning Pachangri

Naka and Daskhed police patil wada and office. The affidavits he filed after
receiving notice are of freedom fighters who were neither absconding for two
years nor sentenced to two years imprisonment namely Maroti Bhau Sanap
and Govind Ranoji Sanap. The earlier two affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay
and Anna Eknath Telap, suffer from the infirmity of addition of name. His
contention that he was involved in the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka,
Daskhed police patil wada and office are stated in the application as well as in
the affidavit but not when his statement was recorded by Mane Committee.

He has also relied on warrant in File No. 10/21/81, outward No. 221,
14 Amardad 1357 F of which he has produced Xerox copy and got the same
certified from the Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court though it was not
of a document in the record of Patoda court. The warrant is not available in
record of Patoda Tahsil or record received from Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Georai or Ambajogai Police Station. When the so called 18 origianl
 - 87 -

warrants received from Patoda Tahsil, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Georai
and Ambajogai Police Station are found to be forged and false, how can the
zerox copy, original whereof is not available anywhere can be believed to be
genuine and reliable.

The documents of which he produced zerox copy and which he claims

to be arrest warrant issued against him being totally unreliable, his entire
claim is suspicious. This further raises a serious doubt in the affidavits of all
the supporting freedom fighters who swear the incidents in detail and
regarding his involvement in the same along with them as he himself did not
state on oath before the Mane Committee any of the said incident or even his
participation in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. He has produced a copy of
warrant original where of is not available.

The proceedings of Zilla Gaurav Samiti also show that it was earlier
stated that as the original record was not available the copy of warrant could
not be relied upon and Zilla Gaurav Samittee does not recommend. Thereafter,
the word Not (Nahi) is scoured out and written as Yes (Aahe) and it is stated
that as the said document is connected with Hyderabad Movement the Samiti
recommends whereas one member Mr. P. V. Joshi disagreed stating that there
is no verification report of warrant.

The High Power Committee note is vague and all the above stated
defects were not put up in the note. Even the additions and alterations in the
supporting affidavits were not brought to the notice of the High Power
Committee.

Before Mane Committee he orally stated about cutting of Shindi trees

and providing breads (bhakri) to the freedom fighters. None of the incidents
stated in his affidavit and/or the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters
are referred. How could he forget such incidents if he was in fact involved.

The Commission therefore finds that he was granted Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits though he failed to prove entitlement and relied on copy of a
non existent document and the same be cancelled forthwith and recommends
accordingly.
 - 88 -

File Case No. 69 (Respondent No.69)

Shri Waman Narayan Vighne

He applied for pension in view of warrant issued against him by

Tahsildar Patoda in File no. 205 outward No. 201 Dated 24 Isfandar 1357
Fasli i.e. 24th January, 1948.

True copy of warrant bears stamp of Collector office. True copy is

Xerox copy certified by Lecturer of P.V.T. Arts, Commerce and Science
College Patoda. Xerox copy shows that it is copy of certified copy alleged to
have been issued by Georai Court which could not a certified copy as the
original warrant was issued by the Tahsildar and not by the Court.

Zilla Gaurav Committee in its meeting 31.12.1998 stated that it does

not recommend the case and the word not is scoured out in his own
handwriting, Chairman has mentioned that the case is recommended [by
changing word no (Nahi) to yes (aahe)] stating that his name is in the warrant
and the warrant appears to be about Hyderabad Movement. One of the
members took objection to the recommendation.

High Power Committee considered the affidavits of two Freedom

Fighters namely Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

Affidavits of two Freedom Fighters were not filed with original

application. His affidavit dated 15.01.1997 was filed before the High Power
Committee and it was not before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Similarly the
affidavits of two Freedom Fighters Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo
Balwant Aher were not before Zilla Gaurav Samiti but were filed befor the
High Power Committee.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he cut Shindi

Trees and supplied breads (bhakari).

As regards the comments of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti one thing is clear
that the endorsement of the Chairman was made on the date of meeting and
the objection raised by one of the member P.V.Joshi is also recorded on the
same date. Although with his application dated 4th December 1998 which he
 - 89 -

sent after he received notice, he has produced additional affidavits of Sahebrao

Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher.

However, his claim was considered by the High Power Committee as

underground freedom fighter on the basis of affidavits of Namdev Balawant
Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. His statement that he was required to live
away from house has come for the first time in his affidavit dated 4th
December 1998 and same is contradictated by his own statement before Mane
Committee that he used to provide breads (bhakari) to the persons involved in
the freedom movement and doing the work of burning nakas and cutting
shindi trees.

Another aspect of the matter is that the original warrant in file No.

205/57 F outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 Fasli copy whereof is

produced by this respondent is received from the Gevrai Court. The

Commission has already given detailed reasons in the part containing general

reasons in respect of warrant cases in which it is clearly stated that the

signature on the warrants in the file of Gevrai Court does not tally with the

signature on the warrants received from the Patoda Tahsil and warrants

received from in the Ambajogai police station. Moreover the warrants which

were traced in the Gevrai Court file are not in the file of Patoda Tahasil

wherefrom warrants originated nor are they in the file of Ambejogai police

station. The warrant copy issuspicious. He has resorted to produce Xerox

copy of a documents knowing well that the original is not in the file especially

when he was not aware whether arrest warrant was issued against him as

stated by him in his deposition before Mane Committee. It is difficult to accept

the genuineness of his claim to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits. Incidents

narrated by him in his application are not narrated by the supporting freedom

fighters in their affidavits and what incidents they have narrated are not similar
 - 90 -

to that what is stated before the Mane Committee as he merely stated that he

had provided breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters. It is claimed that any

other work was done in the freedom movement by him. The Commission,

therefore, recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him

be cancelled.
 - 91 -

File Case No. 80 (Respondent No.80)

Shri Raghunath Khandu Wanve

Application filed by Raghoji. He filed affidavit of Abaji Wanve Dated

03.09.1996 alongwith his own affidavit of the same date. He also filed
affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap on dated 03.09.1996.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on 13.01.1999 based on

affidavits of supporting freedom fighters one of whom was absconding for two
years. However, the other person Ahaji Wadju Wanve is not a Freedom
Fighter who was sentenced to two years. Abaji Wadju was sentenced to three
months imprisonment only.

Recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti is defective. Abaji Wanve

was sentenced to three months imprisonment land not to two years.

Additional Collector, Beed by his letter dated 20.03.1999-noted

objection that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated
04.07.1995.

High Power Committee accepted the recommendation in view of two

supporting affidavits, one of lwhom, i.e. Abaji Wadju was not qualified to file
such affidavit. The note also refers to arrest warrant.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he does not know
Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Narayan Dagdu Chaure and Thaksen Shankarrao
Dhase.

The Additional Collector had brought to the notice of the High Power
Committee that one of the freedom fighters who filed supporting affidavit was
sentenced only for three months although the name stated in that letter is
incorrect and the name should have been stated as Aabaji Wadaju Wanave
who was sentenced to three months. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti also referred
above said two affidavits. In his reminder letter to the Collector he has also
not made reference to any arrest warrant issued against him nor he has referred
 - 92 -

to arrest warrant in his affidavit. However, the High Power Committee

referred to report from Gevrai Court in respect of warrant Confidential File
No. 21/57 outward No. 204 of 17 Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th
January 1948. Before Mane Committee also he did not claim that arrest
warrant was issued against him. However, the report of verification relied
upon is in respect of warrant about which the Commission has discussed in
detail in separate part relating to the general reasoning of warrant cases and
has found that the signature of the Tahasildar on the warrant received from
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court Gevrai does not tally with the signature
of the Tahsildar Patoda on the undisputed documents and also does not tally
with the signature found on the warrants received from the Ambajogai police
station and Tahsildar Patoda. At the cost of repetition it may be pointed out
that the claim is not based on arrest warrant issued against him and the
statement of the Respondent on record does not disclose that any arrest
warrant was issued against him. His further statement before Mane
Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari). The fact that he was
available in the village, providing breads (bhakari) and still was not arrested,
shows that no warrant was issued against him.

He also did not claim that there was warrant against him. For all these
reasons the Commission finds that respondent failed to establish his claim on
either counts as required by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995 and failed to prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits and recommends cancellation thereof forthwith.
 - 93 -

File Case No. 82 (Respondent No.82)

Shri Babasaheb Kisanrao Wanve

He filed application on 21.11.1998 and claimed pension on the ground

that warrant of arrest was issued against him in file No. 21/ 1357 Fasli
Outward No. 204 Dated 17 Isfandar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January
1948. He produced Xerox copy of warrant on which the endorsement is “
verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court,” It
is signed by the Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector, Beed to
Civil Judge , Georai alongwith list of 58 persons making specific queries.

The Civil Judge by letter Dt/- 02.11.1997 reported that original record
is not available and from the Xerox copy it appears that the copy was issued
to Shamrao Doke by the Court. The Civil Judge endorsed ,with reference to
the list received by him that certain names were in the copy of the Warrant and
certain names were not in the copy of the warrant. From the report it is clear
that name of about 33 persons were not in the warrant i.e. in the Xerox copy.
It is thus clear that, even the Xerox copy did not include the names of all the
persons which were referred to by the Collector vide letter dated 10.08.1998.
The Civil Judge also informed the Collector, that the original record of the
warrants outward No. 201,202,203,204,205 and 617 of 1357 Fasli was not
available in his Court.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 08.10.1998 stated that he
has filed affidavits of two Freedom Fighters who were sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than two years and recommended the case for grant
of pension.

However, the Additional Collector by letter dated 13.10.1998

addressed to the Section Officer, pointed out that there was no compliance
with Government Resolution Dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of two Freedom

Fighters and also to the copy of warrant and verification report which was to
the effect that the name of Babu Kisan Wanve was in the warrant and
sanctioned the pension.
 - 94 -

The copy of warrant produced is not a certified copy. It is a true copy.

It is not signed by the officer of the same court which is alleged to have issued
certified copy. Moreover , when all the names according to the enquiry made
by the Collector were not found in the copy of the warrant, the copy becomes
doubtful.

The High Power Committee was probably influenced by the

verification report in which it is stated that his name is there in the copy and
also because Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case and sanctioned
pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he does not
have the copy of the warrant and Sahebrao Sanap of Wadzari gave copy to
him. He cannot produce certified copy of warrant. He referred to the meeting
in which the Advocate Wamanrao Waze had given speech and that he was at
Domri Camp for seven to eight months and he was conveying news from one
camp to another. He was not knowing Sahebrao Sanap prior to filing of
application for pension. He categorically stated that no warrant was issued
against him.

Thus in the copy of warrant produced all the names referred by the
Collector to Gevrai Court for verification were not found as per the report.
More over in the general reasons relating to warrant cases, the Commission
has discussed regarding this warrant and found that signature thereon was not
tallying with the undisputed signatures of Tahasildar in the record received
from Collector Beed pertaining to Patoda Tahsil and also with warrants
received from Ambajogai police station and Patoda Tahsil. The warrant is
therefore not only a doubtful document but forged one. The facts stated by
him in his own affidavit are not referred to in affidavits of supporting
freedom fighters namely Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thakasen Dhase and
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. The facts earlier narrated by him were not stated
by him before the Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath.
Considering the fact that he ventured to produce and rely on such a forged
documents the claim should have been rejected outright. The Commission is
therefore of the view that he has failed to prove entitlement for Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits and same granted to him be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 95 -

File Case No. 149 (Respondent No.149)

Shri Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve

Sandipan Kondibhau Gholve applied for pension on 14.08.1995 and in

the application stated that he worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement
under the leadership of Namdev Balawant Khade, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane .
However, no spcific act has been referrd to in the application.

In the affidavit dated 02.08.1995 he has stated that he worked under

the leadership of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao Vaze
etc. at Kharada Camp and has produced affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Namdev Balawant Khade.

In Form No.8 submitted on 05.08.1995 he has stated in addition to the

other aspects about arrest warrant issued against him. He has produced merely
Xerox copy of warrant which is not even a true copy signed by any authority.

He was issued notice on 10.06.1997 and in response he stated that he is

complying with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and producing
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane.

In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 7.11.1996 his name is

added in ink to the affidavit already typed. Similar is the affidavit of Bhima
Umaji Bangar with the same contents and addition of his name in ink. The
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap is dated 20.1.1997 which refers to 90 to 95
groups working with Wamanrao Vaze and Namdev Khade and instance in
which 50 to 60 persons took part wherein Vishwanat Teli had killed the
Pathan.

He again filed affidavit dated 08.12.1998 in which certain more

instances are added stating that hand bomb was thrown on the Tent of
Tahsildar by Sukhdev Patil, his four brothers and their sons. One girl was
kidnapped by Pathan from Sarni and 200 persons had gone to rescue her, they
fired and got her released.
 - 96 -

He further stated that Sahebrao Ganpat Sanap and for addition of one
more name space is left blank and in that blank space nothing has been typed
further.

He filed affidavit dated 8.12.98 of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap who was

absconding for two years. In addition he has stated the incident in which two
persons were killed at Wadzari. He then relied on affidavit of Manik
Tulshiram Anubhule dated 08.12.1998 in which different incidents are quoted.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 1.7.1997 referred to the
affidavit Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended
the case for sanction of pension.

However, the Additional Collector by letter dated 10.07.1997

addressed to the Deputy Secretary stated that there is no compliance with the
provisions of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and granted pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that warrant was
issued against him but no certified copy of warrant has been produced. He
had cut shindi trees and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap etc.
were working with him. He has also named the other persons whose affidavits
were filed by him. He however, stated that he does not know whether his
name is there in the warrant . Hehas not produced certified copy of warrant.

He has also claimed pension on the ground that he was underground

freedom fighter and it has been so considered by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and
High Power Committee. In his application he did not give reference to any
incident and even in the detailed affidavit filed on 2.8.1995 no specific
incident is stated by him. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is vague.
One Bapurao Kedar has also filed affidavit but he was not sentenced to two
years imprisonment. In his application to the Collector dated 30.7.1997 he
referred only to the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay
and later on added the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, He thereafter
 - 97 -

produced one more affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 7.11.1999 in

which the name of Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave is added in ink and some
more portion is added in ink to the typed affidavit. Similar is the affidavit of
Bhima Umaji Banger. However he was not sentenced to two years
imprisonment and was absconding for nine months and was not qualified as
per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 to file supporting
affidavits. The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap filed as late as on 20.1.1997
mentions incidents of burning of pachangri naka, antervali naka, claiming that
Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave was also with him along with 50 to 60 persons
which Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave has not stated in his own affidavit. He
thereafter filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant
Aher. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap does not mention particular activity in which
Sandipan Kondibhau Gholave was involved.

Moreover although he claimed pension as underground freedom

fighter, and has also relied copy of on warrant bearing confidential file

No.205/1357 Fasli outward no. 209 dated 24 Isfandar 1357 Fasli (21.1.1948).

The original warrant is received from Gevrai Court regarding which detailed

comments are made in the separate part regarding reasoning in respect of

warrant cases. The signature thereon is not found to be genuine as not tallying

with the signature of Tahsildar Patoda on the undisputed correspondence and

also with the warrant received from Ambejogai police station and Patoda

Tahsil.

The High Power Committee made passing reference to the arrest

warrant and treated the case as of underground freedom fighter. Having

produced copy of the warrant signature on which is doubtful and not tallying

with undisputed correspondence, the claim does not stand on that count.

Therefore he is not entitle to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the claim is
 - 98 -

wrongly granted and the Commission therefore recommends cancellation

thereof.
 - 99 -

File Case No. 170 (Respondent No.170)

Shri Jalindar Narayan Bikkad

Applied for pension on 14.8.1995 as underground freedom fighter and

also produced Xerox copy of warrant alleged to have been issued by the
Tahasildar Patoda in file No. 21/57 outward No. 203 dated 12 Isfandar 1357
Fasli equivalent to 12th January 1948.

His case was treated as of the underground freedom fighter. He filed

affidavit dated 11.08.1998 and also produced supporting affidavit of Narayan
Dagadu Chaure dated 29.9.1998 in which name of Jalindar Narayan Bikkad is
added in handwriting in the blank space left in typed affidavit. He also
produced affidavit of Thaksen Shankrrao Dhase dated 24.9.1997 in which also
his name is added in the space left blank in the affidavit which was already
typed. He stated names of Thaksen Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure for
the first time in the affidavit dated 15.09.1997. In his earlier affidavit dated
11.08.1995 although he named number of other freedom fighters he did not
refer to these two freedom fighters.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.12.1997

recommended his case on the basis of affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher
and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector recorded his objection on the ground that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and that
there is no affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap on the record.

The High Power Committee referred to affidavatis of Narayan Dagadu

Chaure and Thaksen Shankarao Dhase and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded on

24.2.2003 wherein he stated that he cut 5-10 Shindi trees at Kalegaon Tahasil
Kaij, dis not pay lavy, Neknoor police issued warrant against him but on
enquiry he was told in 1984-85 that original record was burnt. He further
stated that he statyed in Kharda Camp for 10-11 months and during that period
burnt Pachangri naka, Daskhed Naka but no warrant was issued. However he
was declared abscoding by Neknoor police. There is nothing worth noting in
affidavit filed before the Commission.
 - 100 -

Thus the affidavit of the supporting freedom fighter filed by him suffer
from the infirmity that his name is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit
and there is no signature on the addition. The name is added in place left
blank so as to use for any person approaching the said freedom fighter.

His claim has been considered by the Zilla Gaurav Samittee and High
Power Committee on the basis of warrant as well as on the basis of his being
underground in the freedom movement. As regards the warrant bearing
confidential file No. 21/57 outward no. 203 dated 12 Isfandar 1357 Fasli, the
Commission has already made detailed comments in the separate part
regarding reasons in cases of warrants of arrest on which claims are made by
different Respondents. Thus having relied on such a false documents his
claim even as underground freedom fighter becomes suspecious and doubtful
and in any case supporting affidavits which contain addition of the name
which addition has been made at the later stage to the typed proforma of the
affidavit cannot be accepted as genuine and even as a statement on oath. It can
not be affidavit in the proper sense and is not worth the paper on which it is
written.

One of the Member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had mentioned that
warrant is not properly verified because there was no original record available.

The Commission therefore finds that the officers noting on the file that
it is not the case pertaining to warrant but it is a case of underground freedom
fighter, in fact misled the High Power Committee though in fact the case was
on both the counts. The defects in the affidavits which are obvious on a mere
perusal are also not pointed out to the High Power Committee.

As regards the warrant the Commission has already commented in

detail in the reasons contained in the separate part of the report regarding
general reasons for warrant cases. Having produced copy of such warrant he
was not entitled for Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him. The
Commission therefore finds that on the either of the grounds he was not
entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him
deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.
 - 101 -

File Case No. 195 (Respondent No.195)

Shri Namdeo Bhau Sanap.

He applied for pension on 20.07.1990 and stated in the application that

he was involved in Freedom Movement and worked under Ramling Swami
and Sahebrao Sanap as underground freedom fighter and also worked under
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap.

He filed affidavit dated 12.07.1990 and thereafter another affidavit

dated 13.2.1997. The second affidavit is detailed affidavit which is stereotype
like many others affidavits in other cases.

He also filed the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 21.06.1997 in

which his name is added in a different type in space left blank for writing the
name and similarly in affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne also his name is
added in differnet type in the proforma already typed.

He filed further affidavit dated 15.09.1999 in which he stated that

warrant was issued against him and in support he filed affidavit of Namdeo
Balwant Aher dated 10.09.1999 and affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule
dated 10.09.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred to the
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne as well as Urdu
warrant copy and verification report of Civil Court Ashti and relying on the
affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years
imprisonment, recommended the case for the sanction of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 15.07.1998

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee however, referred to the warrant and his
own statement in affidavit and sanctioned pension. The under secretary made
an endorsement that the warrant is not verified and his name is not in the
warrant.

The District Collector Beed has addressed letter to the Civil Judge
Ashti enclosing Xerox copy of the warrant in file No. 21/57 Outward No. 202
 - 102 -

dated 21 Isfandar 1357 F and list of 16 persons making specific queries on

04.09.1997 to which Civil Judge replied on 01.10.1997 that original record is
not available in his office and the copy is issued from the Court but on page
No.2 at line No.34 in the Xerox copy there appears addition and out of the list
16 persons sent to him none of the names appears in the copy and for this
reason the under secretary has made aforesaid note while placing the matter
before High Power Committee.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that warrant was
never issued against him.

It is obvious that the warrant verification was done from Xerox copy
itself and to ascertain reliability of warrant of which record was called for
from all possible sources in Beed District but original is not traceable
anywhere. It is difficult to imagine as to from where he procured the Xerox
copy. He has also not explained from where he obtained the Xerox copy. He
has only produced Xerox copy of copy issued by Court which cannot be
treated as certified copy and in the absence of availability of original warrant
anywhere such copy is of no help and could not have been relied upon by the
Government.

In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane his
name is added by typing the same on carbon copy. It is obvious that the
affidavit was prepared for some other persons of which a carbon copy was
retained and filed with addition and alteration which is not signed by
anybody.

Thereafter he produced further affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher

and Manik Tulsi Anbhule, both dated 10-09-1999. Later affidavits contain
incidents to which Respondent himself never made any reference in any of the
affidavits nor the persons who filed supporting affidavits earlier made
reference to those incidents.

The verification report shows that Xerox copy sent to the Civil Court
by Collector contained a list of 16 persons and none of the name was found in
the Xerox copy of urdu warrant. In fact it is mentioned in the report that the
 - 103 -

name appears to be added at Sr. No. 32 which fact was brought to the notice of
High Power Committee by the under secretary in his note. Thus having
produced a suspicious document to support his claim concerning his activity
in the freedom movement, the entire evidence produced by him become
suspicious. Moreover the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are also
not reliable and therefore on either of the ground he can be said to have made
out case as required by Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

His statement recorded before the Mane Committee is equally vague

and not a particular incident is referred to by him in the entire statement.
Having realized that copy of Urdu warrant produced by him does not even
contain his name, he stated that the said document was not produced when the
application was filed and he was not aware of the contents thereof.
Considering the aforesaid facts the Commission finds that he has failed to
make out his case either as underground freedom fighter or on the basis of
arrest warrant issued and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits could not have been
granted and the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and
Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 104 -

File Case No. 201 (Respondent No.201)

Shri Pandurang Aba Nagargoje

Applied for grant of pension on 24.12.1997 as underground freedom

fighter and in his application he stated that he worked at Kharda camp under
Namdeo Khade and Wamanrao Waze.

He filed affidavit dated 23.12.1997 in which he has stated names of

seven freedom fighters with whom he worked which include Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakne, Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap.

The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 07.10.1997 is a typed

affidavit and name of Pandurang Aba Nagargoje with further description that
he was beaten by police and was required to leave his house is added in ink to
the typed affidavit and at the end also there is addition of one sentence that he
could not take education. Similarly the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated
28.11.1997 also contain the same addition in ink. He also filed another
affidavit dated 13.10.1998 in which he has stated names of Pandhari Ganpati
Nagargoje and has stated that warrant was issued against him and in support
produced the affidavit of Pandhari Ganpati Nagargoje and Raghunath
Pandurang Bade. He has also produced Xerox copy of warrant in File No. Nil
outward No. 101 dated 4 Bahman 1357 F i.e. 04.12.1947. The Xerox copy is
not signed by anybody.

However, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 31.12.1997

treated the case as of underground freedom fighter and relied on the affidavits
of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna EknathTelap and recommended grant
of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote to Deputy Secretary on 15.07.1998 that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

In note dated 20.09.1999 put up to High Power Committee it is stated

that he has filed Writ Petition in the High Court and has stated about his
activities against Nizam Government as underground freedom fighter, Zilla
Gaurav Samittee has recommended his case and filed supporting affidavits so
 - 105 -

the case is fit for grant of pension and the High Power Committee granted the
claim.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

in which he first stated that there was no warrant issued against him. However
further stated that he has produced zerox of warrant issued by Patoda Tahsil
along with application and will produce certified copy of warrant which he
never produced.

Xerox copy produced by him is of warrant bearing confidential file Nil

outward no. 101 dated 4 Behman 1357 Fasli and the original thereof is not in
the file of Tahasil Patoda or in any other file which the Commission received.
Such a copy cannot be relied upon in any proceedings. It appears that for this
reason his case has been treated as of underground freedom fighter by the Zilla
Gaurav Samittee. The supporting affidavits relied upon suffer from infirmity
of addition of name in the typed affidavit. Thus the supporting affidavits are
not trustworthy as there are material alteration and the original warrant is not
in the file received from the Tahasil office Patoda when the copy appears to
have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda on 17.8.1986 and as claimed by the
Tahasildar thereafter the record was submitted to the Collector office. He has
not explained as to how he obtained Xerox copy of a document which is not in
existence. It can not be relied upon and therefore it is clear that the
Respondent had failed to make out case on either of the grounds. The defects
in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters were not pointed out to the
High Power Committee by the officers putting up notes.

When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was

recorded on oath he referred to the incident of burning of Daskhed police patil
wada and naka which he never stated earlier. He also stated for the first time
that he was living away from house for one month.

The Commission therefore finds that Sanmanpatra and allied benefits

granted to him on non existent grounds deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and recommends accordingly.
 - 106 -

File Case No. 231 (Respondent No.231)

Narayan Shankar Waghmode (Deceased) Legal Representative Widow
Shrimati Bhagubai Narayan Waghmode.

Narayanrao Shankar Waghmode applied for pension claiming to be

underground freedom fighter on 3.5.90 and in his affidavit of the same date he
has referred to arrest warrant issued against him. He died on 18.3.1996.

He filed Xerox copy ofwarrant in File No. 10/11 Outward No. 1-

90/Conf dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli. The copy is signed by Special
Executive Magistrate as true copy and it shows that it is made from the copy
issued to one Kisan Gunaji on 2.8.1986.

After notice was issued to him on 28.07.1997 one affidavit was filed
by his wife Bhagirathibai Waghmode as Narayan Shankar Waghmode died
on 18.03.1996. Extract of death register was produced by her. However, what
is surprising in this affidavit filed after his death is that she claimed that she
herself is Freedom Fighter and she had taken part in Freedom Movement and
a stereotype affidavits filed stating that she was working at Kharda Camp
under the leadership of Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Waze, Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. All these persons
were working at Pathardi and she has filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
and Anna Eknath Telap as well as Sona Rama Jaybhay.

In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 26.08.1997 it is stated

that Bhagirathi bai was the Freedom Fighter and her name is added in the ink
to the typed written affidavit which is carbon copy. Similar is the affidavit of
Anna Eknath Telap. This also is a carbon copy and her name is added and it
is stated that she was the Freedom Fighter.

There is one more suprising aspect of this case that on record there is
one affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode dated 07.09.1999 when his wife
had earlier produced record of death certificate showing that he died on
18.03.1996. This affidavit is a detailed affidavit containing various incidents
and names of number of freedom fighters in which Narayan Shankar
Waghmode claims to have worked underground and that he was required to
live away from his house for 09 to 10 months. The thumb impressions at two
places on this affidavit are taken in such fashion that it will be difficult to
verify and even expert will not be able to form any opinion. The Deponent
Narayan Waghmode has been identified before the Awwal karkun before
whom affidavit was sworn by one Adv. L. N. Kulkarni Beed Court.
 - 107 -

She also filed affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher dated 07.09.1999

who was also identified before Awwal Karkun by Mr. L.N.Kulkarni Advocate
in which there is repetation of the facts stated in respect of various incidents in
the affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode.

There is one more affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule dated

07.09.1999 wherein he has named Narayan Shankar Waghmode as a Freedom
Fighter who had taken part in the incident of burning of Karodgiri Naka and
Daskhed Patilwada and Office.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1997 stated that it

treated the case as of underground freedom fighter and stated that there is
supporting affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap and
Narayan Shankarrao has filed application in form No.8 and also produced
urdu warrant copy and relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne recommended grant of pension. If the entire
proceeding is seen, it will be clear that this recommendation was for sanction
of pension for the work done by Narayan Shankarrao Waghmode to his widow
Bhagirathibai.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 15.07.1998

that there are affidavits of two Freedom fighters supporting the case
however,there is no compliance with the Government Resolution. It is
surprising that the Additional Collector also did not notice the glaring
infirmity that when original application was filed by Narayan Shankar
Waghmode claiming to be Freedom Fighter, then how after his death
suddenly his wife became the Freedom fighter and filed an affidavit alongwith
supporting affidavits of two freedom fighters mentioning that she was the
freedom fighter and not mentioning the name of her husband whereas one of
the affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule was to the effect that Narayan
Shankar Waghmode was freedom fighter. The Additional Collector also did
not notice that the Affidavit of Narayan Shankar Waghmode is sworn after his
death which is on the face of it a forged document and in fact the Advocate
who identified him before the Awwal Karkun deserves to be severaly dealt
with and can even be prosecuted.

Before Mane Committee Bhagubai appeared and stated on 5.3.2003

that her husband was getting pension as freedom fighter, he died about 10 to
12 years back and he had applied for pension. She does not know when he
filed application and what documents were produced. She has categorically
 - 108 -

stated that she is not Freedom fighter but her husband was the freedom fighter
and at the time of freedom movement she was married but her age was 7 to 9
years.

The above stated facts make out a very interesting case and show to
what extent the supporting freedom fighters who had been sentenced to two
years imprisonment could go. Initially application was filed by deceased
Narayan Shankar Waghmode certificate attached to the application is signed
by Bhiwa Raghunath Sanap who was a freedom fighter to whom he knows as
a person working in the freedom movement. Not only this Narayan Shankar
Waghmode also filed affidavit dated 3rd May 1990 claiming to be freedom
fighter and describing various activities in which he was involved in the
freedom movement. He also relied on copy of warrant in file no. 10/11
outward no. 190 dated 14 Bahman 1357 F (14.12.1947) to show that arrest
warrant was issued against him.

On 20.9.1997 his wife gave application that Narayan Shankar

Waghmode died on 18.3.1996 and she is a legal heir entitled to claim pension
payable to him and she produced affidavits of two freedom fighters along with
her own affidavit dated 20.9.1997. In this affidavit, however, she gave a go by
to the entire case made out by her husband and claimed herself to be freedom
fighter who worked underground along with Ramling Swami, Wamanrao
Vaze, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. She has also produced
extract of death register showing that Narayan Shankar Waghmode expired on
18.3.1996. However what is material is not only that she claimed to be
freedom fighter but the freedom fighters supporting her namely Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap also sung the same song. Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane filed affidavit stating that he took part along with 50 to 60 persons in
the incident of burning of pachangri naka and Daskhed police patil wada and
office and she was working with them. This affidavit dated 26.8.1997 is also
interesting in the sense that initially name of Anna Eknath Telap was typed
and scored out and the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane was substituted in the
affidavit. The affidavit is a carbon copy in which name Bhagirathi Narayan
Waghmode is added in ink in the blank space. Similarly even the affidavit of
Anna Eknath Telap dated 5th September 1997 is also a carbon copy wherein it
is stated that Bhagirathi Narayan Waghmode was involved along with him in
the incident of burning Antervali naka and her name is added in blank space
to the carbon copy of the affidavit which was obviously typed as a common
 - 109 -

affidavit which can be used to support any person approaching the said
freedom fighter.

On 7.9.1999 application was sent under the signature Narayan

Shankar Waghmode to the Deputy Secretary claiming that in support he is
filing further affidavit of his own and affidavits of two supporting freedom
fighters dated 7.9.1999.

It appears that having realised that in the earlier affidavits of

supporting freedom fighters Bhagubai wife of Narayan Waghmode is depicted
to be a freedom fighter though in fact she had not applied for Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits, the subsequent affidavits of supporting freedom fighters tried
to corrected the same by stating that she was working alongwith them. The
Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered the application of Narayan Shankar
Waghmode and the High Power Committee treated it as application of
Narayan Shankar Waghmode. In fact Bhagubai was entitled to claim
pensionary benefits as widow of Narayan Shankar Waghmode but when she
and freedom fighters supporting her, the position subsequently claiming that
she was freedom fighter working with them, the entire statement in the
application and in the affidavits become extremely suspicious Even the copy
of so called warrant which is a Xerox copy of certified copy is of no help to
Bhagubai who was admittedly not a freedom fighter.

Thus it is a case in which false affidavits were sworn in by the

supporting freedom fighters even changing the name of freedom fighter and
claiming Narayan’s wife to be the freedom fighter and this was totally ignored
by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as by the High Power Committee. The
notes put up before the High Power Committee were put up by the staff
working in Mantralaya who are responsible officers of the Government and
they have also ignored this material illegalitywhich in fact disentitles the wife
of Narayan Shankar Waghmode to make any claim to Sanmanpatra and allied
pensionary benefits therefore the Commission is of the view that Sanmanpatra
and allied pensionary benefits granted to her as heir of Narayan Shankar
Waghmode deserve to be and be cancelled and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
 - 110 -

File Case No. 235 (Respondent No.235)

Shri Karhari Shivram Sanap.

He applied for pension on 20.07.1996 claiming that he worked as

underground freedom fighter under the leadership of Kashinath Jadhav and
took part in the attack and burning of Karodgiri Naka He has produced
supporting affidavit of Sahebrao Sanap dated 05.07.1996 and Limbaji
Kondirao dated 13.05.1996. Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap is qualified as there was
arrest warrant against him for two years.

After he was issued notice to comply with the requirements in view of

Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakne, Sona Rama Jaybhay. In the affidavit filed on 23.06.1997 the name of
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane is added at Sr. No. 2 by erasing with the help of
whitener the earlier name written and similarly the nam of Sona Rama
Jaybhay is added by erasing the earlier name by using whitener and there are
no signatures on these alterations. The affidavit of Nivruti Dhakane is dated
23.06.1997 and the affidavit of Sona Rama is dated 26.06.1997. In the
affidavitof Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in the ink to typed affidavit.

He again filed affidavit of Karbhari Ganpati Sanap as well as Bhima

Umaji Bangar and Narayan Keshav Pawar and his own affidavit. In all these
affidavits which are filed after the Government Resolution there is an attempt
to show that there is compliance with the Government Resolutiion by stating
that he was required to leave his house for 9 months and he and his family
members suffered hardships.

He appeared before Mane Committee . His statement was recorded in

which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp for 09 to 10 months and
took part in the incident of burning Daskhed patil wada and office and warrant
was issued for his arrest.

In the affidavit filed before Commission more or less earlier statements

are reproduced.
 - 111 -

As stated above the affidavit of Karbhari Shivram Sanap contains

erasures. The affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997 shows that

name of Karbhari Shivram Sanap was added in ink to the type written

affidavit. There is no signature of any person on the alteration.

Probably having realized the defects in the affidavit he filed further

affidavit adding the name of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and narrating

altogether different incidents was filed and in support he produced affidavit of

Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. In this affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated

13.8.1998 while quoting incident in which two persons were killed in the

firing by Nizam police the name of Gunaji Wanave is written and for adding

one more name space is left blank which has never been filled in and the

affidavit was sworn in with the blank space. The question therefore is as to

how one can believe these persons merely because they have suffered in the

freedom movement when they can file affidavits containing statement as is

required to support applicant freedom fighters without least regard for the

truth of the contents.

The arrest warrant produced by him is only a Xerox copy of a certified

copy issued by Gevrai Court of file No. 21/57 F outward No. 204 dated 17
Isfander 1357 F. The so called original of the warrant is received from the
Gevrai court in response to the summons issued by he Commission and there
is observation in respect of all the warrants, in another part of this report
which need no repetition and be considered as part of reasons of this case also.

Even the remarks of the Additional Collector regarding non reliability

of the warrant was totally ignored.
 - 112 -

Therefore case of Karbhari Shivram Sanap suffers from serious

infirmity, the affidavits filed in support include forged affidavits and even the
warrant of which Xerox copy is produced is not genuine.

In his statement before Mane Committee he referred to the meeting of

Ramling Swami wherein there was firing a because of firing he ran away and
lived away from his house for nine to ten months, which is a clear
improvement. It is therefore a case in which Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to Karbhari Shivram Sanap deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith
and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 113 -

File Case No.247 (Respondent No.247)

Shri Tukaram Keru Sanap

He applied for pension on 26.6.1989, on the basis of the arrest

warrant issued against him and also on the ground that he was underground
freedom fighter.

He produced Xerox copy of warrant which itself is a copy of copy and

on the copy there is endorsement of Nazir Cum COC , Patoda “verified that
the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Tahasildar Patoda as on
17.10.1990.” Warrant copy shows that it was in file No.10/21/81 Outward
No.221 dated 14 Amardad 1357 Fasli i.e. 14 June 1948.

He filed affidavit dated 4.2.1997, of freedom fighters Sona Rama

Jaybhay, in which name of Tukaram Keru Sanap is added in the affidavit
already typed. He filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 24.08.1997
in which also name of Tukaram Keru Sanap is added in the typed affidavit
afterwards. In the earlier application he had nowhere referred to Sona Rama
Jaybhay. All these additions are typed in blank space and the difference in the
type and ink is visible to naked eye.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred only
to affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay treating the
case as of underground freedom fighter did not make any reference to the
arrest warrant allegedly issued against him and recommended his case for
grant of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 14.07.1998

that he has filed affidavits of freedom fighters who were sentenced to two
years imprisonment, however there is no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation with

reference to his affidavit and two supporting affidavits.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he is not aware

whether arrest warrant was issued against him and he is also not aware whose
supporting affidavits are filed by him and further stated that he had entrusted
 - 114 -

the job to Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and said Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
produced the necessary documents.

In the detailed affidavit filed before the Commission, he has made

further improvements by stating the names of renouned freedom fighters like
Swami Ramanad Thirth for the first time.

Thus the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters which are stereo
type containing certain incidents which the said freedom fighters have
mentioned in many other cases are not found in his own affidavit filed as late
as on 4.2.1997. In the statement before Mane Committee and in the affidavit
filed before the Commission he has made similar averment without quoting
any particular incident.

Regarding the copy of warrant produced by him which is alleged to be

a Xerox copy of certified copy signed by the Assistant Superintendent Patoda
Court stating that he has verified the Xerox copy which is true copy of copy
issued by Tahasildar Patoda. This endorsement is dated 26.6.1988 and the
Xerox copy shows that it was issued on 17.10.1986. When he also could have
applied for the certified copy but he chose to secure such a copy which was
signed as true copy by the Nazir-cum-COC of Patoda court who had no
authority to certify a document not forming part of Court record. Even the date
26.6.1986 written above remarks shows that there is erasure and alteration in
the last two figures of year. The Respondent has sworn affidavit on 26.6.1990
before the same Nazir-cum-COC and therefore it appears that he changed the
date to 26.6.1986. The original of this warrant is not found in the file received
from the Patoda Tahasil office and even in record received from Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gevrai and Ambejogai Police Station. The Commission
has already given detailed comments in separate part of this report regarding
original warrants received from different sources including Patoda Tahsil.

Therefore the Respondent Tukaram Keru Sanap has not only failed to
make out case either as underground freedom fighter or as person against
whom arrest warrant was issued in the movement but has resorted to filing
forged affidavits. The Commission therefore recommends that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him to be and be cancelled
forthwith.
 - 115 -

File Case No.252 (Respondent No. 252)

Ramrao Saluji Sanap (Deceased) represented by wife

He filed application for grant of pension on 22.06.1990 claiming

pension as underground freedom fighter and also on the basis of arrest warrant
issued against him in file No. 21 Outward No. 202/1357 Fasli dated 11
Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 11th January 1948 and produced Xerox copy
signed as true copy by one Chartered Accountant and the said copy appears to
be a copy of copy originally issued by the Ashti Court on 12.04.1990. The
endorsement of Nazir COC of Patoda Court appearing in the Xerox copy is
”verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on
12.04.1990”.

He also filed detailed affidavit dated 9.2.1999 wherein he named

number of freedom fighters working at Domri Camp and stated that he worked
underground and was helping the freedom fighters and made further
improvement showing compliance with Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995, that he lived away from his house for 9 to 10 months and was
suffering from hardship.

In support he produced the affidavits of Vishwanath Devrao Rakh and

Bhagawan Ambaji Rakh dated 09.02.1999.

Thereafter he again filed further improved affidavit on 07.09.1999

stating the names of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher
which were not stated earlier and that he was required to live away from house
for 10 to 11 months

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29.1.1999 referred to

the copy of warrant. It is stated in the minutes that in the warrant copy his
name does not appear and word not is scored out and it is thereafter written in
different ink that name appeares in the warrant and it is further written in the
Marathi translation of the copy there is name of the applicant. The copy is
secured from the Civil Court but the Court did not certify it and original
record is not available and therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not
recommend. Here again the word not is scored out and stated as yes ( Nahi
 - 116 -

converted to Ahe). However, one of the Member P.V.Joshi recorded that he

does not agree.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 20.3.1999 to the Section

Officer stating that the original record is not available and the copy could not
be believed, and he has also not complied with the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation as

the note referred to his activities against the Nizam Government and held that
there is compliance with Government Resolution and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that no warrant was

issued against him. He was required to live away from his house. He does not
know Namdev Balawant Aaher.

When the Commission issued notice he was no more and his wife filed
affidavit. She has no personal knowledge.

The affidavit dated 22-06-1990 of Ramrao Saluji Sanap shows that

initially it was prepared as affidavit of Dnyanoba Rama Nagare and later that
name was erased and name of Ramrao Saluji Sanap was added with change in
age and residence. The said affidavit is not only signed by Dnyanoba Rama
Nagare but it was also verified and below that there is stamp of Judicial
Magistrate, Beed and thereafter signatures of Dyanoba at two places were
scored out and Ramrao Saluji Sanap signed in place of it.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated it as a case based on arrest warrant and
relied on the copy of the warrant. Additional Collector rightly pointed out that
original record is not available and so the copy is not reliable.

In his further affidavit a totally new case was made out disclosing
names of some freedom fighters not referred to earlier as he had to file
supporting affidavits of those freedom fighters. He filed affidavit of Namdev
Balawant Aher dated 7.9.1999 who was identified before the Avval Karkun on
30.7.1999 though the stamp paper of affidavit was purchased on 31.7.1999
 - 117 -

and Advocate identified him on 30.7.1999 i.e. one day before purchase of the
stamp paper. Similar defects are found in another affidavit of freedom fighter
Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 7.9.1999 wherein also Advocate Shinde
claims to have identified him on 30.07.1999. The date of swearing the
affidavit and identification creates doubt about entire document styled as
affidavit which loses all scantity of statement on oath.

Regarding the warrant in confidential file no. 21/57 Outward no. 202
dated 11 Isfandar 1357 Fasli i.e. 11th January 1948 copy whereof is relied
upon in this file, the Commission has already commented upon in another part
of this report which needs no repetition.

He appeared before Mane Committee and in his statement on oath did

not refer to the name of any of the supporting freedom fighter stating that he
does not remember their names and stated that he was required to live away
from his house for two to four months. He has referred to the names of
Vinayakrao Deshmukh and Bhaiyyasaheb Deshmukh resident of Dombri
which names are no where stated by him earlier. Thus obviously he had come
up with a false and concocted case and produced documents and affidavits
which on the face of it are false or totally unreliable. Unfortunately the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti did not notice it and in the note put up before the High Power
Committee the defects were not pointed out by the concerned staff of the
Mantralaya. However, under secretary had mentioned that the warrant has not
been verified.

The Commission therefore finds that Ramrao Saluji Sanap was not

entitled for Sanmanpatra and allied benefits on the basis of such evidence

which contained forged affidavits and false documents and the Commission

therefore recommends that Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be

cancelled forthwith.
 - 118 -

File Case No.255(Respondent No. 255)

Shri. Bhagwan Dagadu Sanap

He applied for grant of pension on 03.06.1991 on the basis of warrant

issued against him bearing confidential Outward No. 101 1357 Fasli dated 4
Behman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 4th December 1947. He has also produced
another copy of warrant in file No.21/2/ 1357 Fasli, Outward No. 406 dated 4
Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 4th December 1947.

He filed one affidavit dated 4.4.1990 wherein he merely stated that he

worked underground in the freedom movement along with Trimbak Ganapati
Sanap, Wamanrao Vaze etc.

He filed another affidavit dated 21.06.1990, after notice was issued to

him in view of the new Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. It is a
stereotype affidavit in which the names of number of freedom fighters are
included namely Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna
Eknath Telap.

In the supporting affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 31.05.1997

name of Bhagwan Dagadu r/o Wadzari Taluka Patoda is mentioned in ink in
typed affidavit and similarly in the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated
17.7.1997 the name is mentioned in ink to the typed affidavit.

The warrant copy was sent for verification to the Police Station
Ambajogai by the Section Officer General Administration Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai and in reply dated 21.09.1999. Police Inspector reported
that in the copy the name of Bhagwan Dagadu Sanap is mentioned as
Bhagwan Dagadu Wanzara.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 23.12.1997 referred to

the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and also to the
Urdu copy of warrant mentioning that warrant is not verified but there are
affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years
imprisonment and recommended the grant of pension.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 15.7.1999 to the Deputy

Secretary stating that the warrant is not verified and there is no compliance
with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
 - 119 -

The High Power Committee however stated in the note that the
warrant is verified from the original record by Police Station and accepted the
recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he stated that he cut shindi trees and has not done any other work in
the freedom movement. He specifically stated that he was residing in his
house only but warrant was issued against him. Sahebrao Sanap and Bhanudas
Sanap asked him to apply for pension and filed their affidavits in support. He
does not know Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has not stated the
names of two freedom fighters referred above who have filed supporting
affidavits.

Regarding the warrant in file received from Ambejogai police station

bearing no. 21/2/1357 Fasli outward no.406 dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli
(4.12.1947), copy whereof is relied upon in this case, the Commission has
already commented in other part of this report. He has also produced copy of
another warrant issued on same date bearing outward no.101 original whereof
is not available anywhere. The affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane as well as Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity
of addition of name in ink to the typed format of affidavits containing
repetition of the same incidents and claiming his involvement in the said
incidents whereas in his affidavit dated 4.4.1990 he claims to have worked
with Trimbak Ganapati Sanap.

The supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters qualified to file such

affidavits are defective and unreliable because of the additions pointed out
above and the warrants are also not reliable as stated in the separate part of
this report with necessary details.

Before Mane Committee he specifically admitted that he was residing

in his house which falsifies his contention that arrest warrant was issued and
pending against him.

The Commission therefore finds that claim based on such type of

affidavits and documents could not have been sanctioned by the Government.
The Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to him deserve to be
and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 120 -

File Case No.258 (Respondent No. 258)

Keru Daji Nagargoje

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 20.07.1997

and stated in his application that warrant was also issued against him and
stated names of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna
Eknath Telap. He filed affidavits dated 30.6.1997 which are stereotyped
affidavits.

In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the name Keru Daji
Nagargoje is added in hand writing and similarly in the affidavit of Sona
Rama Jaybhay dated 8.7.1997 the name of Keru Daji Nagargoje is added in
hand writing.

He again filed affidavit dated 26.3.1999 in which he disclosed further

names of freedom fighters Bhima Umaji Bangar, Karbhari Tatya Bangar,
Namdev Balawant Aaher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and further stated that he
was required to live away from his house for ten months. He filed affidavit of
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 20.2.1999 and one more affidavit of Manik
Tulsiram Anubhule which is also stereotyped.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 9.7.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay
and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, however, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on

10.7.1995 that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation of

the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded

in which he stated about the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and he cut shindi
trees. He does not know that warrant was issued against him and he was away
from his house for 10 to 12 days. He stayed in the hills due to fear of
 - 121 -

Razakars. He does not know who filed affidavits in support of his case and he
does not know what documents are filed.

However in the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated all
the facts with all particulars.

In addition to the claim based on being underground freedom fighter

he has also relied on arrest warrant issued against him in File No. Nil outward
No. 217 dated 2 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2.12.1947. He filed another affidavit
dated 30.06.1997 which also appears to be a typed format already prepared
and his name and names of his heirs were added afterwards. The affidavit of
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the infirmity pointed
out above stating the very same incidents i.e. burning of Pachangri Naka,
Daskhed Police Patil Wada and office and Antarwali naka and his name is
added in ink to typed format. He filed further affidavit dated 26.3.1999
probably after notice was issued to him and in this affidavit it is stated that he
had to live away from his house. In this affidavit dated 26.3.1999 there is
sufficient improvement and the fact which were not stated earlier as well as
the names of other freedom fighters are also mentioned herein. He has filed
supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram
Anbhule dated 23.2.1999 in which Manik Tulsiram Anubhule stated the
incident in which he was sentenced for three months. He further stated that
there were 160 persons with him including Keru Damu Nagargoje. However
it is obvious and admitted that Keru Damu Nagargoje was not sentenced and
was not accused in the case in which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap claims to have
been convicted. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap has not stated involvement of Keru
Damu Nagargoje in the incident.

The affidavit is prepared in the name of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule

and the Advocate has identified Manik Tulshiram Anubhule before the Awal
Karkun before whom the affidavit was sworn but on the affidavit there are
thumb impressions of Keru Damu Nagargoje at two places specifically
mentioing that it is thumb impression of Keru Damu Nagargoje. This affidavit
cannot be treatedas affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule as it bears the
thumb impression of Keru Damu Nagargoje and merely because the authority
 - 122 -

before whom it was sworn has stated that Manik Tulshiram Anubhule was the
deponent. In that case thumb impression of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule ought
to have been taken on the affidavit. Thus at least three of the affidavit of the
supporting freedom fighters cannot be treated as affidavit as in earlier two
affidavits there are additions which are not signed by anybody as pointed out.

In addition he produced arrest warrant in File No. Nil Outward No 217

2 Baheman 1357 Fasli i.e. 2.12.1947. Regarding this warrant received from
Patoda Tahsil the Commission has already commented in detail in separate
part of this report and found that the same is not genuine and, therefore, those
comments are not repeated. He appeared before Mane Committee. He simply
refers to the meeting of Wamanrao Waze and did not narrate any incident in
which he was involved in the freedom movement. He does not know who has
given supporting affidavits as all the work of affidavit was done by Sahebrao
Ganpati Sanap. Before Mane Committee he did not state on oath that he was
required to live away from his house. Thus, on both the grounds he had failed
to make out case as per the requirements of the Government Resolution and in
fact supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters are defective to such an
extent that they cannot be treated as affidavit and the sanctity attached cannot
be said to be in existence in the case of same affidavit.

The Commission is therefore of the view that he failed to prove his

entitlement on either of the counts and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserves to be and should be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 123 -

File Case No.259 (Respondent No. 259)

Thakaji Genu Sanap (Deceased) represented by wife. Kisnabai

Applied for grant of pension on 24.7.1990 as underground freedom

fighter and also claimed that warrant was issued against him. He filed
affidavit dated 20.7.1990 in which he stated that he worked from Domri Camp
under Wamanrao Vaze Advocate and warrant was issued against him.

In support of his claim he filed affidavit of Shamrao Aabaji Khatal

dated 20.7.1990.

He filed another affidavit dated 4.2.1997 which is stereotype affidavit

in which the name of Thakaji Genu Sanap is added to carbon copy by typing
and later on. He filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated 25.2.1997 in
which his name is added afterwards in different type and similar is the case of
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 25.2.1997 in which his name is added by
typing afterwards.

He again filed affidavit dated 27.2.1998 in which he added the names

of Sona Rama Jaybhay , Namdev Balawant Aaher and Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap and in support filed affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated
27.2.1998 in which his name is added in the blank space in different type and
the affidavit itself is a carbon copy.

He thereafter filed another affidavit dated 3.3.1999 in which he added

the name of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and filed supporting affidavits of
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 26.3.1999 affidavit of Manik Tulsiram
Anubhule dated 9.3.1999. In his affidavit dated 3.3.1999 he stated for the first
time that he was required to live away from his house for 10 months.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 20.6.1997 recommended

his case relying on the affidavits.

The Additional Collector, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 5.7.1997

that here is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee rejected his claim first. However,

thereafter further note was put up that he has filed affidavits in compliance
 - 124 -

with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the note further stated that
claim is rejected by the Chairman and Member Secretary and has not been
rejected by the Chief Minister. Whereas the earlier note signed by the
Secretary to Chief Minister that the recommendation of the department
rejecting claim is accepted by the Chief Minister and surprisingly in spite of
such a clear endorsement, a misleading note was put up that the Principal
Secretary to Chief Minister has neither stated that it is sanctioned nor stated
that it is rejected.

It is further stated that he has produced documents as required by the

Government Resolution. He worked underground. He filed affidavits of
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Dagadu Chaure and
Thaksen Shankarrao Dhase and has stated that the police has burnt his house
and there was firing for one and half hours at the freedom fighters at Daskheda
and he was one of them and therefore in view of the new evidence his claim is
sanctioned.

How note was put up to mislead the High Power Committee that the
claim has not been rejected by highest authority i.e. Chief Minister who is the
Chairman of the High Power Committee is beyond comprehension and it
appears that in order to see that his claim is considered again this misleading
note was mischievously put up by the Mantralay staff. The note however
states that he has filed affidavits of Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thaksen
Shankarrao Dhase. In fact on record there are no affidavits filed by these two
freedom fighters that is Narayan Dagadu Chaure and Thaksen Shankarrao
Dhase and with such note it was proposed to sanction his claim.

Thereafter the under secretary mentioned in his note that there is

contradiction in the affidavit of Respondent and the incidents mentioned in the
affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Namdev Balawant Aher and the name
of the respondent is added to the affidavits which were already prepared and it
was recommended that the claim should be rejected. The Member Secretary
as well as the Sabhapati also agreed with this and again there was endorsement
by the Chief Minister’s Secretary that the recommendation rejecting the claim
is accepted by the Chief Minister and he was also informed by letter regarding
rejection of his claim. This endorsement is of 5.3.1999.
 - 125 -

There after further note was made on 23.9.1999 that he has filed copy
of warrant and has explained his sufferings during the freedom movement. His
name is seen in the warrant and he was required to live away from his house,
he was also recommended by Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and the claim be
sanctioned where after again the under secretary mentioned that the warrant is
not verified. However, the higher authorities of the rank of Member
Secretary, Sabhapati , State Minister sanctioned the claim.

The claim was rejected for the second time on 5.3.1999.

On 10.3.1999 one Government Resolution was issued by the

Government to the effect that the decision of the Government is final and is
not open to appeal or review and after the issuance of this Government
Resolution further note dated 23.9.1999 was put up and the claim was
sanctioned without bringing to the notice of the High Power Committee the
Government Resolution dated 10.3.1999 which was the duty of staff.

How the approached changed from time to time. Why it changes to

radically, remains a mystery. However, it is clear from the above discussion
that even the Government was convinced that he is not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and that decision was reviewed after the
Government Resolution prohibiting such review was issued by the
Government.

Furthermore the Commission has already made its observation

regarding the warrant in File No. 21/57 outward No. 201 dt/- 10 Ispinder 1357
Fasli i.e. 10.01.1948 copy whereof has been produced in this file by the
respondent. The said comments need no repetition here as they are to be
applied to all the cases based on the said warrant. The said warrant is found to
be forged.

For all these reasons the Commission is of the view that he was not
entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him
deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.
 - 126 -

File Case No. 277 (Respondent No. 277)

Shri. Mahadeo Namdeo Vighne

He applied for pension on 22.06.1990 on the basis of warrant and also

claimed that he was underground freedom fighter.

He produced a Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli

Outward No. 202 dated 11 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 18th January
1948. The xerox copy is attested by the Chartered Accountant. He filed
affidavit dated 22.06.1990 in which he claimed to have worked underground
and also claimed that arrest warrant was issued against him.

He filed further affidavit on 20.1.1997 giving reference to the warrant

and stating the names of number of freedom fighters.

The copy of warrant produced is itself a copy of copy with the

endorsement on the Xerox dated 21.6.1990, “verified that the Xerox copy is
true copy of copy issued by Gevrai Court on 12.4.1990.” It is signed by Nazir
of Patoda Civil Court.

He filed further affidavit dated 9.2.1999 stating the name of Bhima

Umaji Bangar in addition to other names and stating for the first time that for
9 to 10 months he was required to be away from his house.

In support he produced the affidavit of Bhagwan Aabaji Rakh.

However he was not sentenced to two years imprisonment. He produced
further affidavit of Devrao Rakh who was also not sentenced to two years
imprisonement.

Thereafter again he filed affidavit of himself dated 7.9.1999 in which

he added further names of freedom fighters viz. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap,
Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aher.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.01.1999 referred to the
copy of warrant and stated that it is issued by Civil Court Ashti and
recommended his case for sanction, wherein one of the member P.V.Joshi
observed that the recommendation is improper. As noted earlier it is not a
certified copy issued by Gevrai Court.
 - 127 -

The Additional Collector and Member Secretary on 20.3.1999 pointed

out that the original record is not available and copy of warrant is not reliable.
Furthermore he has not complied with the Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995.

Before the High Power Committee note was put up that he has stated
in affidavit that warrant of arrest was issued against him. He has filed
affidavits of four freedom fighters and pension be sanctioned to him which
was also sanctioned in view of the note, though the Under Secretary pointed
out that warrant was not verified as original record was not available.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he attended

the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze, warrant of arrest was issued against him. He
stated he will produce certified copy of warrant within 8 days but did not
produce the same.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has filed further

improved affidavit and has referred to the warrant in file No. 205 outward No.
209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 24.01.1948 and produced Xerox copy
thereof.

The copy of warrant of arrest produced by him bearing the

endorsement stated in detail above shows that it is not a certified copy but a
Xerox copy issued by Ashti Court which has been verified by Assistant
Superintendent, Patoda Court. This endorsement is dated 21.06.1990 whereas
the copy of which the Xerox copy is prepared was issued on 12.04.1990
therefore on 21.06.1990 he could have applied straightway to the Court of
Ashti for issuance of certified copy but he resorted to produce Xerox copy of
document. The Commission has received the original warrant from Gevrai
Court copy whereof is produced in this file. The Commission has examined
the aspect of the warrants received from Georai Court and from other two
sources i.e. Patoda Tahsil and Ambajogai Poice Station and has commented in
detail in a separate part of this report which need not be repeated here. The
Commission has found that the warrant received from the file of Georai Court
is not genuine warrant and therefore on the basis of the copy of such a warrant
no claim can be sustained by.
 - 128 -

He had earlier filed affidavit of supporting freedom fighters who were

not having necessary qualification in the sense that they were neither
sentenced to two years nor was there arrest warrant against them for two years
and thereafter he filed affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo
Balwant Aher and for the first time he stated in his own affidavit dated
7.9.1999 that he was required to live away from his house for 9 to 10 months.
The names of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and
Namdeo Balwant Aher were stated by him for the first time in the affidavit
dated 07.09.1999 as he wanted to produce affidavits in support.

In his statement recorded by Mane Committee he has referred only to

the meeting of Wamanrao Waze where there was firing and he has not even
referred to the names of Manik Tukaram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.
He clearly stated that he had not worked alogwith the persons whose
supporting affidavits are filed by him whereas in his own affidavit he had
clearly mentioned to have worked with them and said supporting freedom
fighters also stated that he worked with them in the freedom movement and
the only incident he quoted before Mane Committee is of hoisting tricolour
flag on Tahsil Office which was no where stated by him earlier. He also stated
that for this act he was arrested, he was in custody for two days. If such
incident had taken place as a result of which he was arrested and kept in
custody, he would not have forgotten to mention it in his affidavits. Thus,
neither his affidavit nor the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are
trustworthy and even as underground freedom fighter, he failed to make out
case. He even did not state before Mane Committee that he was required to
live away from his house which fact normally would have been stated by him
if he had to live away from his house.Even otherwise the fact remains that he
produced copy of a forged document which vitiates the entire proceedings.

For all these reasons the Commission is convinced that the

Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and recommends accordingly.
 - 129 -

File Case No. 300 (Respondent No.300)

Shri Shamrao Seetaram Jaybhay

He applied for pension as underground freedom fighter on 11.10.1990.

He filed affidavit dated 21.07.1997 in which he stated that he worked from
Domri Camp as per direction of person in-charge and took part in burning
Karodgiri Naka etc. He was required to go underground for this work.

Notice was sent to him on 06-07-1996. Thereafter he filed another

affidavit dated 4.2.1997 stating the names of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane which were not stated earlier.

He filed supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 03.02.1997

in which name of Shamrao Seetaram Jaybhaye is added in ink to the typed
affidavit. He also filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane 29.1.1997 in
which also the name is added to typed affidavit and the typed affidavit is a
carbon copy.The contents of the affidavits of these two freedom fighters are
practically same as in other cases in which they have filed supporting
affidavits.

He again filed affidavit dated 12.05.1999, in which he has added

number of incidents not stated earlier and the names of Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap, Namdev Aaher, Manik Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar etc. and also
stated that he was required to live away from house for 9 to 10 months. This
statement was also made for the first time.

He filed supporting affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aaher on

17.08.1999 in which there is no statement that he was required to live away
from his house. He also filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated
17.8.1999 in which also it is not stated that he was required to live away from
his house.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 01.07.1997 referred to his
affidavit and the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap
who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and recommended sanction of
pension.
 - 130 -

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 14.07.1998

that there is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case and in the note put up
reference was made to the statements in his affidavit and to recommendation
of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and claim was sanctioned.

It is stated in the note that arrest warrant was issued against him.
There is no reference of the affidavits of freedom fighters supporting. In the
note put up before the High Power Committee, however, on page 1 the names
of freedom fighters supporting him are mentioned viz. Anna Eknath Telap,
Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he attended the

meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and thereafter he stayed in temple for 12 months.
He used to collect and provide bread (bhakari) to the persons staying at
Kharda camp. He specifically stated that he does not know Nivruti Fakira
Dhakne, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Namdev Balawant Aaher and Anna
Eknath Telap.

He filed affidavit before the Commission making further improvement

and adding names of famous freedom fighters. However there is no reference
to arrest warrant issued against him in this affidavit.

Although in his affidavit dated 21.07.1990 he referred to arrest

warrant and produced translation of warrant in file No. 24/1(Confidential)
outward No. 209 dated 21 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 21.1.1948, he did not
produce any copy of warrant even a Xerox copy much less certified copy.

The original warrant, translation whereof produced by him is on

record, was received from Ambajogai Police Station and as discussed in
separate part of general reasons for warrant cases the said warrant is found to
be forged. The High Power Committee has relied on this warrant and also
considered the case as of underground Freedom Fighter.
 - 131 -

As he has relied on a forged document he is not even otherwise entitled

to claim on the ground of being an underground freedom fighter. The affidavit
of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane are suffered from the
infirmity of addition of names. The same can not be even treated as affidavit.
The facts stated in his latter improved affidavit and those of the other two
freedom fighters supporting him viz Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik
Tulsiram Anubhule contain a totally improved version not earlier stated by
him. He has not stated before Mane Committee that he was working
underground in the freedom movement. He was only collecting breads
(Bhakari) from nearby villages. He even stated that he does not know the
supporting freedom fighters whose names are stated in his affidavits and who
filed affidavit stating various incidents in detail. Thus the latter affidavits are
also not reliable and instead of curing the defects they further falsify his claim.

Had he been underground freedom fighter he would not have

forgotten to state it when examined on oath by the Mane Committee. At the
cost of repetition, having produced forged documents to support his claim the
same fails on all counts and the Commission recommends that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled.
 - 132 -

File Case No. 313 (Respondent No.313)

Shri Arjun Khandu Wanve

Arjun Khandu Wanve filed application on 22.8.1995 for grant of

freedom fighter’s pension on the ground that he worked as underground
freedom fighter. In support of his application he placed on record his own
affidavit dated 22.8.1995 and affidavit of Babu Nana Gite and Aba Wadju
Wanve of the same date.

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve filed another application dated

3.7.1997 and additional affidavit of same date in typed proforma in which his
own name is filled in ink in blank space left for that purpose. He also placed
on record affidavits dated 2.7.1997 of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama
Jaybhaye wherein the name of Arjun Khandu Wanve is added in ink to the
already typed affidavit.

Thereafter the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated Nil relied on
the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
recommended application of Arjun Khandu Wanve for grant of pension.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 10.07.1997 stated

that as there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995
it was not a fit case for grant of pension.

The High Power Committee rejected the application vide order dated
10.12.1997 on the ground that there was no compliance of Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve filed affidavit dated 29.1.1998 of

Thaksen Shankarrao Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure to substantiate his
claim.

On the basis of these two affidavits further note was put up before the
High Power Committee to reconsider the application and sanction it. As the
Additional affidavits fulfilled the requirements of Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995. The High Power Committee further held that there is no
 - 133 -

compliance so it is not a fit case and consequently the application came to be

rejected on 23.4.1998.

Thereafter Arjun Khandu Wanve placed on record Xerox uncertified

copy of warrant issued in file No.21/1357 Fasli outward No.204 dated 17
Isfandar 1357 Fasli i.e. 17th January 1948 and Xerox copy of letter dated
19.12.1997 issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Court Gevrai. He also
placed on record additional affidavit dated 10.12.1998 wherein he mentioned
the names of all supporting freedom fighters and also placed on record the
affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

Thereafter he filed his own additional affidavit dated 11.5.1999 and

affidavit of Padurang Balawant Wanve dated 11.5.1999.

There are two recommendation letters dated 14.5.1999 and 5.6.1999 of

Deputy Chief Minister for grant of pension to Arjun Khandu Wanve.

Thereafter relying on the additional affidavits placed on record by

Arjun Khandu Wanve and in view of recommendation of the Deputy Chief
Minister, the High Power Committee sanctioned application on 4.10.1999.

On 17.03.2003 statement of Arjun Khandu Wanve was recorded before

Mane Committee, wherein he stated that he worked under Kashinath Jadhav.
He does not now remember the names of freedom fighters who supported his
claim and in what work he was associated with them.

So far as the arrest warrants is concerned the Commission has already

commented upon in detail in another part of this report finding that the said
warrant is not genuine for the reasons stated therein. The affidavit of
supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne are
defective in view of the addition of names and cannot be treated as affidavits
as they lose all sanctity in relation to the addition of the names to the type
format of the affidavits.

There is one more important aspect of the matter. His claim was
rejected by the Government on 18.2.1998 and had been communicated also on
 - 134 -

20.2.1998 and letter was sent to him regarding the rejection of his claim.
Thereafter the claim was reconsidered in view of a note dated 23.06.1999. In
the meantime on 10.03.1999 the Government has issued a Government
Resolution that the claims rejected by the government shall not be
reconsidered on any count and the decision shall not be reviewed. However,
this Government Resolution was not referred to in the note dated 23.06.1999.
Thus the claim rejected on merits could not have been reconsidered even if
there was a letter from Lokayukta.

Before Mane Committee when examined on oath he stated that he used

to provide breads (bhakari) to the persons working on Domri Camp and he
was at the camp only for two days and thereafter Kharda camp for about 4 to 5
days after which he was residing in his village and he was providing food to
the freedom fighters from his village. There was no arrest warrant against him
and he was providing breads to the freedom fighters Gitte and Wanve and
therefore he knows them. He did not come in contact with other freedom
fighters and he does not know the names of the freedom fighters who have
filed supporting affidavits. Thus the statement also falsifies his earlier
statements in the affidavit.

Thus, on merits he has failed to prove his entitlement, the claim was
rightly rejected yet was reconsidered after the issue of Government
Resolution dated 10.03.1999 and as per the said Government Resolution the
decision of rejection could not have been reviewed by the Government and
therefore the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends
accordingly.
 - 135 -

File Case No. 338 (Respondent No.338)

Dattuba Kerba Wanve (deceased) represented by wife Gaubai Dattoba
Wanve.

Dattuba Kerba Wanve died on 28.12.2000. His wife is representing

him in respect of the application he filed on 28.08.1995. He filed affidavits of
Genba Kashiba Gaikwad and Gundiba Bangar.

He filed another affidavit dated 09.07.1997 where in he stated for the

first time names of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as
Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and also filed supporting affidavit of
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 17.07.1997 in which his name is added in blank
space left for that purpose in the tryped proforma by ink and similar is the case
in affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.07.1997 and the contents of the
affidavits are practically similar.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 06.11.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 14.07.1998

that he does not comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated
04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned pension on 26.6.1999 relying

on the verification of the warrant by Gevrai Court and not as underground
freedom fighter as considered by Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

He did not claim pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against
him and did not produce any copy of warrant. It appears that the report in
respect of verification of warrant in file No. 21 Outward No. 204 Dated 17
Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 17th January 1948 was relied upon for grant
of pension in view of the fact that in the report sent by the Georai Court to the
Tahsildar dated 02.11.1997 in reply to Collector’s letter D/- 03.09.1997
reference was made to this warrant and in the list provided for verification
report the name of Gaubai Dattoba Wanve [ Bawane] R/o Vanjarwadi
appeared. The name is not mentioned as Gaubai Dattoba Wanve whereas in
 - 136 -

cases of some of the other persons the name Wanve appears. Here it is
pertinent to note that application was not of Gaubai.

The High Power Committee did not treat the case as underground
freedom fighter but relying on the warrant, verification report of Gevrai Court,
from some other file sanctioned the pension mentioning therein that Zilla
Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case without mentioning the basis on
which the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended the case.

His wife appeared before Mane Committee she has no personal

knowledge and also before the Commission affidavit filed by her is of no
assistance.

Thus the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira

Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the infirmity of addition of
names to the typed format of affidavit bearing no signature or initial on the
addition and cannot be treated as affidavits and the sanctity to the affidavit as a
statement on oath loses all significance in view of such additions and
alteration.

So far his claim based on arrest warrant in Confidential file

No. 21/57 F outward No. 204, dated 17 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 17th January
1948) is concerned the original warrant received from the Gevrai Court on the
summons issued by the Commission has been considered by the Commission
and the Commission has commented upon it in detail in a separate part of this
report and has found that the same is not genuine.

The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 137 -

File Case No. 347 (Respondent No.347)

Shri Deorao Dagdu Sanap

Deorao Dagdu Sanap applied for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension

on 22.06.1990 as underground freedom fighter. He filed affidavit dated
26.06.1990 stating that he was working from Domri camp under the leadership
of Wamanrao Vaze and also stated that since he was absconding his property
was attached by the Government. He filed affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati
Sanap Dated 22.06.90 and Ashruba Bapu Sanap Dated 25.06.90.

Thereafter, he filed affidavit dated 08.02.1997 wherein he referred to

the name of Ramling Swami, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap
in addition to the earlier names. He filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
dated 05.03.1997 in which name of Deorao Dagdu Sanap is added in different
type in the already typed affidavit, in the space left blank for that purpose. He
also filed affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap Dated 12.02.1997.

He thereafter filed further affidavit dated 03.01.1999 in which he stated

for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for nine
months and also added number of incidents not stated earlier. He filed
suporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap Dated 06.02.1999 and Manik
Tulshiram Anbhule dated 08.02.1999 in which he stated that for three to four
months Deorao Dagdu Sanap was required to live away from his house.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 05.06.1997 recommended his

case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 04.06.1997

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of two supporting

freedom fighters namely Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik Tulshiram
Anbhule and accepted the recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and granted
pension on 18.1.2000. It is also stated in the note to the High Power
Committee that there is name of respondent in the warrant and many other
persons whose name appears in the warrant are already sanctioned pension.
 - 138 -

He has produced only Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli
Outward No. 201 dated 10 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 10-01-1948 and therefore
the case appears to have been considered even on the basis of warrant even
though no certified copy was produced and no verification report was called.

He appeared before Mane Committee referred to the affidavits of

Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and stated that he does not know other persons who
have filed supporting affidavits. He provided Bhakaries by remaining
underground. He provided “Bhakari” from his village Wadzari.

Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits at least one of the
supporting freedom fighter is defective in view of additions and alterations
which are not signed by any body and cannot be treated as affidavit.

As regards the arrest warrant in file No. 21/1357 Fasli outward No. 201
dated 10 Isfander 1357 Fasli ( 10th January 1948) is concerned the original
warrant received from the Gevrai Court on the summons issued by the
Commission is examined and has been commented upon in detail in the
separate part of this report and it is found that the same is not genuine for the
reasons stated therein. He further falsified his claim when he appeared before
Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on oath, he stated that he
attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze where there was firing and he ran
away. He used to provide breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters in the camp
after collecting the same from Wadzari. He is resident of Wadzari and
therefore he was residing in his own house and providing breads (bhakari) to
the freedom fighters. He has not referred to any incident and has not claimed
to have taken part in anyother activity against Nizam Government in the
freedom movement.

The Commission therefore finds that he has failed to prove his

entitlement and even the warrant relied upon by him is not genuine and the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 139 -

File Case No. 349(Respondent No.349)

Pandurang Shankar Waghmode (Deceased) represented by wife

Shrimati Kalawati Pandurang Waghmode.

Pandurang Waghmode filed application for grant of freedom fighter

pension on 19.06.1990 on the basis of warrant of arrest issued by Tahasildar
Patoda against him in file no. 402 Outward No. 191/1 Dt/- 15 Behman 1357
Fasli i.e. 15.12.1947.

He filed affidavit dated 23.04.1990 stating that he was underground

from 16.08.1947 to 17.09.1948 and he was working as underground from
Domri camp under leadership of Wamanrao Vaze etc.

He filed further affidavit dated 24.09.1997 in which his name is added

in the place kept blank for writing his name and he has referred to the freedom
fighters’ namely Ramling Swami, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Wamanrao Vaze as
well as Sona Rama Jaibhaye. He filed affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne Dt/-
26.06.1997 in which his name is added in ink to the already typed affidavit
and similar is the case with the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap Dt/-
19.09.1997.

He filed further affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anbhule dated

17.02.1999.

In its meeting dated 29.12.1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the
copy of warrant and stated that the warrant is not verified but he has filed
affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and anna Eknath Telap and relying on
these affidavits recommended his case for pension. The Additional Collector
wrote to the Deputy Secretary that there is no compliance of Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995.

High Power Committee sanctioned his case stating that warrant was
issued against him and he has complied with the Government Resolution.
 - 140 -

Before Mane Committee his wife appeared. She has no personal

knowledge.

Before Commission she has filed affidavit but she has no personal
knowledge.

The warrant in confidential File No. 402 outward No. 191/1 dated 15th
Bahman 1357 Fasli ( 15-12-1947) is not found in the file received from the
Patoda Tahasil. He has only produced Xerox copy and no claim can be
considered only on the basis of a Xerox copy especially when the file of
Tahasildar Patoda does not contain any warrant containing such outward
number and date.

His claim was therefore considered as underground freedom fighter

and supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap
suffer from the same infirmity where the name of Pandurang Shankar
Waghmode is added into the typed format of affidavit and there is no
signature or initial. The affidavit cannot be said to be an affidavit and loses all
the sanctity of statement on oath when there are such additions and alterations.
He filed further affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram
Anbhule but they are subsequently improved versions to fill in the
requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee relied on the warrant without referring to

any verification report. Merely because the name of the respondent appears in
the xerox copy of warrant case could not have been sanctioned by
Government. The Under Secretary has mentioned that the warrant copy cannot
be relied upon, still the claim was sanctioned on the basis of such Xerox copy
of warrant.

For the aforesaid reasons the Commission finds that he has failed to
prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and
the same granted to him deserve to be and should be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 141 -

PART – X

DATE OF BIRTH DISPUTED

Cases of persons whose date of birth is disputed. These cases include

the cases of underground freedom fighters as well as cases of persons claiming
pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against them.

This part consists of the cases of freedom fighters whose claim for
pension sanctioned by the government was challenged by the petitioners in the
PIL on the ground that during the time of freedom movement some of them
were either of extremely tender age that it is improbable to accept that they
could have taken part in the freedom movement and there are also cases of
some persons who were not even born when the Hyderabad freedom
movement took place. The Supreme Court in the judgment of SLP reported in
2005 AIR SCW 4094 which petition was filed against the judgment of the
Division Bench of Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has made following observation in para 2 :–

“It is a sad reflection on the moral values of the citizens of our

country that a large number of cases have surfaced where it has
been established that people who were not even born when the
freedom fight was on the country got independence or were
toddlers when the country got independence have applied for and
managed to get “Sanmanpatra”, pensionary and other allied
benefits. The appeals at hand deal with such allegations. This is
“Asanman” (disrespect) to the whole country and such
dishonourable ventures have to be dealt with sternness to send
out a message that they are not freedom fighters, but are traitors
sullying the name of freedom fight”

In fact such cases create a doubt in respect of genuineness of the

documents and other evidence (oral) i.e. affidavits produced by such persons
in support of their case. When the claim is based on arrest warrant and it is
found that the names of persons are there in the warrant who were either not
born or were toddlers when the warrant was issued, the entire warrant
becomes suspicious. Similarly the affidavit not only of the concerned freedom
fighter but even the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters become
 - 142 -

extremely unreliable or for want of better terms can be said to be false to the
knowledge of the persons swearing such affidavits and filed with ulterior
motive of securing or getting secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as
freedom fighters with the knowledge that the person concerned had nothing to
do with the freedom movement of the Hyderabad State. The Commission
decided to treat such cases in one part.

All these respondents (except one) have not produced any reliable
evidence of their dates of birth even after the petitioners in the PIL produced
documentary evidence of public record like school admission register or
school leaving certificate.

Initially with the application almost all respondents have produced

certificate of age. This was probably for the reason that at that time there was
requirement of the Government Resolution that the age of the freedom fighter
should not be less than 16 years and there was controversy raised afterwards
whether this age limit is to be applied as on the date of application or on the
date on which he claims to have taken part in the freedom movement. The said
controversy was set at rest by the Court in judgment reported in case of
Bhalchandra Trimbakrao Vaidya 1995 (3) BOM.C.R. wherein the Bombay
High Court observed in paragraph No.8 at pg. 372

“ 8. We therefore, hold that the persons below 16 years of age at the

time of their participation in the Freedom Movement cannot be
denied the benefit of Freedom Fighter’s Pension under the Scheme of
the State Government on the ground of age.”

In pursuance of this judgment Government of Maharashtra issued

Government Resolutions (1) No. POS 1092/CR 105/V dated 5th September
1992 (2) POS-1195/1542/3 138/95 dated 2nd November 1995. As per these
Government Resolutions the condition of age limit of 16 years was deleted.
In view of the fact that there was such condition almost all freedom
fighters whose cases are to be considered have produced along with their
application one medical certificate of their age issued either by some
Government Medical Officer or Private Medical Practitioner and these
certificates are to say the least totally useless as no data or examination
conducted by the Doctor on the basis of which such certificates are issued is
 - 143 -

indicated and surprisingly enough in many of these certificates the doctor or

medical practitioner has stated that on the basis of the say of the concerned
person, his age is found to be so and so. This is required to be stated in order
to show that along with application no proper and reliable evidence of age was
produced by any of the freedom fighter and when in the PIL allegations were
made and supporting documentary evidence of copies of school record of the
concerned of freedom fighter was produced showing that he was either of
extremely tender age or a toddler or was not even born, the concerned freedom
fighter has not produced any evidence either before the High Court or before
the Commission to counter the documentary evidence of public record except
in one case, Ashruba Nivruti Rakh , which will be dealt with at appropriate
stage.

CASES OF APPLICANT WHOSE

DATE OF BIRTH IS DISPUTED
Sr. No. Case File Name of the Freedom Fighter Page
No. No.
1. 16 Vishnu Nivrutti Rakh 140
2. 33 Vilas Dajiba Rakh 144
3. 64 Tukaram Gopalrao Jadhav 147
4. 68 Ashurba Bhaurao Rakh 151
5. 88 Lobha Shahaji Patole 155
6. 89 Maruti Ranganath Mundhe 159
7. 90 Trimbak Pandharinath Chate 164
8. 115 Govind Balaji Bhondwe 168
9. 141 Gorakh Anandrao Tarte 171
10. 155 Ramrao Gunaji Wanve 173
11. 161 Govind Dynoba Rakh 176
12. 184 Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh 178
13. 191 Shrirang Narayan Rakh 181
14. 197 Pandurang Ganpati Nagre 184
15. 200 Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar 186
16. 217 Vikram Kisan Wanve 189
17. 218 Tukaram Salba Ghuge 191
18. 219 Limbe Nivrutti Rakh 194
19. 222 Narayan Kisan Rakh 197
20. 275 Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad 200
21. 288 Vitthal Rakhmaji Gopal Ghare 202
22. 319 Dadasaheb Sonaji Bhople 205
23. 329 Maroti Ganpati Misal 207
24. 330 Dadarao Waman Misal 209
 - 144 -

Case file No. 16 (Respondent No.16)

Shri Vishnu Nivruti Rakh

He applied for grant of pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued

against him, bearing file No.21 1357 Fasli outward No.202 dated 11 Isfander
1357 Fasli (equivalent to 11th January 1948).

In the application he stated that he worked under Wamanrao Vaze

Advocate at Domri and arrest warrant was issued against him.

In the affidavit dated 23rd January 1991 he has stated that in the
congress camp at Domri there were four to five hundred persons working with
him and they were working against Nizam Government by going to different
villages. As a result of warrant, he was required to go underground he has
produced Xerox copy of warrant issued by Tahasildar Patoda.

The endorsement on the copy of warrant is to the effect, “verified that

the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by Ashti Court on 12th April
1991 (which should have been 12th April 1990)”.This endorsement is by
Nazir cum COC Court Patoda.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meting dated 21st January 1999 clearly
stated that he has filed copy of Urdu warrant in which his name is not included
and the copy is given by the Civil Court Ashti and as original record is not
available and pension cannot be sanctioned. However after this clear
statement there is addition in ink by deleting the word no (Nahi) and writing
yes (ahe) in its place and adding that therefore it is proper ………One member
P.V.Joshi differed with the recommendation.

In letter dated 13th September 1997 written by the District Collector,

Beed to the Civil Judge, Ashti a list of 16 persons was forwarded requesting to
verify the copy with original record. The accompanying list was of 60
persons.

In reply dated 1st October 1997 Civil Judge, Ashti informed that
original record is not available in the Court and the copy has not been issued
from Ashti Court in regular course by charging fees and in the Xerox at pg.3
two lines No.34 appear to have been added. During verification no name out
of the list of 16 persons sent to the Civil Judge by the Collector was found in
 - 145 -

the Xerox copy of warrant itself. He has filed further affidavit stating
additional names of Namdev Balavant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule
both of whom were sentenced to not less than two years.

After the remarks of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Additional Collector
Beed wrote letter to Section Officer on 20th March 1999 informing that the
copy produced is not issued by the Ashti Court and original record was not
available and as he has also not fulfilled the other provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4th July 1995, case is not fit for pension.

The High Power Committee referred to the copy of warrant and his
affidavit and stated further in the note that in the warrant his name appears in
the English copy and he states to have worked as underground freedom fighter
and how he suffered while working underground and therefore he complies
with Government Resolution provisions dated 4.7.1995 and senior freedom
fighters Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule have supported
his case. There is also recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and his
case be sanctioned. Below that endorsement there is further note by the Under
Secretary that in the Urdu warrant applicant’s name does not appear as
informed by the District Collector and the claim be rejected.

However below that Member Secretary of the High Power Committee

Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar made endorsement that the claim be sanctioned
and hence his application was granted.

In his application he did not mention that he was underground and

warrant was issued against him for arrest. After the report of warrant
verification that his name appears to have been added subsequently he filed
affidavits of two freedom fighters, who were sentenced to not less than two
years imprisonment namely Namdev Balavant Aher and Manik Tulsiram
Anbhule and in his affidavit also made out a case that he was required to live
away from his house for ten to eleven months and he was working under
ground. However, subsequent affidavit of Namdev Balavant Aher does not
state that he was under ground nor Manik Tulshiram Anbhule made that
statement and in fact their affidavits are stereo type.

In the statement recorded by Mane Committee Vishnu Nivruti Rakh

stated that he was supplying breads, he has not done any other work in the
 - 146 -

freedom movement and further admitted that no warrant was issued against
him and he was also not declared absconding. He was also not beaten by the
police. He was living in his house and used to provide breads (bhakari) to the
freedom fighters. Dyanoba police patil Yeola and one Mahadev have filled in
the form and he does not know what is mentioned in the application. He only
put his thumb mark and he is not aware that warrant was issued against him.
He could not tell the full names of the persons who filed supporting affidavits.
He further stated that he has not even met the persons who have given
affidavits in his support, he does not know them and he also did not work with
them.

Petitioners have produced the evidence of his date of birth by

producing certified copy of School Admission and School Leaving Register
maintained by Zilla Parishad Middle School Therla Taluka Patoda, wherein
his date of birth is mentioned as 5th May 1958. It would show that he was
born ten years after the Hyderabad Mukti Sangram was over. According to
entry he was admitted on 10th July 1964 in Balwadi (Primary) and he was
removed from the school on the ground of continuous absence on 28th
February 1967. The School issued this copy on 15th March 2002. There was
no statement made regarding age or date of birth, in any other affidavit but in
the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that his age is 66 years
on 17th November 2005 and has further ascertained that his parents were
illiterate and he was admitted to School at late age and since at the time of
admission age of the student admitted was required to be six years the date of
birth was mentioned in the School register and his date of birth is in fact
different. There is no entry of the date of birth in the Gram Panchayat Record
and the date of birth mentioned in School register is wrong. He has, however,
not produced any documentary evidence. In fact he admitted that he was a
student of that School and his affidavit is sworn making this assertion
purposefully to show that the date of birth as claimed by the petitioners is
wrong which is clearly after thought.

On summons having been issued by the Commission to the Education

Officer, (Primary School) Zilla Parishad Beed he produced the original record
of the admission register of the school and verified Xerox copy of the same is
retained. The entry of the name of Vishnu Nivruti Rakh is at Sr.No.231. He is
shown to be resident of Therala and date of birth mentioned as 5th May 1958.
 - 147 -

In view of the fact that Vishnu Nivruti Rakh does not dispute that he was a
student of this school, his explanation about date of birth mentioned in the
school register, is not the actual date of birth as his parents were illiterate and
he was admitted at late age to school and as at the time of admission age was
required to be shown less, the said date of birth was mentioned, is after
thought and totally unacceptable. It is obvious that having been confronted
with the school record, he had no explanation to offer and has therefore come
up with such illogical explanation, which is not acceptable. There was no
reason for anybody to make wrong entry of date of birth and he has failed to
produce any evidence to counter this entry in the school record. As already
stated he could have produced evidence of date of birth entry of birth register
or voters list or any other public document or the entry made in the record of
Census. The first Census was in the year 1950. The entry of his name would
have appeared in the Census record along with approximate age if he was born
prior to 1950. The fact he made no attempt to produce any evidence to counter
the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner’s shows that he is aware
that no such record could be available and the date entered in the school
register is the correct date of his birth.

Even after notice issued by the Commission he did not produce any
evidence and merely stated in his affidavit that the date of birth mentioned in
the school record and school leaving certificate is incorrect.

The warrant, whereon he based his claim initially by producing xerox

copy, is proved to be a forged document as discussed in general remarks on
warrant cases in separate part of this Report as such on either count he was not
entitled to pensionary benefits.

Thus a person who was born in 1958 has attempted and also succeeded
in the said attempt of securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which is
“Asanman” to the nation and specially to those who were given valuable years
of their prime youth in the movement and have suffered heavily.

For all these reasons Vishnu Nivruti Rakh was not entitled to the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserved to be
and should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
 - 148 -

Case File No. 33 (Respondent No. 33)

Shri Vilas Dajiba Rakh

Vilas Dajiba Rakh applied for pension on 7.10.1987 (19.8.1986) on the

basis of arrest warrant issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in Confidential file No.
101/1357 F bearing outward No. 191 dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 14th
December 1947. In his application he has addressed a letter on 19.08.1986,(in
Hindi)stating that he has worked against Nizam Government and he had
already applied earlier.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector, Beed to
the Tahasidlar Patoda and the Tahasildar submitted report on 19.9.1998. In
the report he has mentioned that it is concerned with activities of congress
goondas in Taluka Patoda and has mentioned names of 30 persons which
appear in the copy and that it includes the name of Vilas Daiba Rakh.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 19.3.1999

recommended his case for grant of pension stating that the Tahasildar Patoda
has stated in letter dated 12.11.1997 that his name appears in the copy of
warrant. The original record is not available, as it is sent to the Collector
office. It is further stated by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that as the original
record was not available, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend the
case for grant of pension and thereafter the negative word no ‘Nahi” is scored
out and it is added that in the verification report his name is mentioned and
therefore the case is fit for sanction of pension.

Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed in his letter dated 30.3.1999

addressed to the Section Officer pointed out that he has not complied with the
provisions of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution and warrant has not been
verified and as original record is not available and the copy cannot be relied
upon.

The High Power Committee stated in its note that the District Collector
had got the warrant verified from Tahasildar. The original record was not
available but the copy is verified from another copy which was obtained on
payment of proper fees. His name appears, in it, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has
therefore recommended his case. However, the Under Secretary noted that
original record is not available and the warrant copy cannot be relied upon yet
the High Power Committee accorded sanction on 13.10.1999.
 - 149 -

He was called by the Mane Committee and his statement was recorded
on 4.2.2003 in which he stated that his elder son was born in 1970 and he was
married at the age of 36 . He was studying in village school up to 1st standard
and in the year 1947-48 school was closed. Thereafter he got admission in
Government School in the year 1950. He passed forth standard examination
in the year 1956 from that school. He studied in Government School at Domri
upto 7th standard and left the School in the year 1960. He produced the extract
of register of admissions and school leaving of Therla Zilla Parishad School,
in which his date of birth is mentioned as 3.2.50 F and date of leaving school
is stated as 11.11.1358 F. There is over writing in the letter (3) in 1358 F.

After notice was issued by the Collector, Beed he filed additional

affidavit, copy of letter addressed by the Tahsildar Patoda to the District
Collector and on issue of notice by Mane Committee, he filed affidavit of
Vishwanath Devrao Rakh stating that Vilas Dajiba Rakh is closely related to
him. The Sarpanch Gram Panchayat issued a certificate that he is cousin of
Babu Dhondiba Rakh who died in freedom movement.

The petitioners have also produced copy School Register issued by

Education Officer, Beed wherein as against Vilas Dajiba Rakh resident of
Patoda date of birth stated is 3.2.1941.

In the public interest litigation the Education Officer Zilla Parishad

produced a list after collecting information from the school record and
verifying the dates of birth. ( Exh.12 ) The date of birth of Vilas Dajiba Rakh
is mentioned as 03.02.1950.

It is from the record of Domri Central Primary School that original

register was produced by the Education Officer on summons being issued by
the Commission and Xerox copy of the concerned pages of the register is
retained after verifying with the original record. The entry of the name of
Vilas Dajiba Rakh is at Sr.No.210. The date of birth is written as 03-02-1941.

In another register of Zilla Parishad Middle School produced by the

Education Officer before the Commission of which also verified Xerox copy
is retained, there is entry at Sr.No. 4/8 and date of birth is mentioned as
03.02.50F. The entry in Middle School record should be as per primary
school record and this entry of 3.2.50F is doubtful. In any case it can not be
1957 F and would be 1350 F which will mean the date of birth to be 3.2.40
 - 150 -

and his age at the time of Hyderabad freedom movement would be 7 to 8

years. It cannot be 1950F which is equivalent to 2540AD. He has produced
certified copy of extract of this register which is also not correct as serial
number mentioned is 04 and not as 4/8. There are erasures. The correct date
of birth is therefore 3.2.1941. He was aged either 6 to 7 years or 7 to 8 years
and in no case he could have taken part in the freedom movement and
specially in the activities stated in his affidavit dated 22.9.1999.

There is one very interesting aspect of this affidavit. It is handwritten

in black ink and on first page after three paras there is signature of ‘Vilas’
(Ilas) and after that para four starts and the contents continue on next page
(overleaf) wherein it is stated that he never took admission in school.
However at the end of the contents on second page there is no signature of the
deponent. It is below the rubber stamp.

Warrants of arrest were normally being issued on the information

about the name and particulars collected from the village police patil or
patwari and there was no reason for police patil or patwari to give the name of
child aged 6 to 8 years. Further more the warrant xerox copy whereof is
produced on record is held to be forged document as stated in a separate part
of this report while dealing with warrant cases in general. So his claim is
based on warrant proved to be false and forged. In such a serious case the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti changed the stand taken and the High Power Committee
ignored the important aspect brought to their notice by the under secretary in
his note.

In any case he has failed to counter the evidence of public record

produced by the petitioners before the Commission as well as before the High
Court and has even gone to the extent of getting the entry forged. The
Commission, therefore is of the considered view that the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 151 -

File Case No. 64 (Respondent No.64)

Shri Tukaram Gopalrao Jadhav

The facts of the case are similar to Bhanudas Gopalrao Jadhav file
Case No. 63 Bhanudas and Tukaram are real brothers.

The claim is based on warrant of arrest issued in File No. 21 Outward

No. 203 dated 12 Insfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 12 January 1948 .

He also claims to be Underground Freedom Fighter.

Along with the application Xerox copy of warrant signed by Notary

was produced. However, it is not a notarized copy in the sense that original
was not before the Notary while signing this copy as true copy in as much as
no original document was available in the record of Ashti Court even at that
time. Tukaram and Gopal had filed writ petition in High Court bearing No.
2575/94 and there was direction to decide their cases within fixed period of
four months.

The endorsement that is seen in one of the Xerox copy is, “this photo
copy is true and correct as per original record” and it is signed by the Assistant
Superintendent Civil Court Ashti on 24.4.1990 on which date original warrant
was not in the file of Civil Court Ashti. The Superintendent of Police Beed
had written to the Collector letter dated 26.5.1995 pertaining to the cases of
Bhanudas and Tukaram that Urdu copy of warrant is illegible and no report
can be given.

In view of this the Zilla Gaurav Samiti refused to recommend the case
and found that the copy of warrant was not reliable.

The cases of Tukaram and Bhanudas were rejected even by the High
Power Committee and they were informed that their claims have been
rejected.

Thereafter Writ Petition 2575/97 came to be filed in the High Court

and further note was put up in view of the petition in the High Court that
 - 152 -

decision will have to be taken in the time prescribed by the Court. The claims
were rejected earlier as no evidence was produced.

However, now they have produced evidence. Further note was put up
to send the document (warrant copy) to the District Collector for verification
and take decision on merits.

Further note was put up that the Collector had given report as per letter
dated 1.2.1997. The Claimants have produced copy of warrant signed by the
Assistant Superintendent Civil Court Patoda and in the English translation
their names appeared. Here it is noteworthy that the photocopy was bearing
the endorsement of Nazir Ashti Civil Court and only the translation was
signed as true copy by the Assistant Superintendent Civil Court Patoda. The
photocopies were not certified by the Court, no comparing fees was paid in
respect of the said copy and the copies produced in both the case are not
certified copies. The Assistant Superintendent has signed thereon hurriedly
and made endorsement thereon as true copy hurriedly and therefore the copies
were sent to Tahasildar Patoda and the verification report was called by the
Collector from Tahasildar. The Tahasil office has informed that original
record is not available with the said office and the copy cannot be said to be
true and correct and the contents thereof cannot be verified.

In view of this Zilla Gaurav Samiti had refused to recommend the case
and the Collector has also not recommended. The claim was liable to be
rejected.

It was further stated in the note that in view of the discussion with the
under secretary the report is being called from the Collector and after the
report of the Collector further decision will be taken.

Surprisingly further note was put up that in view of the petition in the
High Court and the direction to take decision within the prescribed period, the
warrant was sent for verification to the Civil Court, Ashti and in the
verification report sent by the Civil Court it is stated that the copies were
obtained from Civil Court Ashti in 1990-91, therefore the copies obtained are
 - 153 -

proper and legal and the claims be sanctioned and thereafter the claims of
Tukaram Bhanudas were sanctioned.

Thus although no new documents were produce, on the basis of the

same evidence, the note put up was altogether different than the original note
and the claims were sanctioned on the basis of such note.

There was no copy in the file before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti or the
High Power Committee which could be relied upon as copy certified by the
Court from the record of the Court. It is therefore clear that Zilla Gaurav
Samiti rightly refused to recommend the case and High Power Committee had
rightly rejected the claim earlier. However, thereafter the note was modified
and in view of the modified note the claims were sanctioned. The verification
report could be given only by Tahasildar Patoda where the original record
could be available but no record was available with the Tahasildar Patoda and
as such copies produced were not reliable.

The case depends on reliability of warrant in file No.21/57 Outward

No. 203 dated 12 Isfander 1357 Fasli (12.1.48) the alleged original warrant
which was sent to all the Courts in the district was received from the record of
Gevrai Court. The signature thereon is only like initial and is entirely different
from the undisputed correspondence/office notes signed by the same
Tahasildar and the signature also does not tally with the signatures on the
warrants received from the file of Police Station Ambajogai or from the file of
Patoda Tahasil. The Commission has already given detailed reasoning in a
separate part of general reasons of warrant cases and has also stated therein
that the warrants received from all the three sources and the undisputed
documents bearing signature of the same Tahasildar were sent to the
handwriting expert who has given opinion that the signatures neither tally with
undisputed correspondence nor do they tally interse with the other warrants
received from the two other sources nor with other warrants contained in the
same file. The Commission therefore finds that the base of the claim being
warrant of arrest and the same having been found to be false and forged, he
was not entitle to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits .
 - 154 -

Apart from this so far as Tukaram is concerned there is also dispute

regarding his date of birth and the petitioners in PIL produced record

collected from Education Officer Zilla Parishad, Beed and Education

Officer also produced the original register before the Commission of

which verified Xerox copy is retained by the Commission. The name of

Tukaram is after the name of Eknath at Sr. No. 61 but No. 62 is not

appearing in the Xerox copy, his date of birth is mentioned as

17.04.194…further portion of the original register is torn and not

available. However, taking his case at its best the date of the birth could

be at the most 17.04.1940. The dates mentioned in respect of other

candidates on the said pages are of the year 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1944

etc.

In the High Court the Education Officer had produced list of dates of birth

of certain candidates from the record in which the name of Tukaram

appears at Sr.No.13 wherein the date of birth mentioned is 17.07.1944.

This list is marked as Exhibit 12. It is obvious from the list that his birth

was in the year 1944 the last digit 4 was torn after this list was produced

by the Education Officer in the High Court. Even without blaming the

concerned person i.e. Respondent, if it is presumed that it is accidentally

torn, the year of birth could not be less than 1940 and even if it so accepted

his age would be 7 to 8 years at the time of freedom movement making it

highly improbable that he could have taken part in the freedom movement.

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

cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.

 - 155 -

File Case No. 68 (Respondent No.68)

Shri Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh

His first application is of 23.03.1990 in which it is stated that he burnt

Karodgiri nakas and claimed pension as Underground Freedom Fighter. He
also filed affidavit dated 09.03.1990 claiming to be Underground Freedom
Fighter. In his original application and in this affidavit no statement was made
that arrest warrant was issued against him.

Thereafter, he filed another application on 27.01.1997 claiming that

warrant was issued against him by Tahsildar Patoda in confidential File No.
205/1357 F Outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. equivalent 24th
January 1948.

Thereafter he filed affidavit dated 4.9.1998 referring to various

incidents not mentioned earlier and also stated for the first time that he was
required to live away from his house for nine months. The incidents stated in
later affidavit are contained in the supporting affidavits of Namdev Balawant
Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The copy of warrant produced is a Xerox copy certified as true copy by

some Professor of College. Collector also by his letter dated 31.12.1998
pointed out the infirmity.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti had refused to recommend his claim on

31.12.1998. The following parts of the Zilla Gaurao Samiti’s minutes are
worth pointing out :-

On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the original record of

the Urdu Warrant was not available and therefore the copy cannot be relied
upon and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend the case. However,
thereafter the word “not” is scored out in different ink and in handwriting
Chairman Shri Bangar made endorsement that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti
recommends the case as the name is included in the warrant and the warrant is
in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement, as copy is given by
Tahsil office on payment of fees and therefore, the claim be sanctioned. Since
 - 156 -

the endorsement of the Chairman is in different ink the entire proceeding

becomes doubtful and it appears that after the endorsement that case is not fit
for recommendation, the Chairman signed. The signature appears on the
endorsement. The other members also signed and obviously thereafter the
Chairman added this sentence indicating that it is a fit case for
recommendation and put second signature below it.

The affidavits of these two Freedom Fighters, who were sentenced

not less than two years imprisonment, are of 04.12.1998. The Zilla Gaurav
Samiti also referred to the two affidavits in addition to the copy of warrant. In
the affidavits of the respondent freedom fighter dated 04.12.1998 for the first
time he has stated that he was required to live away from his house for nine
months.

After the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti the Collecter pointed out in his
letter that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated
04.07.1995.

The High Power Committee considered his case from both the angles.

It was first considered as case in which warrant of arrest was issued

and it is stated that his name appears in warrant. Reference is also given to
two affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and
the case was thus considered even as of Underground Freedom Fighter.

He appeared before Mane Committee. In the statement recorded by

Mane Committee he clearly stated that no warrant was issued against him, he
did not take part in any activity against Nizam Government except providing
bread (bhakari) to Domri Camp resident and he has not done any act against
the Nizam Government.

There being dispute regarding his date of birth summons for

production of original school record was issued to School authority. On
production of original record, xerox thereof was retained after verification
from original. The school record of Therala school shows that against the
name of Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh date of birth mentioned is 5th March 1951.
 - 157 -

He however, stated that there is another persons of the same name Asarba
Bhaurao Rakh in the same village and he studied in school of Therla and the
said person is at present working as Talathi. Thereafter summon was issued to
the said person Asaruba Bhaurao Rakh . The said person produced his service
record showing that his date of birth is 5th March 1951. There is therefore no
reason to disbelieve the contention of the Respondent that the date of birth
mentioned by the petitioner 5th March 1951 is not his date of birth and
therefore on the ground of age petitioners have not been able to produce any
evidence to show that he was not a born at the time of freedom movement.

The incidents narrated in later affidavits are not in his application.

Although earlier he filed one affidavit along with his application, he had not
stated the incidents which are later on stated by him and the supporting
freedom fighters in their affidavits.

Even these infirmities and contradictions could have been overlooked

but there is another serious infirmity.

He has produced copy of warrant in file No. 205/57 Fasli Outward No.
209 dated 24 Isfindar 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948 . The
Commission has already observed in regard to the warrants of which record
was received from three different sources that the signature of the Tahasildar
on the warrants coming from three different sources were not tallying and the
same were also not tallying with the undisputed correspondence signed by the
Tahasildar as well as with the other warrants received from the same source.
In view of this suspicion the said documents were referred to handwriting
expert to find out whether the suspision, felt by the Commission in view of the
difference in the signatures appearing on different warrants has any basis and
the report of the handwriting expert confirmed that the signatures of the
Tahasildar found on the record of warrant received from Gevrai Court,
Tahasildar Patoda and Ambajogai police station do not tally with each other
and also do not tally with the signatures on undisputed correspondence of the
Tahasildar Patoda at the relevant time. He only produced true copy of warrant
of arrest and as earlier noted even the Zilla Gaurav Samiti felt that the warrant
copy was not reliable and was not recommending his case which
 - 158 -

recommendation appears to have been later on changed under the signatures of

the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Shri Bangar, who has signed on the
note twice first on the negative note and then on the positive note by deleting
word “No”.

The High Power Committee did not consider this aspect of the matter
seriously and it is merely stated that there is recommendation of the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti and there are affidavits of two freedom fighters and his name
also appears in the warrant. It was the duty of the officials to bring this serious
lacunae in the note of Zilla Gaurav Samiti to the notice of High Power
Committee.

Since the original warrant copy whereof is produced in this file is

proved to be forged, his claim can not be sustained on any court.

The Commission, therefore, finds that on either of the grounds he

failed to make out the case of being entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits. The Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and
allied pensionary benefits granted to him be cancelled and recommends
accordingly.
 - 159 -

File Case No. 88 (Respondent No.88)

Shri Lobha Shahaji Patole

He filed application on 01.10.90 stating that he is under ground

freedom fighter. In his affidavit he referred arrest warrant issued against him
and produced zerox copy of warrant in File No. C.C. 205/ 1357 Fasli outward
No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948. The
xerox copy produced by him bears the following endorsement. Endorsement,
“28.9.90 verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by
Georai Court on 20.09.1990.” This endorsement is dated 28.9.1990 when
Gevrai Court had issued certified copy on 20.9.1990, similar copy could have
been secured from that Court on 28.9.1990 also. However, this endorsement
was made by Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court who had neither
authority nor any business to certify Xerox copy of copy issued by Gevrai
Court. The reason for securing such endorsement from another Court is
obvious and reflects how attempts were being made to creat a show that the
copy produced appears as a certified copy issued by the Court.

He had filed Writ petition No. 4833 of 1993 in the High Court and
direction was given to dispose of his application within 6 months.

The District Collector addressed a letter to the Civil Judge Georai on

26.08.97 for verification of the warrant making specific queries and enclosing
a copy of the warrant and the list of 175 persons whose names probably
appeared in the warrant.

The Civil Judge sent his report on 21.11.1197 that the original record is
not available in his office. However, copy appears to have been issued to
Advocate Shri V.T. Chavan. He has no doubt stated that it appears to have
been so issued from the original record which means the record pertaining to
issuance of certified copies. As in the earlier part hehas stated that the original
record of the warrant was not available in his office. In his reply he stated by
mentioning the names in the list sent to him stating against each of them
whether the name was or was not in the warrant. A perusal of the same shows
that the said copy was including number of names. Number of names have
 - 160 -

been stated in reply by mentioning against them that they are not in warrant.
Again a report was called from the Civil Judge whether the warrant is in repect
of Hyderbad Freedom Movement, to which affirmative reply was given by a
letter dt. 26.03.1998 the Civil Judge reported about 12 names pertaining to
different writ petitions which were in the warrant which contain the name of
Lobha Shahaji Patole connected with petition No. 4833/ 1993 and that the
warrant was in respect of Hyderabad Freedopm Moverment.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.04.1998 referred to the

warrant and fact that the Original record was not available but copy was
issued to Advocate Chavan and could not be stated positively to be connected
with Hyderabad Freedom Movement and Committee therefore cannot give
positive recommendation.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Government on 29.07.1998 that

the case was not fit for grant of pension and warrant cannot be positively
stated to be connected with the Hyderbad Freedom Movement in the absence
of original record.

The note of High Power Committee is not in the file.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation have produced record date

of birth of respondent which shows that his date of birth is 09.06.1946. This
record was produced in the PIL with copy of the school record received from
the School. The respondent has not produced any evidence in respect of his
date of birth before High Court or before Mane Committee or this
Commission.

In view of the dispute regarding the date of birth the Commission had
issued summons to the Head Master Zilla Parishad School.

Before the High Court in the Public Interrest Petition the Education
Officer had produced list of 26 persons whose date of birth was disputed.
Lobha Sahaji Patole is at Sr. No.8 and against his name the date of birth
mentioned is 9th June 1946.
 - 161 -

The Commission also issued summons to the Education Officer to

produce the said record. The Head Master had given report to education
officer and inquiry was made by him in which the entry regarding date of birth
of Lobha Sahaji Patole is clearly stated as 9th June 1946. However when the
Commission called for the record the authorities found that from the original
register concerned pages containing the entries at Sr. No. 14 to 39 were torn
and the entry of the name of Lobha Sahaji Patole was on the concerned pages
which were torn. The Education Officer has taken a detailed report from the
Head Master which he has produced and in this report given to the Education
Officer Head Master Raghunath Kale has stated that on 26th January 2005 he
was beaten by the members of the village education committee and therefore
he had sought transfer. He was on deputation from 27.1.2005 and in his
absence Smt. Kawade was incharge and in the said period the pages
containing serial No. 14 to 39 of school register containing admissions and
school leaving entries for the year 1953 to 1964 were torn and caused to
disappear.

The teacher incharge of the school during relevant period had not taken
any action. The said teacher had issued certificate to Lobha Shahaji Patole
that there is no entry of his date of birth in the school record. The said teacher
had also refused to handover charge and filed false complaint against the Head
Master. On 12th July 2007 he joined the said school again and when he made
inquiry regarding the said register, he found that pages containing entries of
Sr. No. 14-39 were torn and entry of name of Lobha Shahaji Patole with his
date of birth was on these pages. He had already submitted copy of said record
to higher authorities prior to disappearance of those pages. The Commission
has retained the Xerox copy of original register and other documents which
shows that the pages containing entries No. 14 to 39 are missing from the
register.

The only person interested in tempering with the record was Lobha
Shahaji Patole as his date of birth was mentioned in the entry contained on
these pages. Considering his date of birth as 9th April 1946, it is clear that he
was just a toddler during the freedom movement of Hyderabad and his entire
 - 162 -

claim as freedom fighter on any ground is totally false and concocted and in
fact even the warrant on the basis of which he had made his claim is
suspicious as no arrest warrant would normally be issued against a child of 1
or 2 years. His attempt of securing Xerox copy and getting it certified as true
copy from the Assistant Superintendent of another Court is inconsonance with
his conduct. The involvement of this person in the act of tempering with the
record of school shows that he can go to any extent in order that his claim
which has been granted and the benefits which he is enjoying should continue.
The certificate of age produced by him along with his application clearly states
that the opinion is given without any examination having been carried out and
is also based on the statement of the said person. At the cost of repetation it
needs to be stated that the only person interested in tempering with the record
of date of birth, being Lobha Patole, the needle of suspension points only to
him and therefore, also this is also a clear case of fraud and as explained by
the Supreme Court vitiating the entire proceedings and on the ground of fraud
the entire claim fails. The original warrant, copy whereof is relied upon being
forged one as observed by the Commission in part dealing with warrant cases
separately. The entire claim must fail.

The Commission therefore finds that Lobha Shahaji Patole is not

entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and the same deserves
to be cancelled and recommends accordingly.
 - 163 -

File Case No. 89 (Respondent No.89)

Shri Maruti Rangnath Munde.

Maruti Raghunath Munde filed application for grant of pension on the

basis of warrant issued against him and a Xerox copy of warrant alleged to
have been from file No.21/1357 Fasli Outward No.270 dated 15 Behman
1357 Fasli equivalent to 15th December 1947, was produced. He has also
produced zerox copy of another warrant in File 21/1357 Outward No. 530
dated 11 Bahman 1357 F equivalent to 11.12.1947. The copy is signed by
Notary as true copy. However, it is obvious that this is signed by the Notary
without having opportunity to have seen the certified copy alleged to have
been issued by the Civil Court Ashti.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.1.1999 referred to the
copy of warrant and stated that from the English translation it appears that his
name was included in the warrant but the original record is not available. The
warrant appears to be connected with Hyderabad Mukti Sangram. The Zilla
Gaurav Samiti did not give any positive recommendation and requested
Government to take decision at the higher level.

In the note put up to the High Power Committee it was stated that he
suffered by remaining underground in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement
which is clearly stated in his affidavit and the affidavits of two supporting
freedom fighters Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.
Arrest warrant was issued against him and the District Superintendent has
certified the copy of warrant. What was produced was only the copy certified
by the Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Beed which is copy of a true
copy issued by the Civil Court Ashti. The statement in the note to the High
Power Committee to the effect that copy is certified or by District
Superintendent is therefore incorrect.

In view of the fact that he also claimed to have worked underground,

he produced affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two
years imprisonment in the freedom movement. In his own detailed affidavit
filed at later stage on 21.1.1999 he stated that he worked from Domri camp
 - 164 -

and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was the person under whom he was working.
He referred to the instance in which one Yadav Patil Buva Sanap and Limba
Bappaji Sanap were killed by the Nizam Police. He also stated that for 9 to 10
months, he was required to live away from his house and that he never
attended any school. The incident in which the aforesaid two persons became
martyr is also referred to in the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and
Namdev Balawant Aher.

However, there is one serious infirmity in the claim of Maruti

Ranganath Munde as his age is in dispute. Before proceeding to refer to the
age dispute, it is necessary to point out that during the course of cross
examination of PW 1 Ramrao Awargaonkar, it was attempted to bring on
record that there is personal enmity between Ramrao Awargaonkar and Maruti
Ranganath Munde because of which Ramrao Awargaonkar has falsely
included the name of Maruti Ranganath Munde and has pressurised the
Education authority and the School Authority to issue false copies of
documents showing the date of birth of Maruti Ranganath Munde to be 06-08-
1942 which according to him is 06.08.1932.

In the Public Interest Petition (PIL) copy of admission register of

Government Middle School Dharur was produced, wherein the name of
Maruti Ranganath Munde is shown. It was marked therein as Exhibit 10 and
entry of his name is at Sr.No.5 on that page wherein the date of birth shown is
06.08.1942.

In view of this original record was called from the Police Station,
Dharur by issuing summons. The original register containing the forged entry
was produced by the police inspector, Dharur as per summons and its verified
Xerox copy has been retained, in view of the pendency of criminal case the
original was returned to concerned police station. Maruti Ranganath Munde is
prosecuted for forgery of School record and the case is said to be pending.

The police Inspector produced the copy of the same admission register
which was also produced in the public interest pitition by the Petitioners and
in this copy against the name of Maruti Ranganath Munde the date of birth
 - 165 -

although appears as 06.08.1932, a close perusal of this entry produced by the

police shows that in the figure 06.08.1932 the number 4 in the year 1942 is
over written and 4 is converted to 3. Similarly in the date of birth written in
words, the word forty is over written and changed to thirty in order to show
the date of birth as 6th August 1932, which was earlier written as 6th August
1942. However in the same register there are two entries of his admission as
he had taken admission in the same school twice in the same year. He was
first admitted as per entry at Sr.No. 293 in Vth standard on 29.6.1954 wherein
the date of birth is clearly mentioned as 6th August 1942 and said entry further
narrates in later columns of the register that his name was struck off from
school register due to non attendance/irregular attendance and this entry is
marked in red ink by the Investigating Officer and he has signed under this
entry. The Xerox copy of the same is retained on record. The readmission
entry is at Sr. No. 594 dated 8th December 1954. The person who forged the
entry at Sr.No. 594 by changing the number 4 in the date 6.8.1942 and
converting it into 6.8.1932 and in the date of birth written in words by
changing the word forty to thirty in order to show the date as 6.8.1932 may not
be aware of the earlier entry No. 293 dated 29th June 1954. The later entry is of
his admission in the Class Vth on 8.12.1954 i.e. in the same year in the month
of December and in the last column it is clearly stated that he is from the
same school and reference is given to entry No. 293 which is referred to
above. As per record he was admitted to the school on 29th June 1954 in Vth
standard and if the date of birth was 06.08.1932 then he would be aged 22
years on the date of admission and normally a person of age of 22 years would
not be admitted in Vth standard whereas a person aged 12 years is most likely
to seek admission and would be given admission in Vth standard. It is
therefore clear that in order to produce record before the Commission, he
obtained a certificate showing his date of birth as 6.8.1932 on the basis of this
entry at Sr. No. 594 wherein the date in number and in words is forged.
Fortunately there being entry of earlier admission of 29th June 1954 in the
same class the correct date of birth is found in the same register.

This evidence clearly exposes the respondent because he was the only
person interested in getting the date changed from 6.8.1942 to 6.8.1932 in
 - 166 -

order to support his claim as he was conscious of the fact that once the date of
birth 6.8.1942 comes on record, the falsity of his claim would be obvious and
case will not be even defendable as his age according to the date of birth
6.8.1942 would be just 5 to 6 years during the freedom movement in which
age he could not have taken part in the freedom movement.

In the documents produced by the school authority there is one Xerox

copy which was even certified and was prepared for issuing to him in which
the date of birth was mentioned as 6th August 1932 but the copy was
ultimately not issued with the endorsement that there is over writing in the
date of birth.

In view of this the case of Maruti Ranganath Munde suffers from

serious infirmity. He was aged hardly 5 to 6 years. In order to justify his claim
the School record was forged (tempered with). The only person interested in
tempering the entry of date of birth in school record being Maruti Ranganath
Munde, the needle of suspicion points only to him and therefore this is also a
clear case of fraud vitiating the entire claim. This person has gone to the
extent forging the school record and is not entitled to any benefits.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Commission

without any hesitation records findings that Maruti Ranganath Munde was
aged about 5 to 6 years at the time of freedom movement and therefore even
the so called warrant alleged to have been issued against him becomes entirely
suspicious.

No arrest warrant would normally be issued agaist a child of 4-5 years.

The entire document which includes his name becomes suspicious. The
Commission has stated in detail in a separate part regarding general reasoning
in respect of warrant case. The Commission having found the signatures on
the warrants received from three different sources and on the undisputed
correspondence in the file of the Tahsildar to be totally different and not
tallying with each other and even not tallying with differents warrants
contained in one and the same file, referred the documents to Government
 - 167 -

Handwriting Expert and his opinion is on record as stated in the part of

General Reasoning.

Another aspect of the same is that not only his affidavit but even the
affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters Namdeo Balwant Aher and
Manik Tulshiram Anbhule describing the detailed incidents in which he was
involved in freedom movement along with them also become unrealiable and
causes serious doubt regarding the said freedom fighters who have filed
affidavits in number of cases.

In fact, he tried to support his claim by fraudulent means and caused

the record to be forged and the fraud vitiates the entire proceedings.

The Commission recommends accordingly that the Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith.

.
 - 168 -

Case No. 90 (Respondent No.90)

Shri Trimbak Pandharinath Chate

Application was filed on 01.10.1990 on the basis of arrest warrant

issued against him by Tahsildar Patoda in File No. 205/ 1357 Fasli Outward
209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January, 1948. In support
he produced Xerox copy of warrant bearing endorsement “verified that the
Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai Court on
20.09.1990”. It is dated 28.9.1990. It is signed by Assistant Superintendent
Civil Court Patoda.

In his affidavit dated 05.08.1997 he referred to arrest warrant issued

against him.

Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.08.1997 referred to the

Urdu warrant copy and also to the report of the Civil Judge in respect of
verification of the said warrant. In his report to the Collector, in pursuance of
enquiry made the Civil Judge reported on 28.08.1997 with reference to the list
submitted to him that the original record is not available. The copy has been
issued from his court on payment of fees wherein he refered to the
endorsement on original certified copy and it is pertinent to point out here only
that the copy produced is not signed as true copy by any staff memberof the
Georai Court and Assistant Superintendent of Patoda Court had no authority to
make such endorsement on Xerox copy produced before him and Patoda Court
could not have issued any certified copy of the record pertaining to Georai
Court. The list accompanying the aforesaid letter shows that there were names
of 175 persons. In another letter dated 27.11.1997 the Civil Judge reported to
the District Collector that the alleged certified copy from which Xerox is said
to be prepared was issued to one Chavan Advocate. The warrant copy was not
got verified from the office of Tahsildar which authority issued the said
warrant. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court by some persons
including the respondent therefore, enquiry was made from Georai Court by
Collector as number of petitions were pending in the High Court. The Civil
Judge informed that his name was in the warrant which is obviously with
 - 169 -

reference to the copy of warrant sent to him because on his own statement the
original record was not in his office. The report shows that all the 135 names
referred in the letter of Collector were not in the copy and raises suspicion
regarding genuineness of the copy.

On this background and on the above facts the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in
its meeting held on 24.04.1998 observed that the Civil Judge had given report
stating that the name of Freedom Fighter was in the warrant. However, it is
stated that original record was available with the Civil Court which as stated
by the Civil Judge in his report and Committee further observed that since the
warrant could not be stated to be positively connected with the Hyderabad
Freedom Movement it cannot give any positive recommendation.

There are two letters written by the same Civil Judge Shri S.N. Shelke
in respect of this warrant copy. In letter dated 21.11.1997 he has stated that
original record was in his office and in letter dated 28.8.1997 he has stated that
original record was not in his office. If it was not, on 28.08.1997 , it is not
possible that it would be there on 21.11.1997. Further Zilla Gaurav Samiti did
refer to the aspect that the Civil Judge has reported that original record was in
his office and the warrant copy was verified from that record and further
observed that the connection of the warrant with Hyderabad Freedom
Movement has not been established and therefore no postive recommendation
was given.

The note put up to High Power Committee stated that the name of the
Freedom Fighter was in the warrant, it was in connection with Hyderabad
Freedom Movement. Although the Civil Judge has not stated that it was in
connection with the said Movement, the matter was subjudice and the time
limit given by the Court was coming to an end, since the name was in the
warrant and the Civil Judge had given report , pension deserves to be granted
and so his claim was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was working

at Kharda Camp under direction of Ramrao Bhange, Kashinath Mukadam and
stayed there for two three months. When police came to arrest him, he ran
 - 170 -

away. He does not know what record was filed alongwith application. He has
specifically mentioned that he has not done any work in Patoda Taluka but he
worked in Kaij Taluka.

The warrant, copy whereof is placed on record in this file, is proved to

be forged as observed in the part of general reasons on warrant cases and as
such claim on the ground of warrant cannot sustained.

There is one more serious aspect of the case of the present respondent.
Petitioners had produced a list of 26 persons along with their records dates of
birth and the name of present respondent is at serial No.12. This document is
marked as Exh.12. The copy is issued as certified copy by the Education
Officer and it shows that the date of birth of Trimbak Pandharinath Chate in
the school record was 10 Aban 46 Fasli equivalent to 16 September, 1937.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer to produce

original record and on production thereof verified it and Xerox copy is
retained showing his date of birth as 10 Aban 1346 Fasli. He was admitted to
school on 2nd Isfandar 1350 Fasli equivalent to 8th January 1941 and left the
school on 24th Amardad 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th June 1948. This would
show that in the year 1947-48 he was studying in school probably in 3rd or 4th
standard and his age was about 10 to 11 years. It is highly improbable that a
boy of 11 years would take part in freedom movement. It is also unlikely that
arrest warrant would be issued against a boy of such tender age and thus the
entire document become suspicious. The original warrant, copy whereof is
relied upon in this case is proved to be forged as pointed out in a separate part
of reasons for warrant cases. So claim fails even on this count.

In his statement before the Mane Committee he stated that he was

working at Kharda Camp under the direction of Ramrao Bangar and stayed
there for 2 to 3 months. The statement contained in his own affidavit dated
5.08.1997 that he was working underground along with Ramling Swami,
Babasaheb Paranjape, Ramanand Tirth, Narayanrao Joshi and Shriniwas Khot
and used to attend secret meetings and was taking part in objecting to the
Nizam Government in the work of recovery of levy and took part in burning
 - 171 -

Karodgiri Naka at Pachangri can not be believed and obviously he has made
entirely false statements in the affidavit with a view to securing Sanmanpatra
and allied pensionary benefits.

The Commission is therefore of the considered opinion that by making

such a claim the said person in fact committed fraud in as much as at such a
tender age he could not have taken part in the freedom movement and could
not have been involved in the activities mentioned in his affidavit and the
Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him be cancelled forthwith.
 - 172 -

File Case No. 115 (Respondent No.115)

Shri Govind Balaji Bhondve.

He applied for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension on 19.01.1991. He

was joined as Respondent in S.L.P. before the Supreme Court probably for the
reasons that there was dispute regarding date of birth.

He claimed pension as underground Freedom Fighter and in the initial

application mentioned to have worked under Kashinath Jadhav as
underground Freedom Fighter. He filed affidavits of Uttam Patil Gavhane and
Devidas Nana Kadam in support dated 23.02.1995 and in his own affidavit of
23.02.1995 he has referred only these two persons and Kashinath Jadhav as
persons with whom he worked. He received notice dated 09.07.1996 as there
was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 04.07.95 and
thereafter he filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 10.07.1997. His
name is inserted in ink in the blank space left in typed proforma and similar in
the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 16.07.1997 wherein his name is
inserted in ink in blank space left.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 20.06.1997 recommended

the case on the basis of two affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna
Eknath Telap. However, Additional Collector noted his objection by letter
dated 10.07.1997.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension. He appeared

before Mane Committee and stated that at that time he was 17-18 years old.
This statement was made about his age for the first time and he also stated
that no warrant was ever issued against him.

In his affidavit dated 18.01.1991 there is nothing in particular. After

he received notice dated 09.07.96 he filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Anna Eknath Telap in order to comply with the Government Resolution.
However, in his affidavit he has not named Anna Eknath Telap.

The Affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne dated 21.01.1997 as well as

Anna Eknath Telap suffers from infirmity pointed out above.
 - 173 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. He stated that except supplying

breads he did nothing and Vishwanath Rakh R/o Therla told him to apply for
the pension and promised that he will do the rest and accordingly obtained
the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap, however, he
does not know at which camp they were working.

Before the Commission in rebuttal of date of birth 01.04.1946 he has

not produced any other evidence.

After notice was issued to him by the Commission he merely referred

to the earlier documents produced by him in his affidavit but has not produced
any evidence though he was aware that his birth date is challenged.

As pointed out earlier he was made respondent in the S.L.P. before the
Supreme Court because of the dispute regarding his date of birth. In the list
produced by Education Officer before the High Court in public interest
petition his name appears at serial no.26 and the date of birth mentioned
against his name is 1.06.46. He has not adduced any evidence to counter this
entry in the public record. The Commission issued summons to the Education
officer to produce original record. The Commission retained Xerox copy of
said record after verification from original wherein the entry of his date of
birth in the school record is at serial no. 111. The date of birth is mentioned as
1.6.46. He took admission in school on 10.07.1952 and left the school on
20.10.1961 when he was in 7th Standard. Thus, according to entries in the
scholl record, he was aged hardly one and half to two years at the time of
Hyderabad Freedom Movement and has claimed Sanmanpatra, allied
pensionary benefits admissible to Freedom Fighte. His case is also a clear case
of fraud. Probably because of the record produced in the High Court showing
his date of birth, he made statement before Mane Committee that he was aged
17 to 18 years at the time of Freedom Movement. The entire statement made
by him on oath before Mane committee as well as his statement in the affidavit
filed by him is totally unreliable and deserves to be rejected. Similarly, the
statements in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters namely Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane dated 27.01.1997 and Anna Eknath Telap dated 27.01.1997
that he was working along with them in the freedom movement and took
 - 174 -

active part in the incidents of attack of Antarwali Naka along with 50 to 60

persons and also in the incident in which Vishwanath Teli stabbed one Pathan
are also on the face of it is false statements. Other defects in the affidavit are
there like insertion of name by ink to typed affidavit without any signature or
initial are as in other cases and discussed at length in the general reasons.

The Commission therefore recommends that Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith.
 - 175 -

Case File No.141 (Respondent No.141)

Gorakh Anandrao Tarte

Gorakh Anandrao Tarte applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension

on 9.6.1989 as underground freedom fighter and in support he filed affidavit
of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. In his application he stated
that he was working from Mirajgaon Camp under the leadership of Asraji
Raoji Jagtap. In his affidavit dated 28.05.97, he made improvement by adding
the names of Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and further stating that he
took part in the incident of burning of Pachangri Naka. In the supporting
affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 15.05.1997, the name of Gorakhnath
Tarte is added in ink to the typed affidavit and similar is the affidavit of Anna
Eknath Telap dated 5.4.1997. The affidavits of both these supporting freedom
fighters are practically in the same language stating the same incidents.

The petitioners in the public interest petition produced through the

education officer Zilla Parishad, Beed, a list of 26 persons whose date of birth
were disputed by the petitioners. His name appears at serial No.3 and the date
of birth mentioned against his name is 5.4.1937 which means at the time of
Hyderabad Freedom Movement, he was admittedly 10 to 11 years old.

The Commission issued summons to the education officer to produce

the school record regarding his date of birth. The record was produced and
Xerox copy of the admission register of primary school Doithan is retained.
The name of Gorakh Anandrao Tarte is at serial No.239 and the date of birth
mentioned is 5th April, 1937. He was admitted to School on 18.09.1967 in 8th
standard and left the school on 29.11.1968. He has not produced any evidence
to counter the evidence of public record showing his date of birth and mere
statement that he did not attend any school and therefore the public record
should be disbelieved, can not be accepted. If he did not attend the school
there was no reason why his name should appear in the school register. The
arguments advanced on his behalf that the head master of the school should
have been examined and the admission form should have been called also
deserves to be rejected as it is not possible to call Head Master working in the
school in that year. Moreover, the Commission is also not expected to call
 - 176 -

witnesses and the freedom fighters have also expressed in their own
application and it was also argued that the Commission is not directed to call
witnesses and therefore, they have refused to appear as witness when they
were called for cross-examination on request of the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances apart from the other
defects pointed out earlier, the case of Gorakh Anandrao Tarte deserves to be
rejected on the mere ground that he was not of such age that he could have
taken part in the freedom movement. He was 10 to 11 years old and was a
school going boy. This also clearly shows that the supporting affidavits of the
freedom fighter showing his involvement in various incidents are also not at
all worthy of credence and deserves to be rejected as unreliable.

In view of this Commission finds that the Gorakh Anandrao Tarte is

not entitled pensionary benefits. He fraudulently attempted to secure
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits when he was aware that he had no role to play
in the freedom movement as he was then only a school going boy.
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 177 -

File Case No. 155(Respondent No.155)

Shri Ramrao Gunaji Wanwe

He filed application for grant of pension on the ground of arrest

warrant issued against him for his participation in the Hyderabad freedom
movement and he filed Xerox copy of warrant bearing file No.101/1357 Fasli
outward No.190 dated 14 Bahman 1357 Fasli equivalent to 14th December
1947. The warrant copy is signed as true copy by the Notary. In his affidavit
dated 1.1.1997 he has stated that he had taken active part in the freedom
movement and has quoted various incidents without specifically stating what
was the role he played.

The Collector, Beed wrote to the Tahasildar on 3.9.1997 for

verification of warrant making specific queries and attaching to the xeroc
copyof warrant a list of 31 persons and the Collector was informed by letter
dated 23.12.1997 that original record is already submitted to Collector office,
therefore , verification is done from the copy received. It is further stated that
name of Ramrao Wanve appeared in the copy.

In his affidavit dated 27.07.1998 he stated that the record being more
than 50 years old, original is not available but he had worked in Hyderabad
freedom movement. His father was killed in the freedom movement and he
worked at Domri camp and took part in burning karodgiri naka. He was
present in the meeting of Wamanao Vaze and there was firing in which his
father was killed and therefore he left village and was absconding for about 9
months and therefore warrant was issued against him. The copy of warrant
filed by him has been issued by the concernd office by charging necessary
fees.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 30.07.1998 referred to

the verification report of Tahasildar that name of Ramrao Wanve was not in
the warrant and original was not available, therefore, copy cannot be relied
upon but in his second affidavit he has stated that his father was killed in the
firing and he was providing food to the persons in the camp and was
absconding for 9 months and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended
grant of pension.
 - 178 -

However, the Additional Collector objected on ground stated that he

has not produced evidence as per the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution and he
does not agree with the recommendation.The Additional Collector, informed
the Section Officer by letter dated 29.10.1998 that the respondent did not
comply with the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension for the aforesaid
reasons only. However, the Under Secretary mentioned that warrant copy is
not reliable.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated the he has filed Xerox
copy of warrant and would produce certified copy.

After notice was issued by the Commission, he filed affidavit repeting

the same facts and produced one copy as certified copy. He produced true
copy of the warrant signed by notary showing that the certified copy was
issued to him on 12.08.1986.

Before the Commission petitioners in the PIL have produced record

showing his date of birth as 01.07.1944 which was contained in the list, it was
submitted in the High Court in the PIL by the Collector.

Before the Mane Committee he stated that he was aged 10 to 15 years.

It appears that because evidence of his date of birth was produced, he made
this statement. His date of birth being 1.7.1944 at the time of freedom
movement he was hardly 3 to 4 yeas old and his entire claim is doubtful as he
could not have taken part in the freedom movement at the age of 3 to 4 years.

In the list of dates of birth secured from school produced by the

Education Officer before the High Court Exh.12 his name is at Sr.No.25 and
against the same, the date of birth mentioned is 1.7.1944. This list is
produced under the signature of Education officer before the High Court. The
Commission had issued summons to the Education Officer to produce the
school record. However by that time the record containing his name could not
be traced and ultimately the Commission was informed on 1.11.2006 that the
record does contain the entry of his name. He has no doubt produced certified
copy of warrant, however in the record received from the Tahasil office there
is warrant bearing No.110 outward No.10 dated 14th Bahman 1357 Fasli
 - 179 -

(14.4.1947) On examination of the said document and on its comparison with

the undisputed signatures on the undisputed correspondence of same
Tahasildar marked as A1 to A10, the difference in the signature is so obvious
that even a lay man or a person not knowing Urdu language can say that the
same are totally difference and cannot be signatures of one of the same person.
As stated in part relating to reasons regarding Warrant cases, the signatures on
the warrants received from three different sources i.e. Patoda Tahsil Office,
Georai Court and Ambejogai Police Station, do not tally with each other and
also with signatures of the Tahasildar Mir Moinuddin Alikhan on the
undisputed correspondence found in the same file and even with signatures on
other warrants contained in the same file. The Commission having suspected
the signatures to be totally different got the suspicion confirmed by sending
the documents to the Government handwriting expert who has given opinion
to the same effect.

Therefore it is a clear case of fraud as the list produced in the High

Court shows the date of birth to be 1.7.1944. If after production of list in the
High Court, the record is misplaced or lost, the respondent can not derive any
benefit. The list produced in High Court in support to establish that his date of
birth is 1.7.1944 has not been contraverted by this Respondent by producing
any documents. Therefore, at the age of 3 to 4 years he could not have taken
part in freedom movement.

No arrest warrant would normally be issued against a child of 3 to 4

years.

He was fully aware that he had no role to play in the freedom

movement of Hyderabad State and inspite of that he ventured to apply for and
secured Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which amounts to fraud. He has
produced copy of a warrant which the Commission found to be forged. The
copy even if certified can be of no avail, if original document is found to be
non existent or forged. The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled.
 - 180 -

File Case No. 161( Respondent No.161)

Shri Govind Dnyanoba Rakh

He applied for grant of pension on 28.8.1986 on the ground that in

Hyderabad freedom movement arrest warrant was issued against him bearing
file No. 10/10 Outward No.101 dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli i.e. 4th December
1947 Xerox copy whereof was placed on record.

The Zila Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.1.1999 relied on copy
of warrant and recommended sanction of pension, but one of the members
P.V.Joshi disagreed.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 20.3.1999 reported to the

Government that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995, warrant is not reliable as it is not verified.

The High Power Committee relied on the recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned pension on 15.10.1999.

The Petitioner PIL have produced evidence of his date o birth showing
the same to be 11.07.1944. However, he has not produced any evidence. In
the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he was 17, 18
years old at that time of Hyderabad freedom movement.

Govind Dnyanoba Rakh appeared before Mane Committee and stated

that he took part in the incident of burning Nakas and destroying the bridge at
Rohatwadi. He has not attended any school and he does not possess any
documentary evidence. He does not remember the names of persons who
recommended his case for grant of pension. He has however produced the
copy of warrant along with his application.

In the public interest petition, petitioners produced through the

education officer a list of 26 persons whose date of birth were disputed. In this
list, the name of Govind Dnyanoba Rakh appears at serial No.17 and the date
of birth mentioned against his name is 11.07.1944 Fasli.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer to produce

the school record. The original school record was produced and after
verification Xerox copies are retained by the Commission. The name of
 - 181 -

Govind Dnyanoba Rakh is at serial no.10 and against his name the date of
birth is mentioned as 11.07.53 Fasli i.e. 1353 Fasli which is equivalent to
11.07.1944. Thus, the case of Govind Dnyanoba Rakh is obviously a
fraudulent attempt to secure Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits.
Being a boy age of 4 and 4 ½ years at the time of freedom movement, he was
obviously not concerned and not involved in any activity against the Nizam
Government and being fully aware of this, he ventured to move an application
seeking Sanman Patra and pensionary benefits which amounts to fraud and
such fraud vitiate the entire proceeding. In the language of the Supreme Court
this is “Asanman” to the nation and also to the freedom fighters who have
given their all for the freedom of the Hyderabad State.

The original warrant bearing No . 101, dated 4 Bahman 1357 Fasli

(equivalent to 4.12.1947) is not traceable anywhere. He has not explained
from where he obtained the xerox copy. The zerox copy was relied upon in the
absence of original record in spite the Additional Collector’s letter 20.3.1999
that in the absence of original record the copy can not be relied upon.
Moreover no warrant could have been issued for arrest against a child of 3 to 4
years. When all the 18 original warrants available are found to be forged how
can it be believed that the warrant, copy whereof is produced but original is
not traceale was a genuine document.

For all these reasons the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and
recommends accordingly.
 - 182 -

File Case No. 184 (Respondent No.184 )

Shri Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh

Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh applied for grant of freedom fighter’s

pension on 21.1.1991 on the basis of warrant of arrest alleged to have been
issued by the Tahasildar Padoda in Confidential file No.205 of 1357 Fasli
bearing outward No.209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th
January 1948.The Xerox copy of warrant produced by him is signed by
Notary. But from the endorsement on the copy from which Xerox is taken is,
” “verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai
Court on 20.09.1990”. It is signed by Nazir Patoda Court.

The District Collector Beed sent Xerox copy of warrant for verification
along with letter to the Civil Judge and Civil Judge sent reply on 2.11.1997
stating that original record is not available in his office and from the record it
appears that the copy was issued to one V.T.Chavan, Advocate. He enclosed a
list of 175 persons stating that these were the names in the warrant which
include the name of Bhanudas Vithoba Rakh at Sr. No. 89.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.1.1999 stated that
original record is not available in Tahasil office but in the copy his name
appeared, from which it appears that it is in connection with Hyderabad
Freedom Movement. No positive recommendation was given and one of the
members Shri P.V.Joshi observed that original record is not available hence
improper.

The Additional Collector had written to the Section Officer on

20.3.1999 that original record is not available in Tahasil Office but the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case in the absence of original record.
The copy cannot be relied upon and he has not complied with the
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

The High Power Committee referred to the verification report of the

Collector from another file as it contained observations that the original record
was available with the Civil Court as stated in that file and the name of
applicant is in the warrant and sanctioned pension.
 - 183 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded in

which he stated that he attended the meeting in which there was firing but he
ran away.

In his affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he has
learnt that from the School record some dates of birth are obtained (by the
petitioners in PIL) and from School record also, the evidence of his date of
birth is obtained, but since the Zilla Parishad had started school recently and
they wanted to show more number of students in the register of School
teachers entered the names of some students who were of higher age by
mentioning their age and date of birth wrongly and there is no connection with
the date of birth mentioned in the School register and his actual date of birth.
This statement has been made for the first time after his date of birth was
challenged in the PIL and evidence was put forth of his date of birth (22.10.51
F). The petitioners in the PIL had produced before the High Court evidence of
Respondent’s birth date from School record.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer calling the

record of school register in order to ascertain his date of birth as mentioned by
the petitioners in P.I.L. In the record produced by the education officer in the
High Court, wherein his name appears at serial no.16 and against his name his
death of birth is mentioned as 22.10.51Fasli (1351 F), i.e. 22.7.1942. The
original record produced was verified and xerox copies are retained. The date
of birth mentioned therein is 22.10.51F i.e. 22.7.1942. It means that at the time
of freedom movement he was aged 5 to 6 years and could not have taken part
in the freedom movement. This also clearly shows that even the copy of
warrant produced by him is false and concocted as no arrest warrant could
have been issued against the child of 6 years. The original warrant copy
whereof is placed on record in this file is found to be forged as discussed in
general reasons of warrant cases in a separate part of this report.

His statement was recorded by Mane Committee. He tried to explain

that the name appears in the school record as Zilla Parishad has started new
school and they wanted to show more number of students in the register of
school and therefore, the teachers entered the some names of students of
 - 184 -

higher age by mentioning their wrong dates of birth. This is a futile attempt to
explain the date of birth in the public record. The act of Bhanudas Vithoba
Rakh in making application to seek benefit of pension as freedom fighter is
obviously fraudulent attempt as he was fully aware that he was not at all
concerned with the freedom movement and was only a boy of 5 to 6 years who
may not be then aware of the freedom movement going on. His further attempt
to give false explanation when statement was recorded by Mane Committee
lends assurance to the inference drawn above, and apart from any other
reason, for this reason alone the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to
him deserve to be cancelled forthwith as fraud practiced vitiates the entire
proceeding for securing Sanmanptra and allied benefits and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
 - 185 -

File Case No. 191 (Respondent No.191)

Shri Shrirang Narayan Rakh.

Applied for pension on 30.12.1994 as underground freedoom fighter

stating in application that he worked under Ashruba Raojai Jagtap. He filed
affidavit dated 17.01.91 wherein he stated that arrest warrant was issued
against him but did not claim that he was working underground . He produced
Xerox copy of warrant alleged to have been issued by Tahsildar Patoda in File
No. 205/1357 Fasli Outward No,209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent
24th January, 1948. The Xerox copy shows that the document from which this
copy is prepared was signed / intialed by Assistant Superintendent of Civil
Court Georai and there is remark of the Nazir Patoda Civil Court “ verified
that this Xerox copy is true copy of original copy issued by Georai Court on
20.09.1990” . The Xerox copy also shows that one Xerox copy signed by
Special Executive Magistrate was used and the present Xerox copy is of the
said Xerox copy.

He filed another affidavit dated 13.07.1999 after notice was issued to

him in which many details are given which were not stated in the earlier
affidavit. He has named Wamanrao Waze, Ramling Swami, Namdeo Khade,
Nivrutti Dhakne , Ganpati Sanap, Bhima Umaji Bangar and Raosaheb
Patwardhan as the persons under whose guidance he worked and he stated
that he will produce affidavits of Bhima Umaji Bangar and Dnyanoba Jijaba
Bangar however, these affidavits are not produced by him.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated nil observed that in the
absence of original record the copy of warrnat cannot be relied upon but since
the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced that he worked in the Freedom
Movement against Nizam Government his case is recommended for grant of
pension. One of the members P.V.Joshi observed that there is no verification
of the warrant.

The High Power Committee however accepted the recommendation.

The under Secretary made a note that in the absence of original record the
copy cannot be believed, however, pension was sanctioned.
 - 186 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he stated that he was arrested and imprisned and he was in jail for 1 to
1/2 month and at that time he was 20 to 21 years. He was earlier declared to
be absconding and was required to live away from his house for two and half
months. He stated that he will produce document on 13.03.2003 but did not
produce any document.

He filed affidavit before the Commission but there is nothing in

particular to be noted in the said affidavit.

The petitioners in the public interest petition produced through

education officer record of date of birth of 26 persons including Shrirang
Narayan Rakh wherein his name is at serial No.18 and against his name the
date of birth mentioned is 22.08.40 Fasli However, when the original record
was called by the Commission through the Education Officer and the same
was perused the entry of the name of Shrirang Narayan Rakh at serial No.10
showed that the date written as 22.08.48 F was converted to 22.08.40F by
over writing. This over writing can be seen by the naked eye. Moreover, all
the dates written before and after this entry are of the year 1348 to 1353 F and
admission is in same class “primer” on 11.11.58 Fasli. If his birth date is held
as 22.8.1340 F (22.5.1931) then at the time of his admission to primer on
11.11.1358 F (11.8.1949) his age would more than 18 years which is not
probable. On the other hand like other students the Respondent born on
22.8.1348 F (22.5.1939) could be admitted to primer on 11.11.1358F.
Therefore there is obvious attempt of forgoing, the original record. The date
written against his name was 22.08.1348 F equivalent to 22.5.1939 which
shows that he was just 8-9 years old when the freedom movement was going
on and could not have taken part in the freedom movement. He may not be
then even aware of the freedom movement. This is also a case of fraud
vitiating the entire proceeding of the application for grant of Sanmanpatra and
pensionary benefits. Such overwriting appears to be in ten other entries in the
register. The attempt was probably to justify the claim. No warrant could
have been issued against a boy aged 8-9 years.
 - 187 -

The warrant, copy whereof is relied upon in this case is proved to be

forged as discussed in general observation on warrant cases in separate part.
The existence of name of Shrirang Narayan Rakh, who was not even born
when said warrant was issued further confirm the fact that said warrant is false
and forged.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case not on being

convinced by the evidence produced but on subjective satisfaction. The High
Power Committee ignored the note of the under secretary as it was not
convenient.

The Respondent, therefore, was not only not entitled to Sanmanpatra

and allied benefits granted to him but was guilty of fraud.The Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits granted deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith. The
Commission recommends accordingly.

.
 - 188 -

File Case No. 197 (Respondent No.197)

Shri Pandurang Ganpati Nagre.

He applied for grant of pension on 29.01.2004 on the basis of arrest

warrant alleged to have been issued by theTahsildar Patoda in File No. 205 of
1357 Fasli outward No. 209 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli i.e. 24.01.1948. He
produced Xerox copy of the warrant which is itself is a copy of true copy.

He filed affidavit on 15.01.1991 in which he stated that he took part in

vairous activities against Nizam Government and warrant of arrest was issued
against him.

He filed another affidavit dated 24.03.1999 in which he has named

number of freedom fighters working with him namely Sahebrao Ganpati
Sanap, Karbhari Tatya Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdeo Balwant
Aaher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Sona Rama Jaybhay,
Manik Tulsiram Anbhule etc. This affidavit is stereotyp like many other
improved affidavits in other cases in which he stated for the first time that he
was required to live away from his house for 10 months and was working
underground. He filed supporting affidavit of Baburao Govind Rakh dated
24.03.1999.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.04.1999 observed that
the original record of the warrant is not available with the Tahasil office and
stated further that the case was fit for sanction. One of the members Mr.P.V.
Joshi observed that warrent is not verified. Thus the recommendation was not
based on evidence but subjective satisfaction.

The Additional Collector in letter dated 15.09.1999 wrote to the

Section Officer that the case was not fit for sanction although recommended
by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as the Urdu warrant was not verified.

The High Power Committee further stated that the warrant copy is
verified in another file wherein there is verification report and the Civil Court
Gevrai had informed as per that report that the original record is with the
Court and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended, therefore , pension was
sanctioned.
 - 189 -

He appeared before Mane Committee but there is nothing worth noting

stated by him and similar is the case of affidavit filed before the Collector.

The petitioners in public interest petition produced list of 26 persons

whose date of birth was disputed by the petitioner. The name of Pandurang
Ganpati Nagre appears at serial no.20 and against his name the date of birth
mentioned is 7.4.1948, which means that he was just born when the freedom
movement was going on and it came to an end after five months of his birth.
The Commission issued summons to the education officer and called the
original record of which verified Xerox copy is retained on record. The entry
of his name is at serial no.35 and the date of birth mentioned against his name
is 7.4.1948 . He was admitted to school on 1.1.1954 in the 1st standard and it
is obvious that the date of birth mentioned is correct as he was aged about 6
years when admitted to 1st standard. To counter this evidence he has not
produced any document or record. However, he has tried to explain the same
in his affidavit by stating that the teachers were introducing the names of
students in the school register in order to show more strength i.e. more
number of students than actually admitted and studying. He never attended
any school and he is not concerned with the entry in the school register. This
explanation on the face of it is untenable. Thus, he was fully aware that he had
no concern with the freedom movement and in spite of that he attempted to
make an application for securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as freedom
fighter which act is obviously fraudulent vitiating the entire proceedings
regarding his application and its scrutiny and Sanmanpatra and pensionary
benefits granted to him deserves to be cancelled and be cancelled for this
reason alone.

The warrant, copy whereof is relied upon in this case, is proved to be

forged as discussed in general reasons of warrant cases in separate part.
Furthermore existence of name of Pandurang Ganpati Nagare, who was not
even born when said warrant was issued fortifies the conclusion that said
warrant is false and forged.

The Respondent, therefore, was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits. He produced a forged document to support his case. The
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith. The
Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 190 -

File Case No. 200 (Respondent No.200)

Shri Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar.

He filed application for grant of freedom fighter,s pension on

19.10.1995 claiming to be underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavit dated 18.10.1995 stating that he worked with

Raosaheb Gavhane and also filed affidavit of Raosaheb Gavhane and
Sahebrao Konduke in which the only statement is that he took part in the
freedom movement.

After notice was issued to him on 06.06.1997 he filed affidavits of

Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane who were sentenced to two
years imprisonment.

He filed further affidavit dated 3.6.1997 stating that his case is

pending for long.

Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in affidavit dated 03.06.1997 stated that

Jagannath Dhondiba Pawar worked with him alongwith 50 to 60 others and
the similar is the statement of Anna Eknath Telap in the affidavit dated
03.06.1997.

He again filed one more affidavit dated 17.02.1999 making further

improvements and naming number of other freedom fighters like Sahebrao
Ganpati Sanap, Karbhari Bangar, Bhima Bangar, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik
Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdeo Balwanta Aher and also stated for the first
time he was required to live away from his house for 11 months and produce
affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.07.1997 recommended

his case for grant of pension based on the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
and Anna Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector and Member Secretary wrote to the Deputy

Secretary on 14.07.1997 that there is no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
 - 191 -

The High Power Committee referred to the affidavit and sanctioned

pension on 04.10.1999.

He appeared before Mane Committee . His statement was recorded in

which he stated that warrant was not issued against him and one Kashinathrao
Jadhav recommended his case for pension. He does not know who are other
persons who gave recommendation. He further stated that at that time his age
was 10 years and he was not doing any work. He does not know who are the
persons who were convicted and sentenced and who have filed affidavit in his
support.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation have produced evidence of

his date of birth from School record wherein his date of birth is shown as
16.05.1941, according to which his age would be hardly 06 years at the time
of Hyderabad Freedom Movement. This evidence was produced before the
High Court however, till this date he has not produced any other evidence of
his date of birth and on the contrary he made statement that he did not attend
any school when he was appeared before Mane Committee.

The Commission also issued summons to the Education Officer and

called the original record from the school. The school head master had issued
certified copy of school register extract showing his date of birth as
16.05.1941. He was admitted to school on 07.07.1953 in ivth standard. The
same date appears in the extract of the register.

This raises a serious doubt about the statement contained in his own
affidavit as well as the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane, Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Bangar,
Bhima Umaji Bangar, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and
Namdev Balawant Aher. The statements in the affidavits filed on 17.2.1999
wherein there is improvement that he was required to live away from his
house, is on the face of it a false statement made in order to show that he has
complied with the provisions of the Government Resolution. Thus these very
freedom fighters who have been consistently filing affidavits in innumerable
cases are found to be persons making statement on oath without bothering that
 - 192 -

even ex-facie it would appear false and fortifies the conclusion drawn earlier
that they were indiscriminately signing and swearing affidavit to support any
person approaching them for reasons which can be anybody’s guess and they
are not at all reliable.

Jagganath Dhondiba Pawar claimed Sammanpatra and allied

pensionary benefits when he was fully aware that he was not at all concerned
with the freedom movement. He was a school going boy and was not involved
in any activity against the Nizam Government and obtained the Sanmanpatra
and the allied benefits fraudulently and this fraudulent act vitiates the entire
proceedings in respect of his application for pensionary benefits. The
Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him be cancelled forthwith.
 - 193 -

File Case No. 217 (Respondent No.217)

Shri Vikram Kisan Wanve

He filed application for pension of freedom fighter stating that he was

underground freedom fighter.

He filed affidavit of Babu Nana Gite. In his own affidavit dated

22.8.1995 and another affidavit of Baba Vadaju Wanve his name is added
after the affidavit was written and similar addition appears in the affidavit of
Babu Nana Gite. He has then filed affidavit of Narayan Chaure dated
26.9.1997 in which his name is added in ink to the typewritten affidavit. In
the affidavit of Thaksen Shankar Dhase dated 28.9.1997 his name is added in
ink, to the typewritten affidavit. He filed further affidavit dated 11.9.1998 to
show that the conditions of Government Resolution are fulfilled stating that
he was required to live away from his house for 10 months and added the
names of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane for the first time.

In support he filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting heldl on 8.11.1998 considered

his case and referred to the affidavits of Thaksen Shankar Dhase, Namdev
Dagadu Chaure and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and recommended his case.

The Additional Collector by letter dated 23.11.1998 pointed out that

there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995

The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension on the basis of

affidavits of freedom fighters Dhase , Chaure and Sanap.

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded.

He stated that he was aged 10 to 11 years and because of his young age he did
not go to camp of freedom fighers. Even his father did not go. He alongwith
his mother was providing bhakari (bread) to the freedom fighters. He was not
in a position to understand what is Nizam Government and why it should be
removed.
 - 194 -

The Petitioners in PIL produced record of his date of birth before the
Commission which shows that he was born on 3rd September 1958 and he has
not produced any evidence to counter this documentary evidence.

Summons was issued to the Education Officer to produce register of

school containing the entry of his admission in the school and the same was
produced on 4.11.2006 and the Commission retained Xerox copy after
comparing with the original. Entry of his name appears at Sr.No. 16 wherein
the date of birth is mentioned as 3rd September 1958. He was admitted to
school on 3rd September 1964 and was removed from school on 26.6.68 when
he was in IInd standard, as a result of continuous absence. It is natural that at
the age of 6 to 7 years he would be admitted to 2nd standard. There is no
reason to suspect genuineness of the birth date and there is no substance in the
argument advanced that the school head mater should have been examined or
admission form should have been called by the Commission.

This evidence fully falsifies his claim and shows that the entire case is
vitiated by fraud. It is not necessary for the Commission to go into the aspect
as to who committed the fraud. He ventured to claim Sanmanpatra and allied
pensionary benefits for the freedom movement of 1947-48 when he was not
even born and was born 10 years after the freedom movement came to an end.
This also shows that the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap ,
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Thaksen Shankarao Dhase and Narayan Choure have
gone to the extent of supporting such a false claim. The entire case of this
respondent having been vitiated by fraud is required to be thrown over board
and the Commission is of the considered view that Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 195 -

File Case No. 218 (Respondent No.218)

Shri Tukaram Salba Ghuge

He filed application for grant of pension as freedom fighter on the

basis of arrest warrant alleged to have been issued against him by Tahasildar
Patoda in file No. 21/1 Outward No.617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli equivalent to
17th May 1948.

He filed petition in the High Court bearing No.5112/95 and directions

were given to decide the case within six month.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29.9.1998 referred to

the copy of warrant and stated that it is not reliable as the Civil Court Gevrai
has informed that the original record is not available in his office and the copy
cannot be relied upon. The copy produced by him was a mere Xerox copy
signed as true copy by the Assistant Government Pleader and the copy from
which this Xerox copy was prepared had the endorsement “ verified that the
Xerox Copy is true copy of Original Copy issued by Gevrai Court on 20th
September. 1990”. This endorsement is by Assistant Superintendent (Nazir)
Patoda Civil Court. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the case.

In the note put up before High Power Committee it is stated he has

produced copy of warrant but the original record is not available and the copy
is not reliable and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give positive
recommendation.

It is further stated stated in note of Sabhapati that normally when

Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not give positive recommendation the Government
does not sanction the claim even then since persons from Osmanabad district
whose names are included in this warrant have been granted pension and there
were such 19 cases and after this note of the Sabhapati, he further stated that
reference be made to the file of Kamalabai Baburao Ahire bearing No. POS
 - 196 -

1298/Court-Beed FF-2, CR No.3031/98. Later on copy of said proceeding

was placed on record wherein it is mentioned that the original record of the
warrant appears to have been received by the Collector and Civil Judge Gevrai
has informed accordingly and the Tahasildar has provided Marathi translation.

The Chairman of Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti has requested the

Sabhapati that the cases not recommended by the Beed Zilla Gaurav Samiti
are sanctioned and this appears to one of such case. However, when the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti does not receive documents and such documents are made
available to the High Power Committee, action is taken by the Government
and accordingly note should be put up.

In pursuance of this, further note was put up that the warrant has been
verified by the Tahasildar and other 19 persons whose names are in the
warrant and who are from the Osmanabad District have been sanctioned
pension and if the court has stated that original record is available and there is
name of applicant in the said warrant, it is not necessary to go in to further
details and the refusal to recommend by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in such cases
would be wrong.

It was further stated that similar cases are of Raosaheb Vishwanath,

Abasaheb Giri Rakh, Girishrao Ahire, Tukaram Salaba Ghuge and Smt.
Kamalabai Baburao Shinde. All such cases be considered by putting similar
note on the file . Thereafter the Member Secretary made endorsement for
sanction and pension was sanctioned.

He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he had gone to

Kharda camp in 1947 and from there to Patoda Tahasil office for hoisting flag.
He was arrested and released. He then collected donations for the Kharda
Camp residents continuously for 10 to 12 months and he was away from his
house as there was warrant issued against him. He will produce certified copy
 - 197 -

of the warrant which he never produced. The detailed reasons for not relying
on the said warrant are stated in a separate part of this report relating to
general reasons for warrant cases.

Thus the original warrant of which copy is relied upon in this case, is
found to be forged and false document. Existence of name of Respondent aged
5 years in said warrant further falsifies the said document.

His birth date having been disputed, the Commission issued summons
to the Education Officer for production of the school record of which Xerox is
retained showing his date of birth as 22.06.1943. Record is also produced by
the petitioners showing his date of birth to be 22.06.1943. The original is in
Urdu and Commission got it translated from are retired Deputy Collector,
Beed and is included in the Commission file Exhibit 11. He has not produced
any evidence to counter this. From this evidence it is clear that at the time of
freedom movement, he was hardly aged 5 years and it is not at all probable
that he could have taken part in the freedom movement. Thus the entire
statement contained in his affidavit as well as in the supporting affidavits of
the other freedom fighters are ex-facie false. His statement before Mane
Committee is also equally false. It is obvious that being aged five years in
1947-48, he had no concern with the freedom movement. He claimed
Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits which was a fraudulent act on his part.
The affidavits of convicted freedom fighters who support such a claim are also
obviously false and this fraud vitiates entire proceedings of his application
for claiming Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 198 -

File Case No. 219 (Respondent No.219)

Shri Limba Nivrutti Rakh

He applied for pension on 30.10.1990 claiming to be undeground

freedom fighter and although no referrence to warrant of arrest against him in
his application was made he produced Xerox copy of arrest warrant alleged to
have been issued by the Tahasildar Patoda in file No. Nil outward No. 205
dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24th January 1948.

However in his affidavit dated 22.9.1997 he made reference to the

warrant, the copy of warrant which appears to be copy of certified copy
issued, which bears endorsement dated 28.9.90.”Verified that this Xerox copy
is true copy of original copy issued by Gevrai Court on 20.9.90”.

He filed affidavit dated 22.1.1997 in which he named number of

freedom fighters with whom he worked.

The copy of warrant was sent for the verification by the District
Collector to Civil Judge Asthti enclosing a copy of warrant and list of 112
persons making specific queries. However, there is no report of verification.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 27.9.98 pointed out that
his name is not in the warrant and original record is not available with the
Court therefore the Zilla Gaurav Samiti does not recommend grant of pension.

The Additional Collector informed the Desk Officer on 29.10.1998

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.

Before the High Power Committee incorrect note was put up that his
case was recommended by Zilla Gaurav Samiti. The note further discloses that
there was discussion with the Member Secretary and the copy of warrant is
signed by the Collector, Latur, as true copy and in that warrant name of
applicant appeared and since there is recommendation by the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti the High Power committee Sanctioned the pension though in fact the
Zilla Gaurav Samittee had declined to recommend.
 - 199 -

He appeared before the Mane Committee. His statement was recorded

wherein he referred to the activities of cutting shindi trees and giving slogans
and stated that he was required to live away from his house.He cannot say who
recommended his case for grant of pension.

He filed detailed affidavit before the Commission. But there is nothing

worth noticing.

In the public interest petition the petitioners produced through

education officer, Zilla Parishad Beed record of date of birth of 26 persons.
The Education Officer produced list of 26 persons in which the name of
Limba Nivruti Rakh is at serial No.19 and against his name the date of birth
mentioned is 08.04.1944. The original record was called by Commission and
after verification zerox copy of admission register is retained. Entry in the
original record shows his date of birth 8.4.1944 and he took admission in the
pre-primary class on 28.06.1951. Had the date of birth been in 8.4.1934, he
would have been aged 17 years and could not have sought admission and
would not have been admitted to preprimary class at such a mature age.

From the original register called by the Commission through the

Education Officer copy where of is retained after verification with the
original, there appears a clear attempt to forge the entry of date of birth by
attempting to convert 44 into 34 by overwriting the digit 4 and converting it to
3.

This was an unsuccessful attempt of forgery. This evidence also

creates doubt regarding the reliability of warrant on the basis of which he has
claimed pension. The entire warrant bearing outward No. 205 dated 24
Isfander 1357 Fasli (24 January 1948) thus become a suspicious document and
that is why the copy was obtained from Patoda Court which is in fact a copy of
copy issued by Gevrai Court. The Gevrai court issued copy on 20th September
1990 and this copy was issued by Patoda Court Assistant Superintendent-cum-
Nazir on 28.09.1990 on which date certified copy could have been obtained
even from Gevrai Court. The Assistant Superintendent who signed it as true
 - 200 -

copy was obviously conscious of the fact that the said document is not a part
of the Court record where he was posted and he had no authority to certify the
copies of copy issued by another court. The original warrant, copy of which is
produced in this file, is found to be forged as disucussed in separate part of
this report on warrant cases and existence of name of this Respondent therein,
who was of 3 to 4 years old in that period further falsifies the genuineness and
truthfulness of said warrant. The respondent who made all these attempts was
aware of the fact that during the freedom movement he was not of such age
that he could be a part of the freedom movement. He was aware that he had
not taken part in freedom movement and has not done any activity whatsoever
against the Nizam Government and inspite of that he ventured to swear
affidavit and concocted evidence to support his claim and thus the fraud is
obvious and therefore the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits secured by him by
such fraudulent means deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 201 -

File Case No. 222 (Respondent No.222)

Shri Narayan Kisan Rakh

He applied for grant of pension as freedom fighter on the basis of

arrest warrant alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar Patoda in file No. Nil
Outward No.205 dated 24 Isfander 1357 Fasli equivalent to 24 January 1948.

He produced Xerox copy of warrant signed by Notary. He filed

affidavits dated 27.07.1990 and second affidavit dated 22.1.1997 and in the
second affidavit is full of improvement. Number of names are added as
persons with whom he worked in the freedom movement and number of
incidents are quoted which were earlier not stated.

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector Beed to
Civil Judge Gevrai enclosing copy and list of 112 persons making specific
queries and the Civil Judge reported on 9.9.97 that out of the list submitted
only 8 names are in the warrant copy and the original record is not available in
his office. This was in fact a reason to suspect the genuineness of the warrant
or copy produced.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 31.12.1998 noted that
the original record is not available, the copy cannot be believed and there is no
positive recommendation from the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.

The Additional Collector wrote letter dated 20.3.1999 to the Section

Officer stating that his name is not in the warrant and original record is not
available. He has not complied with the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.

Before the High Power Committee a note was put up that in respect of
same warrant the District Collectors, Latur and Osmanabad signed copies of
the same in another file and the Member Secretary has orally informed that the
Xerox copy was got verified in that case and his name was found in the
warrant and claim be sanctioned and the pension was sanctioned. The under
secretary mentioned just below the note that the Collector has reported that
name Narayan Kisan Rakh is not in the warrant. The over anxiety of the
Member Secretary and oral instructions are beyond understanding and create
doubt. A copy of the said report should have at least been kept on record.
 - 202 -

He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded,

wherein he stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his
house for 11 months He attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze and cut
shindi trees and hoisted tri colour flag on Tahasil office and Dyanoba Patil,
Dhondiba Jadhav informed him that his name is there in the warrant. He
assured that he will file certified copy of warrant which he never filed
thereafter.

He has filed affidavit before the Commission referring to the earlier

evidence produced by him. According to the petitioners in Public Interest
Litigation his date of birth is 4-2- 1948. However in the register (original)
there is erasure in the year and attempt is made to change 48 to 38 but there is
over writing in the year. However, he has not produced any evidence of his
date of birth.

On summons being issued by the Commission the Education Officer

produced the original record and verified Xerox copy is retained on record and
in the entry of date of birth the overwriting in the year is obvious. An attempt
is made to convert the year 48 into 38 but this attempt of forgery is
unsuccessful as overwriting is obvious. He was admitted in the pre-primary
school on 01.07.1954 which confirms that his date of birth must be
04.02.1948. Had the date of birth been in fact 4th February 1938 he could not
have been admitted to pre-primary class at the age of 16 years. This
unsuccessful attempt of forgery in entry of date of birth in the record of school
vitiates the entire proceeding of application for claiming Sanmanpatra and
pensionary benefits. It also raises serious doubt regarding truthfulness of the
warrant on which he has based his claim and shows that the statement made in
his own affidavit is false to his own knowledge. Similarly his statement
before Mane Committee that he was required to live away from house for 11
months is also false.

Even accepting that he was born on 4.2.1938 his age on the

commencement of Hyderabad freedom movement would be less than 10
years. Normally no arrest warrant would be issued against a boy of 9 to 10
years age.
 - 203 -

The warrant is relied upon in this case is proved to be forged as

discussed in general reasons of warrant cases in separate part Further more
existence of name of Narayan Kisan Rakh, who was not even born when said
warrant was issued confirms the fact that said warrant is false and forged.

The Respondent, therefore, was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied

benefits granted to him. He was fully aware that he was not involved in
Hyderabad freedom movement. Inspite of this he ventured to claim
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as freedom fighter which deserves to be and
be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 204 -

File Case No.275 (Respondent No. 275)

Shri. Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad

He applied for grant of pension on 29.1.1999 and although in

application there is no reference to warrant issued against him he produced a
Xerox copy of warrant in file No. 24/1 Outward No. 209, 21 Isfander 1357
Fasli. He has filed affidavits of Ashruba Babarao Rakh and Viswanath
Devrao Rakh along with his affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29.06.1999 considered

his case and it is observed that in the absence of original record the warrant
copy cannot be relied upon but Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced about his
participation in freedom movement and recommended his case. However one
of the member P.V.Joshi observed that the copy of warrant is not verified.
The recommendation was based on subjective satisfaction and not on
evidence.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 15.09.1999

that there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 the
warrant is not verified and is not reliable.

The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla

Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension.

His statement was recorded before Mane Committee when he

appeared on 11.3.2003 in which he stated that he used to provide breads
(bhakari) to the freedom fighters and he used to give slogans moving from
village to village with tricolour flag and stated that no warrant was issued
against him and he was aged 15 to 16 years.

In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that the
petitioners produce the evidence of his date of birth but he never attended the
school and forged document is produced. When he inquired with the Head
Master, he was told that there is no record since he was not in the school. He
 - 205 -

was serving in Siemens Engineering Co. Ltd. . How could he be appointed,

if he was of such tender age. He has produced Xerox copy of letter dated
29.9.1967 issued by the Siemens Company with reference to his appointment
dated 15.4.1967.

In the public interest petition the petitioners produced through the

Education Officer a list of 26 persons whose date of birth was disputed. The
entry of his name is at Sr. No. 20 and date of birth mentioned is 5.3.1954.

The Commission issued summons to the Education Officer to produce

the school record regarding date of birth of Kaduba Nivrutti Gaikwad on
productin of which zerox was retained after verification wherein the entry of
his name is at Sr.No. 83 and his date of birth is mentioned as 05.03.1954. He
was admitted to the school on 18.07.1960 and his name was deleted from the
school record on 20.08.1962 due to continuous absence. Thus Kaduba
Nivrutti Gaikwad wasnot even born when the Hyderabad freedom movement
took place. His claim of Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits is totally false.
It is false to his own knowledge. He has attempted to secure Sanmanpatra and
pensionary benefits in respect of freedom movement when he was not even
born. The warrant on the basis of which he has made the claim is also
therefore a totally false and fabricated. The detailed reasons for not relying on
the warrant are stated in a separate part of this report.

This is a clear case of fraud which vitiates the entire proceeding and is
in fact in the words of Supreme Court is “Asanman” to the nation as well to
the real freedom fighters and the freedom movement and the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 206 -

File Case No. 288 (Respondent No.288)

Shri Vithal Rakhmaji Gopalghare

Applied for pension on 17.9.1990 and in the application he has stated

that he cut shindi trees, worked in congress camp and burnt karodgiri naka
and office of police patil.

He claimed pension on the basis of arrest warrant issued against him in

file No.21/1 Outward No. 617 dated 17 Thir 1357 Fasli i.e. 17th May 1947 and
produced Xerox copy of warrant which itself is a true copy of copy and Xerox
copy shows that true copy was signed by Assistant Superintendent Civil Court,
Gevrai on 10.11.1989 and the endorsement on the said Xerox copy dated
19.9.1990 IS “verified that the Xerox copy is true copy of copy issued by
Tahasildar, Patoda on 6.11.1989.”

The warrant was sent for verification by the District Collector Beed to
Civil Court Gevrai on 16.12.1997 enclosing copy of warrant and list of 17
persons making specific queries and the Civil Judge Gevrai reported on
10.8.1998 that the original record is not available and since it was issued by
the Patoda Tahasildar, his report be called.

The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 23.7.1998

that there is a petition in the High Court filed by the persons claiming pension
and it is necessary to report compliance. The Tahasildar has issued the
warrant copy and the same is required to be verified from the original record.
The report has been called from the Tahasildar but it is not received.

The Tahasildar Patoda had written to the Section Officer on

18.1.1993. The copy of that letter is in this file and as per the said letter
Tahasildar had enclosed a translation of the copy of warrant and in the
translation name of Vitthal Rakmaji appears.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 19.9.1998 referred to the
report of Civil Judge, Gevrai and in view of the fact that the original record
was not available stated that the copy is not reliable and decision be taken at
higher level. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not recommend the case for grant of
pension.
 - 207 -

The High Power Committee considered the matter. Note was put up
before the said committee that original record is not available and copy cannot
be relied upon and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti has not recommended.
However, it appears that earlier this warrant was verified and the verification
report is kept in the file at pg. 45-49 in which name of the person appears and
his claim be sanctioned. The Under Secretary mentioned that copy cannot be
relied upon. However the High Power Committee sanctioned the pension.

He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he had taken
education in private school and when he left the school his age was 40 to 45
years and he will produce the school-leaving certificate. He does not know
who has given affidavit in his support.

There is controversy regarding the date of birth of Vitthal and the

petitioners have produced evidence of the School Register record, which
shows his date of birth as 18.1.1951.

Respondent filed affidavit before this Commission in which he has

stated that this evidence is not trustworthy, as he did not attend the school. He
was underground freedom fighter and was absconding for 13 months, as there
was arrest warrant against him. He has produced medical certificate of age in
which there is a same statement that his age is 70 years. No data is given nor
does the certificate state what tests were carried out.

The petitioners in Public Interest Litigation had produced the extract of

admission and school leaving record issued by the Education Officer, wherein
the date of birth is mentioned as 18.01.1951 and he took admission in school
on 14.06.1968 in IXth standard and left school on 31.07.1968 as he was
continuously absent. The Commission had also issued a notice to the
Education Officer for production of the original record. The record was
produced and after verification of original record the Xerox copy thereof is
retained which mentions date of birth as 18.01.1951. Thus this person was
not even born when the freedom movement took place and fraudulently
moved application for claiming Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits by
producing false documents and affidavits. The warrant on which his claim is
based alleged to have been issued on 17th May 1947 bearing outward No. 617
 - 208 -

including the name of person born on 18-1-1951 thus becomes suspicious.

That reveals why attempt was made to secure a Xerox copy of the certified
copy issued by Gevrai Court and to get the same certified from Patoda Court
official.

The entire proceedings of his application for securing Sanmanpatra and

allied benefits are vitiated by this fraud lin as much as he was aware that he
was not even born when freedom movement took place and attempted and
succeded in securing Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and
be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 209 -

File Case No. 319 (Respondent No.319)

Shri Dadarao Sonaji Bhople

Dadarao Sonaji Bhople filed application on 26.03.1984 claiming

Freedom Fighter’s Pension on the ground that he acted in Hyderabad Freedom
Movement as underground freedom fighter. Thereafter on 03.07.1997 he filed
his own affidavit dated 26.06.1997 and affidavit of Anna EknathTelap dated
23.06.1997 and Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 21.06.1997 in support of his claim.
The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhaye appear to be
affidavits already typed to which name of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople was added
afterwards by pen. Even his own affidavit appears to be stereotype proforma
affidavit.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.07.1997 recommended

the application of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople relying on the affidavits of Anna
Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.

The Additional Collector Beed in his report dated 10.07.1997

submitted to the Deputy Secretary General Administratin Department
Freedom Fighter’s Cell endorsed that there was no compliance with
Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and so in his opinion it is not a fit
case for grantof pension. However, he asked the Government to take decision
in the matter.

The High Power Committee accepted the affidavits and

recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned pension.

The Petitioners in Public Interest Letigation disputed age of this

respondent. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed filed list of 26 persons in
High Court wherein name of Dadarao Sonaji Bhople is at No. 5 and his date of
birth is shown as 10.3.1937.

On summons being issued to the Education Officer Zilla Parishad

Beed, he produced the register of school admission and the certified copy of
the original with translation is retained which shows his date of birth as
15.03.1937 which shows that during the freedom movement he was aged
hardly 10 to 11 years and could not have taken part in the freedom movement.
 - 210 -

The claim is based on warrant in file No. 7/1357 Fasli outward No. 407 dated
2 Bahman 1357 fasli i.e. 2nd December 1947 and the entire warrant which
includes the name of boy of 10 to 11 years thus becomes suspicious. The
original warrant is found to be forged by the Commission for the reasons
given in separate part of reasons for warrant cases. Therefore also his claim is
found to be false.

The affidavit filed in support of the application and the affidavits of

other freedom fighters supporting his case are also unreliable. He was of so
tender age at the time of freedom movement that it is highly improbable that
he could have taken part in the freedom movement. The claim is thus
fraudulent. He was fully aware that he was not concerned with the freedom
movement inspite of that he attempted to move application and produced copy
of forged document in support to justify the claim. The claim thus is vitiated
by fraud and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted deserve to be and be
cancelled forthwith. The Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 211 -

File Case No. 329 (Respondent No.329)

Shri Maruti Ganpat Misal

Maruti Ganpat Misal applied for freedom fighter’s pension on

10.10.1991 stating therein the role played by him as underground freedom
fighter in the movement against Nizam Government. In support of this
application he filed his own affidavit dated 09.10.1997. Thereafter, again in
compliance with the requirement of Government Resolution 04.07.1995 after
notice from Collector, Beed he submitted another affidavit dated 10.12.1997
and affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 24.09.97 and Anna Eknath
Telap dated 15.09.1997. Affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna
Eknath Telap are the ready made typed affidavits wherein the name of Maruti
Ganpat Misal is added in ink after the same was typed.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1997 recommended
the application relying on affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna
Eknath Telap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 15.07.1998

addressed to the Deputy Secretary, General Administratin Department
Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai objected to the grant of
application on the ground that the conditions incorporated in Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995 are not fulfilled by Maruti Ganpat Misal and he
requested for taking final decision at Government level.

Thereafter, on 10.03.1999 Maruti Ganpat Misal presented application

to Sabhapati , High Power Committee, Freedom Fighter’s Cell, Mantralaya,
Mumbai alongwith his affidavit dated 02.02.1999 and affidavit of Manik
Tulshiram Anbhule , Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap of the same date. Additional
allegations were made to fulfill the requirements of Government Resolution
dated 04.07.1995 in the said affidavits.

The High Power Committee granted the application on 26.06.1999

relying on the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Beed and the
affidavits placed on record.

On 19.03.2003 statement of Maruti Ganpat Misal was recorded before

Mane Committee wherein he stated about furnishing information to the
 - 212 -

activists about the Razakars. He categorically stated that police did not beat
him any time. According to him, police did not arrest him at any time. This
statement of Maruti Ganpat Misal is contrary to the statement made by him
and one of the Freedom Fighters supporting him in their affidavits dated
10.12.1997 and 15.09.1997 respectively.

Maruti Ganpat Misal filed his detailed affidavit dated 03.12.2005

before the Commission where in he has narrated many new things which he
did not disclose earlier.

Record of birth date of Maruti Ganpat Misal is placed on record,

wherein his date of birth is shown as 2.5.1939 indicating that he was 8/9 years
old at the time of freedom movement.

In the list of 26 persons produced by the Education Officer in the

High Court in public interest petition, his name appears at Sr.No.23 and the
date of birth mentioned against the name is 02.05.1939. It means that at the
time of freedom movement he was aged about 8 to 9 years and it is highly
improbable that a boy of such tender age would take part in the freedom
movement or would even have understanding about the freedom movement
going against the Nizam Government.

The Commission had issued summons to the Education Officer to

produce the original record which was produced by the Head Master wherein
his date of birth is recorded as 02.05.1939. He was admitted to the school on
24.07.1945 in pre-primary section and it is therefore highly improbable that in
the freedom movement of 1947-48 he could have taken part and could have
been a part of the activities as mentioned in his application and the affidavits.
Thus even affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are on the face of it
unreliable. He was aware of the fact that he had no concern with the freedom
movement and in spite of that he ventured to file false application for grant
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and fraudulently obtained the same and
therefore Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
 - 213 -

File Case No. 330 (Respondent No.330)

Shri Dadarao Waman Misal

Dadarao Waman Misal filed application for freedom fighter’s pension

on 18.10.1991 alleging therein about his underground activities against the
Nizam Government. He also submitted Xerox copy of his own affidavit dated
09.10.1991 along with that application. Thereafter, he filed fresh application in
response to the notice issued by the Collector, Beed on 3.7.1997 to comply
with requirement of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. To substantiate
the application, he filed affidavit of his own dated 10.12.1997, along with
affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated 29.09.97 and Anna Eknath Telap
dated 15.09.1997. The affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Anna Eknath
Telap are in typed format wherein the name of Dadarao Waman Misal is
inserted in ink in typed format.

The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1997 recommended

the case relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sahebrao Ganpati
Sanap.

The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 5.7.1998, addressed

to the Deputy Secretary, General Administratin Department Freedom Fighter’s
Cell, Mantralaya, Mumbai expressed that applicant had not complied with the
requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. However he added
that final decision be taken at Government level.

Thereafter Dadarao Waman Misal addressed letter to the Deputy Chief

Minister on 15.6.1999 and along with that letter he submitted affidavit of his
own dated 9.6.1999, affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev
Balawant Aher of the very date. The Deputy Chief Minister, forwarded the
application and affidavits along with other papers with his forwarding letter
dated 15.6.1999 for taking appropriate action in the matter, whereon Member
Secretary endorsed for putting up the matter immediately and to inform the
Deputy Chief Minister of action taken. The High Power Committee granted
application on 25.9.1999 relying on the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti and recommendation of Deputy Chief Minister as well as the affidavit
of supporting freedom fighters.
 - 214 -

In the statement dated 29.3.2003 recorded before Mane Committee

Dadarao Waman Misal accounted for his underground activities in the struggle
against Nizam Government.

In the public interest petition the Education Officer had produced a list
of 26 persons in which his name appears at Sr.No. 24, wherein the date of
birth is mentioned as 05.07.1931, therefore he was aged 16 to 17 years at the
time of Hyderabad Freedom Movement and on the ground of his age it cannot
be said that it is improbable that he would have taken part in the freedom
movement.

As already pointed out the supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati

Sanap and Anna Eknath Telap suffers from the infirmity not only of addition
of names in hand writing to the typed format of affidavit but also the statement
that he took education in private school and cannot produce school leaving
certificate. The portion that he was beaten by the police and was required to
live away from house is also added in handwriting to the typed format. The
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap on the close scruitiny reveals that earlier it was
stated that in the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka and Antervali Naka
Dadarao Waman Misal resident of Khakarmoha Taluka Patoda district Beed
was with them along with many others. The word many others is addition to
earlier typed portion of 90 to 95. None of the additions have been signed or
initialed by anybody and to say the least these supporting affidavits are worth
less. They cannot be treated as affidavits in the sense of statements on oath
having the necessary sanctity. He has thereafter in the year 1999 filed
additional affidavit of himself supported by Manik Tulsiram Anubhule in
which there are no such additions, but he has named Manik Tulsiram Anbhule
for the first time, although in his affidavit dated 10.12.1997 he had mentioned
the names of as many as seven persons with whom he worked which did not
include the name of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap has
stated the incident in which he was sentenced to three months. This
respondent was not sentenced and mere addition of his name in the blank
space that he was also with them in the said incident is not sufficient to show
his involvement and as already pointed out the said affidavit itself is not
 - 215 -

affidavit in the proper sense of the term. Although he claims in his affidavit
dated 10.12.1997 even the supporting freedom fighters state that he was
beaten by the police, when examined by Mane Committee he stated that police
had never beaten him. In this statement also he has not named Manik
Tulsiram Anubhule. He has also not quoted any of the incidents which he has
stated in earlier affidavits and which are stated in the affidavits of supporting
freedom fighters. On the contrary he stated that he used to collect grains and
money from the nearby villages but could not give any particulars as to from
where and from whom he had collected the same.

Considering the background of the persons filing supporting affidavits

in umpteen number of cases, the close scrutiny of the affidavits becomes
absolutely necessary. It clearly appears that when letter of Deputy Chief
Minister Minister was received and on the said letter the Member Secretary of
High Power Committee made endorsement that the file be immediately put up
for recommendation there was change in approach.

The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to make out the case
as per the requirements of the Government Resolution to prove his entitlement
under the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled and the
Commission recommends accordingly.