Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of
One Man Commission
Justice A.B.Palkar
(Former Judge, Bombay High Court)
Appointed
By
Government of Maharashtra
(VOLUME II)
2007
- 216 -
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
- 217 -
PART – XI
PART – XII
PART – XIII
PARTICULAR CASES OF
UNDERGROUND FREEDOM FIGHTERS
Sr. Case Name of the Freedom Fighter Page
No. File No. No.
1. 1 Shri. Janardan Gopalrao Kulkarni 217
2. 2 Nivrutti Eknath Sanap 219
3. 4 Ramchandra Gopalrao Kulkarni 220
4. 5 Eknath Vamanrao Joshi 221
5. 6 Maroba Dagduba Vairage 223
6. 7 Lala Laxman Kidant 225
7. 9 Bhagwan Dhondiba Chaure 227
8. 13 Ramkisan Yeshwanta Rahale 230
9. 22 Deorav Ramji Shinde 232
10. 24 Sakharam Bajirrao Shinde 234
11. 28 Maruti Jayawant Dalvi 236
12. 35 Shashikala Rambhau Eksinge 239
13. 36 Narhari Raosaheb Karande 241
14. 37 Manik Narayan Sakhare 243
15. 38 Kisan Sarjerao Tole 245
16. 45 Raghunath Bhagoji Rakh 247
17. 47 Vithu Kisan Gayake 250
18. 55 Parwatibai Sadashiv Lahurikar 252
19. 59 Maruti Gangaram Bhanwar 254
20. 65 Satwaji Bapurao Dhakne 256
21. 70 Maruti Shripati Shinde 259
22. 73 Tukaram Maruti Pawar 261
23. 74 Mukta Bapu Dhas 263
24. 75 Bapurao Raosaheb Garje 265
25. 77 Nivrutti Jogu Anushe 267
26. 78 Bapurao Banduji Bhapkar 269
27. 79 Mathurabai Bajirao Tarte 271
28. 81 Janu Kisan Wanve 273
29. 83 Babasaheb Narayan Khade 275
30. 84 Wamanrao Maruti Kulkarni (deceased) 276
Represented by Dwarkabai Wamanrao Kulkarni
31. 86 Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni 278
32. 87 Dhondiram Govind Labde (deceased) 279
Represented by Laxmibai Dhondiram Labde
33. 98 Shivaji Limbaji Doiphode 281
34. 99 Prabhakar Bajirao Wanve 284
35. 100 Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni 286
36. 101 Rukhaminibai Vitthal Mirgane 288
37. 103 Madhav Kisan Mankale (deceased) Represented 290
by Parwati Madhav Mankale
38. 104 Shrimram Waman Bharati 292
39. 106 Hemraj Premraj Meher 293
- 220 -
He stated in application that he was required to leave his house as his house
was burnt by Razakars. His wife died due to shock of this.
He has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and
Anna Eknath Telap who were convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
In his own affidavit dated 7th August 1997 ( 20.8.1997)he referred the names
of Waman Rao Vaze and Anna Eknath Telap as well as Namdev Khade and claimed
to have worked at Kharda camp. He was involved in the incident of ransacking vada
check post , house of police patil and also the office of the police patil.
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane stated that at Kharda camp Waman Vaze was the
chief and 90 to 95 groups of freedom fighters were working under him.
Similar is the statement of Anna Eknath Telap. He has however, stated that in
the incident of looting Antaravali check post, Janardan Gopal Kulkarni was with him
along with 50 to 60 persons . Whereas Nivrutti Dhakane does not refer to this
incident.
In another affidavit dated 21st August 1997 he states that in the incident of
attack on police choky along with Kashinath Jadhav, he was involved and there were
50 to 60 other persons.
In the meeting of Zilla Gaurav Samiti held on 29th January 1999 it is stated
that he has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters and he was connected with
Hyderabad Freedom Movements and his case is recommended.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the ground that he has filed
affidavits of two freedom fighters, who were sentenced in the freedom movement to
two years imprisonment.
On 12th March 1999 the Additional Collector, Beed had written letter to the
Section Officer, General Administration Department, Mantralaya that the evidence
produced in support did not fulfill the requirements of Government Resolution dated
4th July 1995. However, the High power Committee accepted the recommendation
and pension was sanctioned.
Mane Committee did not recommend his case because he did not name Anna
Eknath Telap in his statement but named Sahebrao Telap and Namdeo Balwant Aher.
Although the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath telap and
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the same defect which are pointed out in the
general reasoning contained in separate part, his case appears to be case of real
hardship. His house was burnt by the Razakar and his wife died due to shock. One of
the members of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti P.V.Joshi who acted in the meeting of Zilla
Gaurav Samiti as a conscious keeper of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti by raising objections
whenever he found it appropriate recommended his case.
The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary
benefits granted to him need not be disturbed and recommends accordingly for
continuing the same.
- 224 -
On 9th March 1999 Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for pension.
In his own affidavit dated 07.10.1998 he has named 7 well known freedom
fighters with whom he was working. He has also described meeting of Wamanrao
Vaze in which there was firing and the instance in which two constables of Nizam
Government were killed and two persons namely Limba Bappaji and Patil Buva
became martyrs having been killed by the Nizam police.
The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserves to be continued and recommends accordingly.
- 225 -
In the affidavit filed along with application he has only stated that he had gone
underground during the Hyderabad Movement. He stated in his affidavit dated
19.11.1998 that his house was burnt by Razakars and so he was compelled to give up
his education and live away from his house. He has filed additional affidavit of
Namdev Balawant Aher who supported his case made out in the subsequent affidavit.
The other freedom fighter Manik Tulsiram Anubhule also stated the similar story.
In the meeting dated 25th July 1997 the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his
case.
In the affidavit he stated that he was beaten and driven out of his house and
one Kasam driver took possession of his house.
He was harassed because he was not helping police to arrest his brother
whose house was burnt by Razakars. He therefore went underground. Khanderao
Digambar Kulkarni also supported his case.
He filed further affidavit on 1st July 1997 and stated the same facts. Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who were convicted and sentenced to two
years imprisonment have supported his case. However the names of Eknath Waman
Kulkarni is added in ink to typed affidavits of both the freedom fighters .
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on 9th July 1997 and the High
Power Committee accepted the same.
However, in his letter dated 10th July 1997 the Additional Collector informed
Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department that his case is not fit for
sanction for want of compliance with the Government Resolution.
His application shows that his house along with all utensils and household
articles was auctioned and the possession of the house was taken by one Kasim driver
and Murlidhar Kulkarni. He has referred a book written by Shriniwas Khot in respect
of Beed district Hyderabad freedom movement in which this incident is quoted.
Thus he has suffered a great hardship; he was driven out of village and was
naturally required to be away from his house by going underground and of the same
is supported by the other freedom fighters.
He applied for pension on 11th August 1995 and in Form A he stated that he
was working as per the directions of Tatya Dhargal and Shaikh Omar. However, he
has not stated that he was required to leave village or he was beaten by the police. In
the affidavit dated 26th June 1997, he stated that worked under the leadership Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He has filed their affidavits.In both the
affidavits his name is added in ink to the typed affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the ground that the two
freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for two years have supported
his case.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his letter to Deputy Secretary, dated 6th
August 1997 stated that Mariba’s case was not fit for sanction as he did not comply
with provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
The recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High
Power Committee as his case was supported by two freedom fighters having
necessary qualification.
In his own affidavit dated 26.06.1997 he has added the names of Anna Eknath
Telap to the typed affidavit. In his own affidavit he has not stated that he took part in
burning the Pachangari Naka, Daskhed police patil office and wada to which
reference is given by the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane. In both the affidavits the name is added in ink to the typed affidavit.
He has filed additional affidavit dated 11.11.1998 stating that he was required to live
away from his house and in his affidavit he has referred to the incident of burning of
Pachangari naka. There is also supporting affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule who
was sentenced imprisonment for two years and has stated that Mariba Dagadu Vairage
was living with him for three to four months. He has filed further affidavit of
Namdev Balawant Aher dated 24.12.1997. However in this affidavit the name of
Mariba Dagadu Vairage is added after erasing one earlier sentence containing the
- 229 -
name of some other person and the entire portion of the name, village, taluka etc. are
written in space which was cleared after using the whitener to delete the earlier
portion. Thus the only proper affidavit is of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule whereas the
Government Resolution required him to file affidavits of two freedom fighters who
were sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
In view of the fact that out of four affidavits of supporting freedom fighters
filed by him three affidavits are defective and the statement contained therein
specially regarding his involvement in some activities against the Nizam Government
along with them is after thought and unreliable, he cannot be said to have complied
with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted deserve to be cancelled and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
.
- 230 -
He applied for pension on 4th January 1985. In the Proforma A filed with the
application he has stated that he had taken part in attacking police choky, check posts
and burning Government buildings.
When he applied in 1985 he had filed affidavits of persons who worked with
him viz. Uttam Patil Gavane and Devidas Nana Kadam. They were not convicted and
sentenced.
After the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 a letter was issued to
him and he filed additional affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane and Manik Tulisiram Anubhule.
In the affidavits of Niviruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of
Lala Laxman Kirdat is added in ink to the typed affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case. However, by letter dated
th
16 October 1997 the Additional Collector wrote to Deputy Secretary General
Administration Department that Lala did not comply with the provisions of the
Government resolution dated 4th July 1995.
He appeared before Mane committee. His statement was recorded on oath and
in this statement he made completely contradictory statement to case earlier made out
by him and his supporters. He stated that his father had taken part in the freedom
movement and at that time he was aged 7 to 8 years. He himself did not take part in
the freedom movement. His application for pension was prepared by Kashinath
Jadhav who collected the documents and did everything necessary in that respect, no
warrant was issued against him he was not arrested, he was not beaten by the police.
His father was underground freedom fighter but since his father did not get any
- 231 -
pension Kashinath Jadhav made application for him and filed certain documents in
support of it. He is not aware as to which freedom fighter filed supporting affidavits
and he does not know Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, Manik Tulshiram
Anbhule, and Namdeo Balwant Aher and he never knew that they were in the
freedom movement. This statement on oath made before Mane committee completely
falsifies his claim for Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits.
His father may be a freedom fighter as stated by him but it is no reason that
since the father did not get pension application can be moved by his son, who was of
tender age of 7 to 8 years during the freedom movement. In fact this is a fraudulent
claim although he himself may not be guilty of the fraud and the fraud as observed by
the Supreme Court vitiates any solemn proceeding and therefore, Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits granted be cancelled forthwith and the commission recommends
accordingly.
- 232 -
He has filed affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
who were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years.
In his affidavit filed on 11th August 1995 he has stated that he worked at
Kharada camp under the leadership of Ramling Swami with Nivruti Fakira Dhakane,
Wamanrao Vaze and Namdeo Khade, Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite. He
has filed affidavits of Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite. In both the affidavits
of his supporters it is stated that about 70 to 80 persons were working at Kharada
camp and Bhagwan Dhondiba was one of them.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 5th June 1997 recommended his
case on the ground that two convicted freedom fighters have supported his case.
The Additional Collector vide his letter dated 4th July1997 addressed to
Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department informed that there was no
compliance with provisions of Government Resolution dated 5th July 1995. And
therefore application could not be sanctioned.
The High Power Committee did not agree with the note put up by the office
stating that on going through the earlier documents and affidavits of the applicant
contrary statements were noticed and further more persons who recommended his
case for grant of pension Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher have given such recommendations to
hundreds of persons and therefore their affidavits are not reliable and it in fact
requires inquiry and the applicant’s claim be rejected and accordingly the High Power
Committee rejected his claim.
- 233 -
Thereafter he filed affidavits of Sopan Nana Bangar and Babu Nana Gite ,
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdeo Balawant Aher. One additional affidavit was
filed by him on 20th December 1997 and in the supporting affidavits filed along with
this further affidavit , it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away
from house for four or five months.
Advocate N.S.Jadhav pointed out that in the supporting affidavits the name of
Bhagwan Dhondiba Chaure is added afterwards as the name is typed in both the
affidavits after the earlier portions was typed.
Advocate Jadhav pointed out how the applicant has improved his case by
stating additional facts and how the persons supporting his case have also changed
their versions to suit his case.
These latter affidavits were directly sent to the Member Secretary of the High
Power Committee who had earlier raised objection to the extent of stating that inquiry
is necessary as the said freedom fighters have filed similar affidavits supporting
hundreds of applicants.
On 31st January 2003 he appeared before the Mane Committee. He has not
stated in the statement that that he was required to live away from his house.
However, he named Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Sopan Nana Bangar, Namdev
Tatya Bangar as a persons with whom he had worked. He only stated that they took
part in morcha and burnt the check post.
In fact the member secretary High Power Committee adv. Rajabhau Zarkar in
his note dated 16.04.1998 rightly pointed out that in there was no mention of all the
persons on whose affidavits he relied upon and the statements contained therein were
contradictory to the earlier version. Moreover, Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Sona Rama
Jaybhay, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Namdeo Balvant Aher have filed such
affidavits in innumerable cases and are not reliable and the matter requires enquiry
- 234 -
regarding the persons filing such affidavits in innumerable cases. It is also stated that
the same Advocate Tandale identified all the deponents before the authority.
Considering the date of this note, it is surprising as to how in this case as well
as in other cases the affidavits of the very same freedom fighters were blindly
accepted without even considering the defects, by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti as well as
by the High Power Committee.
Further surprising aspect is that after this note when the claim was rejected
and he was informed by the Government, he again applied through the member
secretary of the High Power Committed who had put the aforesaid strong note and
thereafter note was put up that he had taken part in the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement as underground freedom fighter and the statement of his sufferings in his
affidavit explained that he was required to live away from his house and his brother
was also arrested by the police and therefore, he has complied with the provisions
4.7.1995 Government Resolution. Thereafter, same member secretary put up a note
that considering the affidavits filed, the claim be sanctioned and the same was
accordingly sanctioned.
The earlier view taken by the Government was correct. There was need to
make enquiry against the persons who were indiscriminately filing affidavits and
supporting various applicants, by showing that they have taken part in the very same
incident as pointed out in the general reasons of the underground freedom fighter’s
cases. The number of freedom fighters to whom these freedom fighters have given
supporting affidavit is also stated by the Commission. It is obvious that for some
reason which is inexplicable there was sudden change in the approach of secretary to
High Power Committee.
The Commission is of the considered view that the earlier rejection was proper
and there was no justification for change in view. The Commission therefore finds
that the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to him deserve to be and
be cancelled forthwith and commission recommends accordingly.
- 235 -
In the affidavit filed on 14th August 1998 he merely stated that he took part in
the said movement under the Leadership of Kashinath Tatyasaheb Jadhav. Similar
statement is made by the persons supporting him namely Achyut Shankar Gavane and
Ashruba Jayaji Gavane.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21st July 1997 recommended his
case for grant of pension based on the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane.
Thereafter the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 26th July
1997 that he did not comply with the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995.
The High Power Committee, against the note of the Department in favour of
sanctioning, made endorsement on 17th November 1997 that the claim be rejected and
rejected it. This note is of Member Secretary and claim was accordingly rejected.
- 236 -
The affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakne and Sona
Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same defects and infirmities that the names are
inserted afterwards in the typed affidavit and they are stereo type as in other cases.
The earlier note put up to the High Power Committee merely stated that he appeared
to have been connected with Hyderabad Freedom Movement but there was no
mention of the fact that he had complied with the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The claim was rightly rejected.
However as stated above the High Power Committee changed its view and
sanctioned pension although no additional evidence was produced.
In the Commission’s view this was improper and is unacceptable and remains
unexplained. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and
be cancelled as he failed to comply with the Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.
- 237 -
Devrao Ramji Shinde filed application on 14th August 1995 claiming pension
as underground freedom fighter stating therein that he worked underground under the
leadership of Kashinath Jadhav in connection with attacks on Madalmohi, Padalsingi
out posts and Ahergaon Razakar centre etc.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in the meeting held on 8th December 1997 referred to
the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and recommended
his case for grant of pension in view of two affidavits filed in support of his case.
On 14th August 1998 the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary
that Devrao did not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th
July 1995 and the case was not fit for recommendation.
In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has not stated anything worth
nothing.
Sakharam Bajirao Shinde filed application for grant of pension on 9th October
1996 and in column No.3 and 4 he stated that he worked in the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement as underground freedom fighter under the Leadership of Kashinath Rao
Jadhav.
He was issued notice dated 9th October 1996 i.e. after Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995. He then filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane which are stereo type and in which the name of Sakharam Bajirao Shinde is
typed afterwards and the other portion of draft affidavit was kept ready as can be seen
by necked eye.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting on 23rd December 1997 refused to
recommend his case. However the earlier cyclostyled portion about the
recommendation for sanction was not scored out though wherein it was clearly stated
that case was not fit and as per rules and could not be recommended.
Thereafter on 4th July 1998 Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter to the
Deputy Secretary that the case is not fit for grant of pension as applicant did not
comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
The matter was then placed before the High Power Committee and the High
Power Committee referred to the affidavits of the Freedom Fighters Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as well as Aaher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and
sanctioned pension.
In his original application he has not stated that he was required to leave his
house or was beaten by the police and stated for the first time that he was required to
live away from his house for about nine months. The freedom fighters supporting
him did not state in their affidavits that he was required to leave his house.
- 240 -
Before the Mane Committee he stated that his father had taken part and police
were making inquiries, regarding whereabouts of his father. His father got pension as
freedom fighter. He had specifically stated that his father got pension because
Kashinath Jadhav and his wife had love and affection for his father. He has not done
any work, he was only providing bread (bhakari). He does not possess any documents.
He has filed a detailed affidavit before this Commission reiterating the same facts.
However, there is no statement regarding compliance with Government Resolution.
In the minutes of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti meeting the Chairman has clearly
written in his own hand writing that ‘case is not fit for sanction as there is no
compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution.’ However, the earlier
cyclostyle portion regarding recommendation, which should have been deleted by
adding this sentence remains as it is. This addition of the sentence by the Chairman
and signature of all members therein clearly show that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not
recommend the case for sanction.
However note put up, to the High Power Committee is that the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti unanimously recommended his case. Thus High Power Committee was
mislead by the note put up.
In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
his name is added to the typed affidavit.The difference of the ink is so obvious that it
clearly appears to have been typed afterwards. Moreover their affidavits speak of the
same incidents which they have stated in almost all supporting affidavits filed by
them in different cases and in general reasoning part there is detailed discussion
regarding the nature of their affidavits and the reliability, validity and acceptability
thereof.
Before Mane Committee he specifically admitted that he had not done any
work in the freedom movement except providing breads and from the statement it also
appears that even his father got pension because of wife of Kashinath Jadhav named
Anusuyabai belongs to his village and was residing in his neighborhood and therefore,
Kashinath Jadhav had love and affection for his father. As admitted by him, he
merely provided breads (bhakari) and did not take part in any activity against Nizam
Government, he has not complied with any provisions of Government Resolution and
his claim was liable to be rejected and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti rightly refused to
recommend his case. Therefore the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him
deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 241 -
Maruti Jaywanta Dalvi applied for pension on 23rd January 1990 and in his
application he stated to have taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. However
in the affidavit filed on 16th January 1991 he has stated that warrant was issued
against him and therefore he suffered. In support of his claim he filed affidavits of
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. In both the affidavits filed on 27th
January 1997 name of the applicant is written in the blank space left open in the typed
affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 20th June 1997 recommended
his case for grant of pension in view of two supporting affidavits of persons who were
sentenced to not less than two years for their activities in the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement.
The Additional Collector in his letter dated 10th July 1997 informed the
Deputy Secretary that his case was not fit for sanction, as he did not comply with the
requirement of the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 inspite of the said
fact, the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had recommended his case.
The matter went to the High Power Committee and on 17th November 1997
the High Power Committee observed ‘he does not comply with the requirements of
Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, his pension cannot be sanctioned’ and
rejected his claim.
After these additional affidavits were filed, the note to the High Power
Committee stated, that in view of this new evidence, the file is put up again for
consideration. It is further stated that he had not produced copy of warrant although
he claimed that arrest warrant was issued. The claim was rejected after which he has
filed two additional affidavits.
The note further states that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case
and he has complied with the requirements and the claim be sanctioned and thereafter
claim was sanctioned on 29th January 2000.
However on going through the file it can be seen, in the meantime the then
Minister of State for Rural Development Shri Badamrao Pandit had addressed a
letter to the Member Secretary Rajabhau Zarkar, Advocate that his case be
recommended for grant of pension. It is obvious that after this letter, a fresh note was
put up.
In his statement before Mane Committee he stated that no warrant was ever
issued against him and he was also never required to live away from his house and did
not state anything about the other requirements of the Government Resolution. In fact
he clearly stated that he did not take part in strike or any other activity against Nizam
Government.
After earlier rejection of his claim he filed affidavit dated 11.11.1998 wherein
it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for 11
months. He has also stated that the incident in which two persons namely Limba
Bappaji, Sanap Yadav Patil, Buva Sanap were killed by the Nizam police and after
- 243 -
this incident for protection about 400 to 500 persons including him attacked Nizam
police with sticks, guns etc. at Wadzari and in the firing by these freedom fighters
two police constable of Nizam Government were killed. In the first part of the
affidavit he has stated that in all the acts including the incident quoted above Namdev
Balawant Aher, Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap were with him.
However, Namdev Balawant Aher does not refer to this serious incident, in the
supporting affidavit and even Manik Tulsiram Anbhule does not refer to this serious
incident. Such a serious contradiction would normally not be found if all the three
were party to the said incident. The earlier rejection was correct. However, entire
approach changed after the letter of Minister dated 5th July 1999 on which the
Member Secretary Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar put up note to place the matter for
reconsideration.
When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded
on oath. He did not make reference to the aforesaid incident in which two police of
Nizam Government were killed. He merely stated that freedom fighters used to come
to their village and he used to provide them bread (bhakari) tea etc. He did not take
part in any strike or any other activity against Nizam Government. In view of this it is
obvious that the detailed affidavit filed at later stage does not contain truthful version.
In the application filed by Rambhau Yesuba Eksinghe on 4th June 1998 stated
to have worked along with Aashraji Jagatap in the freedom movement against the
Government of Nizam and in the affidavit dated 7th February 1998 he stated that he
worked, as congress worker giving slogans of “Vande Mataram” and “Mahatma
Gandhi ki Jai.” He was also involved in the activity of burning Karodgiri naka and
since the police were in search of him, he went to Mirajgaon camp. He stated that
razakars used to come to their village along with ten to fifteen persons. He was
keeping watch to protect the villagers.
After the notice dated 19th August 1996, he sent letter to the Collector on 15th
August 1997 stating that he was required to live away from his house for about four to
six months along with Asharji Raoji Jagtap head of Mirajgaon camp. However he
was not beaten by the police and there were groups involving 90 to 95 persons who
were working underground. He filed the affidavit of two freedom fighters who were
sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years namely Eknath Anna Telap and
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane along with his own affidavit. In both the affidavits the name
Rambhau Yeshuba is added in handwriting which is not signed or initialed by any
body. He has also filed additional affidavit, stating different incidents which were
not in the earlier affidavit and has filed affidavits of Shebrao Ganapati Sanap and
Manik Tulshiam Anbhule.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 6.11.1997 recommended his
case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane.
- 245 -
Thereafter matter was placed before the High Power Committee and the note
put up stated names of persons who filed additional affidavits of viz. Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and sanctioned pension on 20.10.1999.
As he is no more his wife appeared before the Mane Committee and naturally
she has no personal knowledge.
The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira filed in support of
Rambhau Yesuba have the same defect as in other cases. After notice was issued to
him in view of the Government Resolution of 4.7.1995, he filed detailed affidavit on
19.8.1996 along with supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik
Tulshiram Anbhule. These affidavits were before the High Power Committee when
his case was considered by the High Power Committee in view of his additional
affidavit and the supporting affidavits of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and Manik
Tulshiram Anbhule. The incidents stated in these three affidavits are consistent and
his statement in the affidavit is corroborated by the two supporting freedom fighters.
There is compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution of 4.7.1995 and
merely because earlier two affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakne relied upon by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti were defective, it would be unjust to
reject his claim or to say that the said claim was wrongly considered by the High
Power Committee on untenable grounds and the Commission therefore finds that
there is no reason to interfere with the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits
sanctioned to him and recommends the continuation thereof.
- 246 -
A letter was addressed to him by the Section Officer on 10th June 1998 for
compliance with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. He
then sent affidavits of Narhari Raosaheb Karande and Namdev Balavant Aher.
He also sent his own affidavit stating that he was working under the leadership
of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. He was required to live away from the house and could
not take education because of that and filed affidavits of Namdeo Balavant Aaher and
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 13th April 1998 and in both the affidavits his name is
written in ball pen in the typed affidavits. The supporting affidavits do not state that
he was required to live away from his house.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in meeting dated 25.07.1997 referred to the affidavits
of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap however, refused to recommend
his case on the ground that the earlier statement in the application was contradictory.
Note put up to the High Power Committee thereafter, states that he has filed
affidavit of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment as required by
the Government Resolution. He took part in the freedom movement from Kharda
Camp and was involved in the incident of attack of Pachangri Naka and burning
office and wada of police patil Daskhed, and there are supporting affidavits of
Namdeo Balvantrao Aher and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. The statements in these
affidavits are consistent with the statements in his affidavit and so High Power
Committee granted his application. He appeared before Mane Committee and his
statement was recorded on 4th February, 2003. He stated that he did not know
Wamanrao Waze and he was directed by Ramling Swami to provide breads ( Bhakri)
to freedom fighters and he used to carry 100 breads (Bhakri) from his house. He has
not referred to any activity in the freedom movement against Nizam Government and
therefore the statement in his affidavit and the affidavits of the supporting freedom
fighters are unreliable as he himself when examined on oath by Mane Committee did
not tell a single word about the said activities. Accepting his word that he provided
breads (Bhakri) to the persons working in Kharda Camp, he does not became a
freedom fighter entitled to Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits and therefore the
same granted to him on untenable grounds deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith
and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 248 -
After the notice was issued to him on 3rd August 1999 he filed affidavits of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. In the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane dated 30th July 1997 the name of Manik Narayan Sakhare resident of Beed is
typed afterwards as the original affidavit is carbon copy and name of Manik Narayan
Sakhare is added in original type written letters. Similar is the affidavit of Anna
Eknath Telap, in which the name Manik Narayan Sakhare is added and clearly
appears to be typed afterwards in the affidavit already typed.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10th December 1997
recommended the case for grant of pension in view of the affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.
Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter dated 16th July 1998 to
the Deputy Secretary taking objection to the grant of pension as per recommendation
of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti for the non compliance with the provisions of the
Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
In the meantime he had filed additional affidavit dated 27th April 1998 in view
of notice received after the issuance of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995,
stating that being underground freedom fighter he had to live away from his house .
He cannot produce any evidence. As he was away from house he could not take
education. There was no question of being beaten by the police. He has already filed
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. Now he is filing
affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aaher. In the affidavit
of Namdeo Balawant Aher dated 27th April 1998 the name of Manik Narayan Sakhare
is hand written in typed affidavit in portion kept blank for addition of name.
- 249 -
The High Power Committee granted pension in view of the statement that he
was required to live away from his house and affidavits filed in support.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and in his statement, he has merely
stated that he was providing bread (bhakari) in police action and at that time he was
aged nine years. His parents were poor. He did not attend school. He was providing
breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters and remained underground.
Although, he has filed four affidavits of supporting freedom fighters who were
qualified to file such affidavits, fact remains that for the first time in the affidavit filed
after notice was issued to him after the Government Resolution, he made statement
that he was required to live away from his house. In his own affidavit, he has not
mentioned the incident of setting fire to Pachangri Naka or Daskhed Police Patil
Wada, to which reference is made in affidavits of the four supporting freedom fighters
namely Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakne, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap, and
Namdeo Balwant Aher. The name of Manik Narayan Sakhare is added afterwards to
the typed written affidavit and although they have referred to the incident of setting
fire to Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil Wada and office, the freedom fighter
himself has not stated about these incidents in his own affidavit and this appears to be
real position because when he was called by the Mane Committee he stated that he
was only providing breads ( Bhakri) to the camp and did not referred to any activity in
which he took part in the freedom movement. Even accepting that he was providing
breads to the persons residing at cam, he does not became a freedom fighter.
Moreover, he further stated that at the time of police action he was serving in a hotel
and he was then aged about 9 years. It is therefore, also not probable that he could
have taken part in any activity against the Nizam Government at such tender age of 9
years that also when he was serving in hotel. This also falsifies his statement that he
was required to live away from his house which is afterthought statement and
obviously he has done only the work of providing breads (bhakri).
In view of these facts and circumstances, he is not a freedom fighter at all and
is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve
to be and be cancelled forthwith and the commission recommends accordingly.
- 250 -
Kisan Sarjerao Sole filed application on 2nd June 1988 wherein he stated that
he has worked under Ashraj Raoji Jagtap by giving slogans as “Vande Matram”,
“Mahatma Gandhi ki Jai.” As razakar police were in search of him, he lived away
from his housel and joined Mirajgaon camp.
In his affidavit dated 26th May 1988 he stated that he had attended the
Mirajgaon camp. He has filed affidavits of Asraji Raoji Jagtap, Dr. Achyut Amrut
Rasal and Mohan Narhari Deth.
He addressed a letter to the District Collector on 9th June 1997 and filed
affidavits which include affidavit of Mohand Narhari Deth, Namdeo Balavant Aher
and Sahebrao Ganapti Sanap.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29th October 1997 stated that
he has filed affidavits of Asraji Raoji Jagatap and Achyut Amrit Rasal along with
their jail certificates and affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth and Zilla Gaurav Samiti
recommended his case for grant of pension.
Thereafter the Additional Collector, Beed wrote letter dated 5th November
1997 to the Deputy Secretary taking exception to recommendation of Zilla Gaurav
Samiti as there was no compliance with the provisions of the Government Resolution
dated 4th July 1995.
The High Power Committee stated in the note that he had taken part in the
freedom movement against the Government of Nizam and Zilla Gaurav Samiti
recommended his case for sanction and sanctioned the pension to him on 18th
September 1999.
He appeared before Mane Committee on 4th February 2003 and merely stated
that he supplied bread (bhakari), he was working under Ashraji Raoji Jagtap, he used
- 251 -
to carry bread for 20 to 22 persons every day from his village and he remained
underground.
After the notice was issued by the Commission he sent an application that
whatever he stated in the earlier application was correct and he had complied with the
requirements of Government Resolution and produced copy of affidavit dated 26th
May 1988.
The first defect in the claim of the respondent is that out of the three
supporting freedom fighters the only person qualified to support on the ground that he
was sentenced to two years imprisonment is Dr. Acchutrao Amrut Rasal. Mohan
Narhari Deth as well as Asraji Ravji Jagtap were not qualified to file supporting
affidavits which fact was noted by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti Member, Mr. P.V. Joshi
but was igonored by High Power Committee. Even the supporting affidavit of Dr.
Achyut Amrut Rasal is of no assistance to Kisan Sarjerao Sole in as much as what is
stated in the said affidavit dated 6.3.1997 by Dr. Rasal is that Kisan Sarjerao Sole
worked with him in the freedom movement of India against British Government and
thereafter, he has added one sentence that he ( Dr. Rasal) also worked in the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement as underground freedom fighter. But he does not state
that alongwith him Kisan Sarjerao Sole was also working in that freedom
movement and the sentence in the affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal that he
also worked in the Hyderabad Freedom Fighter movement as underground freedom
fighter is also added to the earlier typed affidavit in the blank space between two lines
and this addition is obvious to the naked eye and is not signed or initialed by any
body.
From the statement on oath recorded by Many Committee, his claim of being a
freedom fighter is completely falsified as the only activity which he claims to have
done in the freedom movement is of supplying breads (Bhakri) to the persons at the
camp. He himself has not taken part in any activity against the Government of
Nizam. His statement in the affidavit dated 26.05.1988 to the effect that he took
active part in the freedom movement which he had not earlier stated in the application
and which affidavit is produced before the Commission for the first time is falsified
by his own statement recorded by the Mane Committee.
- 252 -
He is therefore, not a freedom fighter in the proper sense of the term and is
not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to
be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
Shri Raghunath Bhagoji Rakh in his application stated that he cut shindi trees
and obstructed recovery of levy by the Government. He filed affidavit in Proforma in
which he stated name of Wamanrao Vaze.
A notice was sent to him on 6th July 1997 probably in view of 4th July 1995
Government Resolution. He had filed one more affidavit on 18th January 1998 and
stated therein that since he had worked underground warrant was issued against him
and after the notice he filed further affidavit dated 28th December 1998 in which he
stated that he had to live away from his house for ten to twelve month.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 29th January 1999 referred to
the affidavit filed by him after the notice and the affidavits of two freedom fighters
viz. Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and recommended his
case for grant of pension.
However, the Additional Collector by his letter dated 20th March 1999
addressed to the Section Officer objected to the grant of pension stating that he did
not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
affidavits and in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters is falsified by his own
statement on oath recorded on 5 February, 2003 by Mane Committee so he can be not
said to be entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.
Mithu Kisan Gayake applied for grant of pension on 7th July 1990 and in the
application stated that he worked in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram and claimed pension
as underground freedom fighter.
A notice was issued to him on 16th July 1997 after issuance of new
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and in reply he sent affidavits of two freedom
fighters Shri Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. In the affidavit of
Shri Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane there is no statement that he was
required to live away from the house. It is however stated that he was working as
underground freedom fighter.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9th December 1997 recommended the
case for grant of pension in view of two affidavits of freedom fighters mentioned
above.
In his statement before the Mane Committee, Mithu Kisan Gayake stated on
oath on 5th February 2003 that he was required to live away from house for one
month. He was visiting Kharda camp and for about one and half month he was
absconding.
- 256 -
As he died his widow Parwatibai appeared before the Mane Committee but
she has no personal knowledge of activities of her husband and her statement is not
material.
On perusal of the file it is seen that he had moved his application for grant of
pension as early as in the year 1989 on which no action was taken upto 1994 and he
was required to approach High Court by filing writ petition. Thereafter, he filed
necessary documents but his case was not taken up for consideration and ultimately
after the 1995 Government Resolution, he was called upon to file additional
documents and to comply with the provisions of Government Resolution so he filed
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne who were sentenced to
two years imprisonment and were qualified to file supporting affidavits. He has
wrtitten detailed letter to Lok Ayukt stating his entire case. It is true, that the affidavit
of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity
which is found in all other cases but only on that ground the claim if otherwise
genuine can not be rejected. Earlier he did not rely upon their affidavits. He relied on
- 258 -
affidavits of “Kendra Pramukh” Shri Khade and two other freedom fighters. He has
been pursuing the remedy and was required to file affidavits only because his claim
remained pending. By filing the same, he complied with the requirements of
th
Government Resolution dated 4 July 1995.
There is therefore no reason to interfere with the findings and the order of the
Government sanctioning pension to him and grant of Sanmanpatra. The Commission
finds accordingly and recommends continuation of the same.
- 259 -
In the Affidavits filed on 17.02.1999 totally different facts are stated with a
view of showing that he complied with the provisions of Government Resolution
dated 04.07.1995. In these affidavits it is stated for the first time that he was required
to live away from his house for 3 to 4 months which statement is not in the affidavit
of the Freedom Fighters.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 09.12.1997 recommended for
grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Premchand Uttamchand Changediya and
Mohan Narhari Deth.
In the note put up before High Power Committee there is mention of affidavit
of Namdeo Balwant Aher which is not on the record.
He filed application dated 17th July 1996 claiming that he worked under
leadership of Ramling Swami , Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Bhima Umaji Bangar.
He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 02.07.1997 but in his own
affidavit he has not stated the name of Sona Rama Jaybhay. Sona Rama Jaybhay in
his affidavit states that 90 to 95 groups were working whereas Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
has stated that 50 to 60 persons were working with him.
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay have referred to the incident
of burning of Panchangri Naka and Daskhed police patil office and Wada but he
- 262 -
himself has not made any reference to these two incidents. Moreover, in the affidavit
of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in the ink.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended the case on the basis of affidavits
of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay. However, the High Power
Committee rejected his claim even after additional affidvits were filed. Thereafter he
wrote a letter dated 2.7.1998 to the member secretary advocate Rajabhau Zarkar and
as per the order of member secretary matter was placed before High Power
Committee for reconsideration. Thereafter, his claim was considered and sanctioned.
However, in the meantime the chairmain of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, Babasaheb
Bangar had written the personal letter to the Deputy Chief Minister as well as the
member secretary of High Power Committee and had enclosed list of 58 persons
including Satwaji Bapurao Dhakne. Thereafter, he also filed another affidavit dated
20.07.1998 in which also there is mention of the incident of burning Pachangri Naka
and Daskhed Police patil wada and office.
When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded he
merely stated that he and his brother were beaten by the police and his brother was in
jail for six months. There is no documentary evidence for this, however he stated that
he provided breads ( Bhakri) and at that time he was aged 20 years. He has not stated
even in this statement that he was involved in the incident of burning Pachangri Naka
and Daskhed police patil wada and office. In view of contradictory statement of the
freedom fighter and the supporting freedom fighters, case made out by him does not
appear reliable and apparently claim which was rejected has been reconsidered only
on the letter of the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti. It is doubtful whether the
chairman could right a personal letter in respect of 58 persons asking High Power
Committee to reconsider their cases. However, that appears to the reason for
reconsideration.
Thus, High Power Committee was initially not convinced about the
genuineness of his claim and reconsidered it only in view of the letter of Chairman,
Zilla Gaurav Samiti. In view of the contradictory statements in the affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters the claim is not made out as required by the provisions
of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
- 263 -
The Commission, therefore finds that his claim was initially rightly rejected
by the High Power Committee and the same was reconsidered for reasons other than
legal and his claim deserves to be and should have been rejected and the Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 264 -
In his own affidavit he has not stated any specific incident or activity in which
he was involved in the freedom movement whereas two qualified freedom fighters
who have filed affidavits in his support namely Damu Walhu Wandekar and Anant
Narayan Kulkarni have given various details of the activites in which he was involved
along with them. The other freedom fighter Mohan Narhari Deth was not sentenced
to two years imprisonment in the freedom movement of India and there is no
evidence of his part in the Hyderabad freedom movement.
He filed affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 15.05.1997 and Anna Eknath
Telap filed affidavit dated 05.04.1997. In both supporting Freedom Fighter’s
affidavits the name of Respondent Tukaram Maruti Pawar is in handwriting in the
typed format. Zilla Gaurav Samiti, on the basis of Affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap
and Sona Rama Jaybhay recommended grant of pension.
The affidavits of the two supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and
Anna Eknath Telap suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Tukaram Maruti
Pawar is added in ink to the type written affidavits in the space left blank earlier and
- 267 -
there are also other over writing and erasures. Apart from this, the statement in their
affidavits that along with them he took part in the incident of burning Pachangri naka
and Anterwali naka is not found in his own affidavit and there is also no statement
These affidavits were filed by him after his claim was rejected asthe
contradictions and the above pointed infirmities were noticed. In his own affidavit the
name of Sona Rama Jaybhay is added after the affidavit was typed. The statement
contained in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighter contradict his statement.
After earlier rejection of his claim for reasons, his case was reconsidered on
the basis of same documents and the claim was sanctioned.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his claim relying on the affidavits of the
supporting Freedom Fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
certificate of Madhavrao Nirale.
The Additional Collector vide his letter dated 10.08.1998 informed Deputy
Secretary that there was no compliance of Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
He filed affidavit dated 4.8.1997 in which he named for the first time freedom
fighters Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Wamanrao Vaze and in the
typed affidavit it was stated that he was filing affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane but the name of Anna Eknath Telap was scored out and the
name of Sona Rama Jaybhay was added in that place and there is no initial or
signature on this addition. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffers from the
same infirmity that the name Mukta Bapu Dhas is added in ink in the blank space left
for that purpose and the incident of burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police
patil wada and office referred to therein has no reference in the affidavit of Mukta
- 269 -
Bapu Dhas. Similar is the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay in which there is addition
of the name of Mukta Bapu Dhas in handwriting in blank space left for that purpose.
A perusal of the affidavit of Mukta Bapu Dhas shows that the affidavit was
drafted as if Mukta Bapu Dhas was a female and widow of Bapu Dhas and that her
husband had taken part in freedom movement and he died on a particular date. The
space was left blank for addition of the name of her husband and the date of his death
and which remained blank even after affidavit was sworn in. This shows how the
affidavits were prepared and no sanctity can be attached to the statements contained in
such affidavits. The contents of the affidavits are written with no regards for the
truth.
The Commission, therefore found that he had failed miserably to make out
any case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and
his claim was liable to be rejected, and the Commission therefore recommends that
the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith.
- 270 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 4.8.1997 recommended his case
for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona
Rama Jaybhay. However, one of the member P.V.Joshi made endorsement that
affidavits are suspicious.
The High Power Committee rejected his claim on the ground that there is no
compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution of 04.07.1995.
- 271 -
However, thereafter note was put up that he filed affidavits of freedom fighters
who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and he was required to leave his
village and stay away from his house and with this note the recommendation of Zilla
Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High Power Committee and his claim was
granted.
He filed affidavits Mohan Narhari Deth, Anna Eknath Telap Sona Rama
Jaybhay Mohan Narhari Deth worked in freedom movement of India and not in
Hyderaad Mukti Sangram.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama
Jaybhay and recommended his case on 27.11.1993.
However, the High Power Committee has sanctioned the claim on 10.12.1998.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he supplied bread
(bhakari). He did not take part in any incident of Naka burning nor did he specifically
work against Nizam Government.
- 273 -
In his affidavit dated 21.05.1988 he stated that he used to work under the
orders of Asraji Raoji Jagtap Kendra Pramukh and used to convey secret news and
information about the movement of police to the freedom fighters.
Mohan Narhari Deth and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal were imprisoned for their
part in the freedom movement of India. He has also produced the affidavit of Sona
Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. In his affidavit and the affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters there is a detailed description regarding his part in the
Hyderabad freedom movement but when he was called by the Mane Committee and
his statement was recorded on oath, he only stated that he was informing the Kendra
Pramukh about movements of Razakars. He used to provide breads (bhakari) and he
did not take any part in burning naka as he ran away. Thus he was unable to say on
oath that he was involved in any particular activity against Nizam Government in the
freedom movement. Therefore, the statements contained in the affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters that he was working along with them in the Hyderabad
freedom movement cannot be belived and he cannot be said to have fulfilled the
requirements of the 04.07.1995 Government Resolution as he was living in his own
house and providing breads (bhakari) to the Camp. He therefore failed to prove his
entitlement and therefore the Commission recommend that Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him deserves to be and be cancelled forthwith.
- 274 -
In the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap his name is
added in ink to the typed format .
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for grant of pension on
21.7.1997 on the basis of affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath
Telap.
His claim was rejected and he was informed by detailed letter dated
18.1.1999.
- 275 -
However, after ten days in view of note put up by the Assistant applicant’s
case was reconsidered and with modified note, the matter was placed before for
necessary orders on 2.4.1997 and the claim was sanctioned.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he knew Eknath
Telap and Fakira Dhakne but did not work with him. He cut Shindee trees and was
involved in the incident of burning office of Talathi. He attempted to burn the office
of Talathi. He filed certificate of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand
Uttamchand Changedia in which there is no mentioned of any part played by Bapurao
Bandoji Bhapkar alongwith them in the Hyderabad freedom movement.
The supporting affidavits are therefore not reliable. He has not produced
reliable evidence in support of his application. He was therefore not entitled to
grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be and be
cancelled forthwith and Commission recommends accordingly.
- 276 -
It is noteworthy, she claimed that her husband was the Freedom Fighter and
later on she also claimed that she herself was also Freedom Fighter. In the application
of Bajirao and affidavit of Asraji Raoji Jagtap there is clear statement that freedom
fighter (underground) was Bajirao and not Mathurabai.
from Kharda camp under the leadership of Ramling Swami, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Advocate Vaman Vaze.
Mathurabai herself had not filed application for grant of Sanmanpatra and
allied pensionary benefits, application was filed by Bajirao Laxman Tarte who
claimed himself to be freedom fighter. In the note to High Power Committee also it
was mentioned that Bajirao Laxman Tarte was freedom fighter and in his affidavit it
is stated that how his family members were required to suffer because of his part in
the freedom movement. Thus the entire claim of Bajirao Laxman Tarte is contradict
by the affidavits of his wife and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters as
suddenly after his death, Mathurabai herself claimed to be freedom fighter and even
the supporting freedom fighters stated on oath to that effect and so all these affidavits
are not reliable. This is one of the classic cases which shows how the supporting
freedom fighters could go to any extent and filed supporting affidavits when the said
person had not even applied .
When called before the Mane Committee Mathurabai stated clearly that she
did not take part in the freedom movement and is claiming pension as widow of
Bajirao Laxman Tarte. She further stated that at the time of freedom movement her
age was 8 to 10 years and therefore she was not aware what was the exact part played
by Bajirao Laxman Tarte in the freedom movement and she is not aware what
documents were produced by her husband along with application for pension.
It is thus clear that claim was originally of Bajirao Laxman Tarte. The Zilla
Gaurav Samiti recommened for grant of pension to him and even the High Power
Committee treated that it was claim of Bajirao Laxman Tarte, who was representinted
by widow, but the affidavits of Mathurabai and two supporting freedom fighters - that
Mathurabai herself was freedom fighter which are completely falisified by her
statement recorded by Mane Committee wherein she clearly admitted that she was not
freedom fighter and was aged 8 to 10 years at that time.
- 278 -
He filed applicaltion lon 24th August 1995 in the application he stated the
name of Kashinathrao Jadhav as a person under whom he worked.
In his affidavit dated 3rd July 1997 he has named Sona Rama Jaybhay and
Nivtutti Fakira Dhakne and their affidavits are produced. This was after the notice
was issued in persusance of 04th July 1995 Resolution.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case based on two affidavits
of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivtutti Fakira Dhakne who were sentenced to two years
imprisonment in Freedopm Movement.
The High Power Committee rejected the claim on the ground that there is no
compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 as pointed out by the
Additional Collector. He was also informed that his claim was rejected.
In the mean time he had approached the Lok Ayukta and wrote letter to
Sabhapati dated 02.03.1998. It appears that on recommendation of the Sabhapati and
also in view of letter to Lok Ayukta, the case was reconsidered and in view of the
affidavits of two Freedom Fighters namely Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane as well as affidavits of other freedom fighters Thaksen Shankar Dhase and
Narayan Dagadu Choure sent to the Sabhapati with his letter, the High Power
Committee sanctioned the claim.
He appeared before Mane Committee but in his statement he has not referred
to the aforesaid two freedom fighters. On the contrary he has referred to the affidavits
of Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Dagdu Chaure. However, no evidence was
produced to show that he was required to live away from his house
The contradictions interse between the affidavits of Janu Kisan Wanve as well
as affidavits of the freedom fighters supporting him and his statement before Mane
Committee are not so alarming as to lead one to disbelive in his part as explained by
him in the freedom movement. Moreover his contention that he was living at Kharda
camp is also supported by the other freedom fighters working with him and therefore
naturally he was living away from his house. The requirements of the Government
Resolution dated 4th July 1995 having been complied with, the Commission does not
find any reason to disturb the finding recorded in his favour and accordingly
recommends continuation of his Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him.
- 280 -
In the supporting affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is written in the
typed proforma of affidavit and the said writing is not initialed by anybody. Similar is
the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap. From these two affidavits it is clear that typed
affidavits were already prepared and the name of the applicant was added afterwards
without initials of any persons much less the concerned officer.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting held on
20.06.1997 and recommended grant of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sona
Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.
The High Power Committee had rejected his claim dated 20.02.1998 but
reconsidered it after detailed note and sanctioned the pension. Note on the basis of
which the claim was rejected earlier is not on record.
- 281 -
It is true that his claim was earlier rejected but if one goes through the reasons
for which it was rejected, it will be clear that if the claim is to be rejected for such
reason then almost all applications will have to be rejected. Neither anybody
produced such record having been required to remain away from his home nor was it
available to any body.
In the application she stated that her husband was Freedom Fighter. He
worked under Ramling Swami, P.V.Joshi and Shankar Jagtap etc. and in the affidavit
she affirmed the same facts claiming that her husband was Freedom Fighter.
She has produced extract of one book Hyderabad freedom movement written
by Shreeniwas Khot which mentiones her husband Waman Maruti Kulkarni was
freedom fighter. Waman Maruti Kulkarni was Patwari. He was compelled to give up
- 282 -
his job. Being wife of Waman Maruti Kulkarni Dwarkabai may have helped him and
may have served food to the freedom fighters at her residence. However, that does
not make her a freedom fighter. Secondly the most important aspect is that it is not
her application for pension as a freedom fighter in individual capacity. Her claim is
as widow of Waman Maruti Kulkarni. Even in her affidavit dated 30.11.1998 she has
clearly stated that her deceased husband had taken part in Hyderabad freedom
movement along with P.V.Joshi and under his guidance in their house many freedom
fighters were given shelter. She has also described the suffering of herself and the
family as a result of family being required to leave the house after her husband was
compelled to leave the job of Patwari. However in this later application also she has
not claimed that she was freedom fighter whereas all the supporting freedom fighters
invariably stated that Dwarkabai was freedom fighter. Mr. Pandurang Waman Joshi
also gave subsequent recommendation letter stating that both of them were freedom
fighters. However, in view of his earlier statement recommending her case as widow
of Waman Maruti Kulkarni it is not possible to accept later improved version in his
letter to the effect that both of them were freedom fighters.
This appears to be unfortunate case in which the claim as made out in the
application was not considered and under some misconception, the High Power
Committee as well as the Zilla Gaurav Samiti treated her claim as contrary to her
own application and therefore even though her husband might be one of the sufferers
in the freedom movement and consequently the entire family might have suffered yet
the case made out in the application is not supported by the freedom fighters and what
is stated by the supporting freedom fighters is contrary to her own application and
therefore she was granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits wrongly when she was not
entitled to the same.
Her claim should have been considered in the capacity of widow of Waman
Maruti Kulkarni which has not been considered and therefore the Commission finds
that it is not possible to uphold the findings of the Government that she is entitled to
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits in her individual capacity as freedom fighter and the
same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 283 -
In the affidavit of Dr. Achut Amrut Rasal the name of Digambar Haribhau
Kulkarni r/o Takalsingi Taluka Ashti is added by different machine (type) in the
already typed affidavit and the difference in the ink in which the letters are typed is
obvious. Further more Dr. Rasal was involved in the freedom movement of India and
he has merely stated in one sentence that he took part in the Hyderabad freedom
movement and Digambar Haribhau Kulkarni was also with him. Apart from this
vague statement there is no description of his role or activity in the Hyderabad
freedom movement.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not justified in recommending and the High
Power Committee was not justified in acting on such recommendation.
However, Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia both had taken part in the freedom
movement of India against British rule and in his affidavit Dr. Rasal has also stated
accordingly. Dr. Rasal has not even stated that he was in any way concerned with the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. However, Dr. Changedia stated in his affidavit that
he was holding camps on the border of Ahmednagar district but has not stated about
any other activity in which he was involved in the Hyderabad freedom movement. He
was also sentenced for his work in freedom movement of India.
The application was rejected in view of detailed note put up by the Member
Secretary of High Power committee Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar wherein he observed
- 285 -
in categorical terms ‘Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia are from Ahmednagar district and
these two freedom fighters have collected huge money by establishing one Swatrantra
Sainik Sanghatana and have issued supporting affidavits to number of persons. This
organization is not even registered and it is necessary to hold police inquiry and
matter be sent for confidential inquiry to the police which will reveal huge
corruption.’
After rejection of his claim further note was put up in view of his application
that he worked underground and he stated in his application that he was required to
give up his education, he was beaten by the police and his case deserved to be
considered. After which the same Member Secretary put up a contradictory and
positive note for sanction of the claim and accordingly the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits are granted to him (Dhondiram).
The entire file reflects a very sorry state of affairs of the working of the High
Power Committee. It is obvious that for reasons which are clear but cannot be stated
and can be a guess of a man of ordinary prudence, the Member Secretary made a
voltaface and the case was reconsidered and pension was granted.
The Respondent had failed to make out a case. He failed to comply with the
provisions of Government Resolution and in fact the High Power Committee earlier
did not believe the contents of his application and supporting affidavits and therefore
the Commission is of the considered view that he was not at all entitled to
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and
the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 286 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.06.1997 recommended for
grant of pension on the basis of supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona
Rama Jaybhay. At the cost of repetation it is necessary to point out that in both the
affidavits his name is not written as the space for writing the name is blank. In his
initial application he had not mentioned the names of the two freedom fighters who
have now given supporting affidavits which are relied upon by the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti.
The Additional Collector by his letter dated 3.7.1997 addressed to the Deputy
Secretary referred to two affidavits, and observed that Shiwaji did not comply with
the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
The High Power Committee rejected his claim on 1.12.1997 and he was
informed accordingly by letter dated 15.09.1998. Thereafter he filed another affidavit
referring to the earlier evidence produced by him stating how he was required to
suffer because of the part taken in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and that he has
produced the affidavits of two freedom fitghters namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
dated 11.10.1998 and Bhima Umaji Bangar dated 21.12.1998 out of them Bhima
Umaji Bangar was not qualified.
He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded wherein
he stated that he and others had caught hold of one Daud Pathan and hanged him and
his dead body was lying there for three days in the Masjeed and thereafter he and
other persons ran away. He worked under Babasaheb Bangar, Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane. No warrant was issued against him. He has filed affidavits of Babsaheb
Bangar, Gyanoba Bangar and he does not know Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna
Eknath Telap and whether they were convicted and sentenced in the freedom
movement. This is totally contradictory with earlier version of the Respondent in his
application.
Thus the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters in which blank spaces
left for inserting the name having remained blank till date the said affidavits with
blank spaces are totally worthless and cannot be considered even as affidavits or even
supporting letters as they do not mention the name of the person concerned. It is
surprising that the authority before whom the affidavits were sworn in being
Executive Magistrate signed the affidavit and overlooked the blank spaces.
His claim was rightly rejected by the High Power committee and thereafter he
produced the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.
This is one of the case in which the Chairman of Zilla Gaurav Samiti had
taken personal interest by writing a letter to the High Power Committee and enclosing
a list of 58 persons, such personal recommendation of the Chairman of the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti is uncalled for and should not have been acted upon because the High
Power Committee is expected to consider the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti and not to act upon personal request by either chairman or any member of the
Committee.
He filed affidavit dated 10.07.1997 and in the said affidavit he named Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap for the first time. He filed supporting
affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 2.3.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated
10.07.1997. In the affidavit of Bapu Nana Gite filed on 22.08.1995 the name of
Namdev Bapu Khade is added in the space left blank and this is not signed or initialed
by anybody. Similarly in another affidavits of Sanap dated 22.08.1995 the name of
Namdev Bapu Khade is added. Even in the affidavit of Prabhakar himself dated
22.08.1995 the name of Namdev Bapu Khade is added in space left blank. It is in
different ink. In another affidavit dated 10.07.1997 he named for the first time
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane who has filed supporting affidavit of the same date and in the
affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhanke the name of Prabhakar is added afterward in ink
which is not signed or initialed by anybody.
The matter came up before the High Power Committee and relying on the
affidavits and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav samiti pension was sanctioned.
He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded in which
he stated that he worked under the Leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and he cut sindhi
trees. At that time he was 17 to 18 years. He executed a letter of apology.
Having given a letter of apology for whatever act or activities he did in the
freedom movement, he is disentitled to claim Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as a
freedom fighter apart from the other defects pointed out in the earlier part. The
Commission is of the considered view that he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him and same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
- 291 -
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne filed affidavit dated 26.07.1997 supporting his claim
stating there were 90 to 95 groups working at the Kharda camp under leadership of
Ramling Swami. In his affidavit the name of Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni is added in
handwriting in different ink and that is not initialed and the similar is the case of
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap filed on 20.01.1997. The addition of name is not
initialed by anobody.
He has also filed another affidavit dated 11.03.1999 of Namdeo Balwant Aher
of the same date. Namdeo Balwant Aher was sentensed to imprisonment for not less
- 292 -
than two years and he filed further affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule dated
11.03.1999. He has undergone sentence.
The High Power Committee considered his case in the light of note put up to
it in which the above stated facts were considered and the pension was sanctioned.
There is a list of 33 persons attached to the High Power Committee note wherein it is
stated that those at serial No. 1 to 19 are not granted pension and 20 to 33 are granted,
in which there is name of Dattatraya Narayan Kulkarni at Sr. No. 27.
The perusal of the entire file of the Dattatray Narayan Kulkarni shows that his
father was patwari and after him he was also appointed as patwari. They were found
to be against the Nizam Government inspite of holding Government offices and
therefore their house was auctioned and they were compelled to leave the village and
family shifted to Pandharpur. Although the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
Anna Eknath Telap are defective as pointed out earlier there are also affidavits of
Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aher and there is no inconsistency
in the contents of his affidavits and their affidavits and there is also recommendation
letter given by Pandurang Waman Joshi one of the member of the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti. This letter lends assurance to the statement in his affidavit.
The High Power Committee sanctioned the pension in view of the facts stated
above and recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samittee.
She appeared before Mane Committee and her statement was recorded on oath
on 14.02.2003 in the said statement she no doubt stated that she was working at
- 294 -
Kharada camp along with Namdev Khade, Narayan Khade, Thaksen Dhase, Nivruti
Dhakane. However the only work she was doing at Kharada camp as stated by her
was preparing bread (Bhakari). She has stated that there were three other women who
were also preparing bhakari but they are dead. She was staying in Wada of Marwadi
and her husband was residing at the Camp (Charade) She clearly stated that except
giving bread and serving food she did no other work. This statement clearly falsify
her earlier assertion in the affidavit regarding her active participation in the incident
of setting fire to office and wada of Police Patil and the bomb blast incident. It also
falsified the various different version regarding her participation in freedom
movement stated by the supporting freedom fighters Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane, Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Choure.
She may have either prepared bread (bhakari) or served food to the freedom
fighters, however, it does not make her freedom fighter much less one entitled to
claim Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits. As per the Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995 or any provision of law she is not entitled to make such a claim and
the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits granted to her deserve to be and be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 295 -
She filed application claiming pension for the work done by her husband in
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. Pension was claimed as underground Freedom
Fighter.
She filed affidavits of Yogiraj Santram Raut dated 20.8.1996, Maroti Mahadev
Kakade dated 29.8.1996. In these two affidavits it is stated that her husband Manik
Kisan Mankale was required to live away from house as he was working in the
freedom movement.
She filed her affidavit dated 21.8.1996 and additional affidavits of other
freedom fighters. In this affidavit she has stated that Manik Kisan Mankale had taken
part in Hyderabad freedom movement and he was arrested. She is a widow and
therefore she is claiming pension on the basis of the part taken by her husband in the
freedom movement. Thereafter she filed further affidavit dated 25.3.1997 wherein
she stated that her husband took active part in the freedom movement and was
working at Kharada camp and he worked under the leadership of Ramling Swami,
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Waman Vaze Advocate. She has also worked under the
leadership of Namdevrao Khade and Anna Eknath Telap and she was preparing
bhakari and was also giving secret information and for that she was required to go
underground.
- 296 -
She produced affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 5.2.1997 in which there
is a reference to incident of burning Pachangri Naka and attack on Antarveli naka as
well as the incident of stabbing of one pathan. However, her name is added in the
affidavit in ink in blank space already left for that purpose and there is no initial or
signature on this addition in the typed affidavits. Similar is the affidavit of Sona
Rama Jaybhay dated 5.2.1997 in which reference is made to setting ablaze Daskhed
police patil wada and office stating that she was involved and had taken part in that
incident.
It may be noted here that she herself did not make any such claim either in
her application or in oral evidence. When she was examined on oath before the Mane
Committee, she clearly stated that she did not herself do any work in the freedom
movement. She was claiming pension as legal representative of freedom fighter. She
was aged 12 to 13 years when she was married and her husband took part in the
freedom movement but was unable to say what work he did and in what activities he
was involved. Since after marriage she was living with her parents-in-law as her
husband was taking education at Beed. But she did not know the name of the school.
Her husband passed matriculation and worked in the Tahasil office and retired in
1974-75 and she would produced his certificate of date of birth.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered her case in the meeting dated 23.10.1997
but did not give any positive recommendation.
However in the note put up before the High Power Committee it is stated that
Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended her case.
It is obvious that note but up before the High Power Committee regarding
recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti was incorrect. She was not a freedom fighter
in the proper sense of the term and at the most she might have cooperated by
providing breads. She was living with her parents in law and she was not living away
from her house and therefore she is not entitled to claim Sanmanpatra and allied
pensionary benefits under the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
- 297 -
The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits wrongly granted to her deserve to be and
be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 298 -
The incident of burning Panchangri naka and burning of Daskhad police patil
office wada was not stated by him in his own affidavit which was stated by Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane in his affidavit dated 1.8.1996. In this affidavit the name of Shivram
Waman Bharati is added in ink in the blank space left for that purpose. He also filed
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap dated 28.2.1997 which is also contradictory to his
own affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case on the basis of support given
by two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and the High
Power Committee accepted the recommendation.
When he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded
he stated names of Pandharinath Bikkad, Jalindar Bikkad, Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane. Thus from affidavit of himself and of supporting freedom
fighters it is revealed that he took part in setting ablaze Pachngri Naka and Daskhed
police patil wada.
The only defect in the material filed on record is that one of the affidavit of
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffers from infirmity of adding his name in the typed
- 299 -
affidavit. However, for this reason alone the Commission cannot find fault with the
recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and its acceptance by the High Power
Committee and the Commission therefore finds that it cannot interfere with the
findings and the conclusion of the Government and recommends continuation of his
pension and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits.
He stated that as one criminal case was filed against him, he went
underground. The copy of Crime Register produced by him shows that he was not
convicted and sentenced. On the contrary it shows that case was filed without any
further action. In his affidavit dated 10.07.1996 he referred to aforesaid persons only
and also to have worked under ground alongwith Dr.Uttamchand Premchand
Changediya and Achyut Amrut Rasal of Ahmednagar District. It is noteworthy that
these two freedom fighters had taken part in Freedom Movement of India against
Biritish Rule and were not concerned with thre Hyderabad Freedome Movement.
One Writ petition was filed in the High Court 3067 of 95 by him wherin
direction was given for deciding the case in 09 months.
In the further affidavit dated 27.01.1997 also he has referred to Dr. Premchand
Uttamchand Changediya and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal as persons with whom he
worked.
Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal in his affidavit has stated that he worked
intheFreedome Movement of India.
- 300 -
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meetting dated 14.02.1997 recommended his case
on the basis of two supporting affidavits. However, the additional collector recorded
his objection for non-compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
High Power Committee referred to the affidavits of Dr. Changediya and Dr.
Rasal and stated that they were from Ahmednagar District. The Member Secretary
Advocate Rajanbhau Zarkar recorded that two persons recommending him (Hemraj)
for grant of pension were from Nagar District and their affidavits are not reliable and
therefore, pension should not be sanctioned, even though Zilla Gaurav Samiti
recommended. Thereafter, further note was put up on the basis of remarks of the
Sabhapati that the point raised by the Member Secretary has been raised in other cases
also and the matter be sent back to the department. Thereafter, another note was put
up and reference was made to the High Court petition stating that there was order to
decide the case within nine months. It is further stated that District Collector was
asked to hold enquiry but he did not submitted report.
The Member Secretary made endorsement that since time limit given by the
High Court was coming to an end, the report be called and if necessary extension be
sought from the High Court. In pursuance thereof further note was put up and
reference was made to the concerned freedom fighter’s affidavits dated 20.8.1997 and
it was stated “suporting affidavits are of freedom fighters from Nagar District and
Hemraj Meher from Beed District, their affidavits are not reliable”.
Meher is added in the ink to the typed affidavit and there was also deletion of some
portion with whitener in affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap.
He apeared before mane committee and his statement was recorded. He stated
that he was studying in School, no action was taken by police in respect of burning
Karodgiri Naka and he has produced copy of two arrest warrants which are in Urdu
and he produced its transalation. He stated that he will produce certified copy within
one week but he has never produced. He has not referred to the name of Anna Eknath
Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay in his statement.
It appears that in view of the fact that the time limit granted by the High Court
was coming to end the Government hurriedly sanctioned his claim. From the material
produced by him he had failed to make out case as required by Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995 in as much as the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and
Sona Rama Jaybhay were defective and those of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand
Changedia and Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal were found unreliable even by the High
Power Committee. It is difficult to appreciate as to how after such serious remarks
the same Member Secretary recommended his case on the basis of the same affidavits
and without there being any change in the circumstances.
The Commission therefore finds that he was granted Sanmanpatra and allied
pensionary benefits although he was not entitled under the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the same deserve to be and should be cancelled
forthwith and Commission recommends accordingly.
- 302 -
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 28.07.97 relied on the affidavits of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and recommended grant of pension.
He filed complaint to the Lok Ayukta as his matter was kept pending for quite
sometime.
- 303 -
The High Power Committee observed that he has not complied with the
conditions mentioned in Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 and the the
Additional collector has raised this point. However, his involvement in Hyderabad
Freedom Movement is obvious and pension can be granted and the same was granted
on 29.12.1997.
Although the case is recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the
recommendation is accepted by the High Power Committee, the supporting affidavits
of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity of
addition of names in the blank space left for that purpose in the typed affidavit apart
from this addition of names, there is overwriting by erasing earlier sentence by
whitener in respect of material part of incident of Antarveli in the affidavit of Anna
Eknath Telalp and the last line in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane has also
been erased with whitener. These two documents although they are on stamp papers
and are signed by the Executive Magistrate cannot be said to be affidavits in the
proper sense of the term and are of no assistance to support the claim Anandrao
Sahebrao Thosar as freedom fighter.
These defects in the affidavits should have been pointed out in the note put up
to the High Power Committee by the Mantralaya staff. Thus he has failed to comply
with the requirement of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. There is no reliable
evidence to show that he was required to live away from house or was beaten by the
police.
The Commission finds that he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits as a freedom fighter and the same are granted in the absence of adequate and
reliable evidence deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 304 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 06.03.1997 referred to the two
affidavits but stated that the matter be placed for decision to Government and did not
give any positive recommendation.
The matter was then placed before the High Power Committee and the note to
the High Power Committee states that his case was recommended by the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti whereas the Zilla Gaurav Samiti had not given any positive recommendation.
The Under Secretary had also stated in his remarks that Zilla Gaurav Samiti had not
recommended.
Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap are defective in the sense that the
name of “Waman Gunaji Sanap” is added to the typed affidavit which contained
stereotype statement of fact which were in other affidavits filed by the said freedom
fighters. The claim based on the support of these freedom fighters is falsified by his
admission before Mane Committee that he even did not know them. When he does
not know Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, it is difficult to appreciate
how they could file affidavits stating emphatically that he was involved with them in
particular incidents. All these aspect make the entire statement in the affidavit of
supporting freedom fighters doubtful.
The fact that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti did not give any positive
recommendation is material but when the note was put up before the High Power
Committee a misleading statement was made that Zilla Gaurav Samiti has
recommended his case for sanction.
In view of this defect in the claim put up before the Government, his claim
was not acceptable and the Government should not have sanctioned Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits which deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 306 -
He then filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. The
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap as well as Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 10.07.1997 and
16.07.1997 respectively as usual, are typed and his name is wirtten in blank space in
ink a later addition not initialed by anybody.
Thus apart from the fact that the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap
and Sona Rama Jaybhay are defective in view of the addition of the name in the blank
space without any signature or initial, the instances stated in the affidavit of
Raghunath Bayaji Badage or in the supporting affidavits of these two freedom fighters
were not stated by him in the statement recorded by the Mane Committee wherein he
merely stated that he did work of providing bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters.
He did not claim to have been party to any incident or any activity against the Nizam
Government. Thus his role as a freedom fighter in various activities narrated in the
earlier affidavit of himself and the supporting freedom fighters is not reliable and he
does not comply with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995
either in respect of filing of affidavits or in any other respect.
In his affidavit dated 15.05.1997 he has named Anna Eknath Telap and Sona
Rama Jaybhay for the first time. In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona
Rama Jaybhay dated 15.02.1997 and 05.02.1997 respectively his name is inserted in
ink in the blank space.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.07.1998 recommended his case.
The Additional Collector raised objection that he (Uttam) did not comply
Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, however, High Power Committee
sanctioned pension.
In fact on mere perusal of the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 5.2.1997,
it becomes clear that initially this affidavit contained some other person’s name which
was erased by whitener and in that place name of Uttam Shripati Shinde R/o Shiwani
taluka District Beed and many other words were inserted. This type of affidavit
cannot be relied upon in any proceedings and as already pointed out even in the
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap the name is inserted in the blank space without there
being any signature or initial on the insertion part.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case in the meeting of 24.7.1997
completely ignoring this infirmity in the affidavit.
- 309 -
Even in the note put up to the High Power Committee it was not stated that the
affidavits are of this type containing erasures and insertions and recommendation of
Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted. Although, the Additional Collector had brought to
the notice of High Power Committee that there was no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995, unfortunately he did not highlight the defect in the
affidavits of supporting freedom fighters. The other freedom fighters who supported
him are not freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years and as such were not
qualified.
Application was filed for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension dated 4.1.1985
and in the said application he stated that he worked under leadership of Kashinath
Tatyaba Jadhav. He produce Xerox copy of affidavit of Narayan Ramrao Nimbalkar.
He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on oath
on 26.2.2003 wherein he stated that he provided bread (bhakari) and water to the
- 311 -
persons taking part in freedom movement, and did the said work of providing bread
(bhakari) for one month. He used to collect bread (bhakari) from the village and
convey them up to Naka for which he was required to walk. He clearly stated that he
never left his village and the application was prepared by Kashinath Jadhav and he
was not aware as to which freedom fighters filed affidavits in support. Thus, his
statement is contradictory to his earlier assertion in his affidavit mentioning various
activities in which he was involved in the freedom movement along with others and it
also falsified the statements contained in the affidavits of the supporting freedom
fighters.
Apart from this the note put up to the High Power Committee was defective in
the sense when there was no positive recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti, the
note put up to the High Power Committee stated that the case was recommended by
Zilla Gaurav Samiti.
In the supporting affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal dated 11.02.1997 his
name is added in different type and there is also one sentence added in the same type
to the effect that Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal had worked in Hyderabad Freedom
Movement. It is pertinent to note that Dr. Achut Amrut Rasal is getting pension
because of his part in freedom movement of India and therefore the addition of such
sentence to the effect that he also took part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement is not
reliable.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 9.3.1997 referred to the
affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia
and recommended grant of pension and the High Power Committee sanctioned the
pension. He did not file affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to
imprisonment for their work in Hyderabad Freedom Movement. He filed Writ Petition
- 313 -
in the High Court wherein direction was given for deciding his case within six
months.
He filed affidavits after notice was issued by the Commission and referred to
the documents already produced.
Considering the admitted position that both the supporting freedom fighters
Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal as well as Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia were
sentenced to imprisonment for their role in the freedom movement of India and there
is no independent evidence about any part played by them in the Hyderabad freedom
movement, it is difficult to accept how their recommendation regarding the role of
Kisan Sakharam Pansande in Hyderabad freedom movement could be relied upon and
accepted. Even then the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has given positive recommendation and
the same is accepted by the High Power Committee. It appears that in view of the
writ petition filed by him and the directions of the High Court for expediting the
decision of the case, his claim was granted hurriedly and there was no proper scrutiny
as to whether there is compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.2.1995. On
close scrutiny of the above stated facts and circumstances it is clear that he failed to
comply with the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The
Commission has commented in detail in a separate part of the report regarding
reasons in respect of case of underground freedom fighters on the reliability of certain
freedom fighters indiscriminately filing such supporting affidavits including the above
two persons. The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 314 -
However in his further affidavit dated 3.1.1997 he stated for the first time
names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and filed their affidavits
dated 6.11.1996 and 1.1.1997 respectively. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti on 20.6.1997
recommended the grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Anna Eknath Telap.
On 7.7.1997 the Collector noted his objection stating that Kisan Shivram
Tandale did not compy with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. However,
High Power Committee sanctioned the pension on 14.10.1997.
He appeared before the Mane Committee but nothing new was stated. He also
filed affidavit before Commission and repeated the facts stated earlier and also made
further improvement and stated for the first time that he was required to live away
from his house for 13 months.
The affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane show that
his name is added to the typed affidavits and there is no signature or initial on the
added portion. Moreover the incidents stated in their affidavits are not quoted in the
affidavit of Kisan Shivram Tandale which is completely vague. The said affidavits
are stereotype repeating the facts as stated by them in other cases.
- 315 -
He therefore miserably failed to make out a case that as a result of part taken
in freedom movement, he was required to live away from house. In fact there is no
averment regarding any suffering as such by him during the freedom movement and
the Commission therefore finds that he had miserably failed to establish his
entitlement to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and same granted to him deserve to be
and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 316 -
In all the three supporting affidavits his name is added in ink in typed
proforma without initial of anybody. The High Power Committee considered the
cases of Manik Dnynoba Chaure, Garje, Tarte, Dhoke, Vasant Bapu, U.P.Ashruba. S.
B. Bhosale, Garje and Tandle.
The supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telalp and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
suffer from the same infirmity that the name of Manik Dyanoba Choure was added to
the typed affidavits and there was no signature or initial of any person on the addition.
However, this infirmity was not noted by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti or was not even
brought to the notice of High Power Committee and even the Additional Collector did
not refer to this aspect in the letter to the Government.
His own affidavit is extremely vague and he did not state any particular
incident in which he took part in the freedom movement. In the affidavit of Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane there is a reference to the incident of burning Pachangri Naka and
attack on Daskhed police patil wada and Naka regarding which the Nivruti Fakira
- 317 -
Dhakane has stated in all the affidavits filed stating that there were 50 to 60 persons
who took part in that attack. The affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap refers to the incident
of burning of Antarvali Naka stating that Manik Dyanoba Choure was also with him
in the said incident. As earlier stated Manik Dyanoba Choure himself did not mention
this incident. The other freedom fighters whose affidavits are filed are not qualified
in the sense that they were not sentenced to two years imprisonment. He appeared
before Mane Committee on 28.2.2003 and his statement had been recorded on oath
and he stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his house for six
months. There also he has not quoted incidents which are stated in the affidavits of
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. Thus he failed to adduced reliable
evidence regarding his role in the freedom movement and to show compliance with
the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and supporting affidavits of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane cannot be said to be affidavits in the
proper sense of the term because of the additions in the stereotype affidavits already
typed. He thus failed to prove his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
and in the view of the Commission the same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith
and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 318 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 22.9.1997 relying on the
affidavits of freedom fighters namely Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane who were sentenced to two years imprisonment and recommended his case.
In his application he stated that police were trying to arrest him and therefore
he entered Mirajgaon Camp and in his absence his house was ransacked by the
Razakars and his land remained barren because he was living away from house at
Mirajgaon Camp and he suffered heavy loss. Alongwith further affidavit dated
17.7.1997 he produced the affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama
Jaybhay.
In the affidavits of almost all supporting freedom fighters, who are qualified to
give supporting affidavits, the name of Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade is added to the
typed format and in that sense the affidavits are defective, as pointed out in the
general reasoning in cases of underground freedom fighters. The Commission has by
way of policy decided that if there was other material on record which lent assurance
to the case made out by the applicant freedom fighter then only for the reasons that
there are such defects in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters the claim
should not be rejected.
The Commission therefore finds that the case of Gnyandeo Jaiwant Kakade
can not be discarded for the contradictions here and there in these affidavits and finds
that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted need not be interfered with and the
Commission recommends continuation thereof accordingly.
- 321 -
He named Anna Eknath Telap and Nirutti Fakira Dhakane in his affidavit
dated 21.6.1997. In the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay, his
name is inserted in hand writing in blank space left in typed proforma and that is not
initiated by anybody and the High Power Committee granted pension as per the note
in File No.141.
In his affidavit and his application dated 28.08.1995 he referred to the incident
of burning of Waghluj Naka and removal of cartridges therefrom. In his further
affidavit dated 21.06.1997 he referred to the names of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna
Eknath Telap for the first time and filed their affidavits in support. Their affidavits as
- 322 -
pointed out in detail in the other part of this report suffer from the same defect
wherein the name of the freedom fighters was added in the ink in the typed format in
which the incidents of burning Pachangri Naka and Antarvali Naka and Daskhed
police patil wada and office were narrated but those incidents were not stated in his
own affidavit by Ashruba Rambhau Sonwane although detailed affidavit was filed on
21.06.1997 along with the affidavits of the aforesaid two freedom fighters.
Even before the Mane Committee when the statement was recorded on oath,
he did not refer to these incidents and his participation in the said in incidents. Thus,
not only that his own affidavit did not contain those incidents, affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap are totally
unreliable which contained a stereotype story made out for supporting number of
freedom fighters as discussed in detail in a separate part of this report and as such not
worth to rely upon.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti however relied on the two affidavits and
recommended his case on 22.9.1997 for grant of pension. The Additional Collector
took objection on 8.10.97 and informed the Government that Pandurang was not fit
for grant of pension.
He appeared before Mane committee and stated in his statement that he was
away from his house for five to six months. He further stated that police had filed
criminal case against him at Patoda. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant
Aher are persons with whom he worked. He did not name Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Anna Eknath Telap, on the basis of whose affidavits his name was recommended
by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Powe Cormmittee.
- 324 -
The affidavits of all four supporting freedom fighters Nivruti Fakira Dhakane,
Anna Eknath Telap, Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher suffer
from the same infirmity that the name of Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde is added to the
affidavits already typed. The incidents stated in the affidavits of the respondentant are
not stated by the supporting freedom fighters and all the supporting affidavits suffer
from the infiermity as pointed out. The Commision has commented on this aspect in
the reasons of underground freedom fighters cases in general.
Apart from this a close look at the affidavit of Namdeo Balvant Aher makes it
clear that the thumb impression of Pandurang Sahebrao Shinde were already obtained
on the front portion as well as on hind portion of the stamp paper but since the
contents were typed afterwards, covered the first thumb impression on front page, the
thumb impression on the hind portion is seen at long distance from the part where the
contents ended and not at the place where the thumb impression should have been
taken. Further more, after the identification and signature of the competent authority
there should be thumb impression of the deponent which is absent.
Although, he has contended that he was prosecuted he has not produced any
documentary evidence at any stage before the Commission.
In his statement before Mane Committee he merely stated that he cut Shindi
trees and he was taken by Kashinathrao Jadhav for cleaning the Bendsur forest of
Shindi trees as Bensur residents were not ready to do the work. He has also stated that
at that time he was studying at Ashti in 2nd Standard. It appears that he was of
extremely tender age although there is no evidence of his date of birth on record.
In his affidavit before the Commission he did not refer to any Criminal Case.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti, which was then in existence did not rely on the
evidence produced to recommend the case.
The High Power Committee also rejected his claim. He was informed about
the decision.
In the later affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
his name is added in different type at different time and the addition/alteration is not
- 326 -
signed lor initialed by any body and the affidavits with such additions/alterations
cannot be given sanctity of a statement on oath. They are not worth to rely upon.
After complaint to the Lok Ayukta the case was reconsidered and Zilla Gaurav
Samiti in its meeting dated 24.06.1997 recommended sanction relying on affidavit of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.
His wife appeared before Mane Committee. She has no personal knowledge.
In fact his claim was firstly rejected rightly by Zilla Gaurav Samiti and it
refused to recommend his case. After complaint to the Lokayukta he sent another
letter alongwith affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap said
affidavits suffer from the infirmity. The incidents stated in earlier affidavits were
repeated in these affidavits to which he made no reference even in his further or
detailed affidavit alongwith which he filed additional affidavits.
The reasons for which his claim was earlier rejected by the Government were
existing and merely by filing affidavits of other two freedom fighters which cannot be
treated as affidavits, cannot be said to have taken place in the situation. In fact, there
was no additional ground or reason for reconsideration of his claim after filing of two
additional affidavits and complaint to Lok Ayukta. The Commission has commented
in detail on the affidavits of the aforesaid freedom fighters who indiscriminately filed
such affidavits in number of cases.
Vasant Bapurao Upre applied for the pension on 16.8.1995 stating that he
worked under Kashinath Jadhav.
After 4.7.1995 when notice was issued to him, he filed affidavit on 28.4.1997
and in that affidavit named for the first time Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and filed his
affidavit dated 23.6.1997 and affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997. In
both the affidavits the name of Vasant Baburao Upre is inserted in ink in typed
written affidavit.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on those affidavits and recommended the case for
sanction.
Apart from the fact that the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivrutti
Fakira Dhakne suffer from the infirmity of addition of name to the affidavits already
- 328 -
typed, the incidents stated therein i.e. burning of Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police
patil wada and office are not stated anywhere in the affidavit of Vasant Bapurao
Upare, although he has referred to various other activities. He has not stated that he
worked alongwith Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne in his earlier
affidavit and stated their names for the first time in the affidavit dated 28.4.1997 i.e.
after the notice issued on 17.06.1997 for compliance of Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995.
The affidavits of other freedom fighters filed earlier are vague in the sense
that particular incidents described in those affidavits supporting the claim of Vasant
Bapurao Upare in his application or in any of his earlier affidavits. Earlier he never
claimed that he was required to live away from his house. Thus, there being no
compliance with the provision of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, he has
failed to prove entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied pensionary benefits and the
same deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 329 -
Waman Vivruti Sanap applied for pension on the ground that he was
underground freedom fighter in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and worked under
Ramling Swami and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.
He filed affidavit dated 9.1.1997 and in this affidavit for the first time he
referred to the name of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He filed
their affidavits dated 12.2.1995 In their affidavits the name of Waman Nivruti Sanap
is inserted in typed affidavits afterwards and there is no initial or signature.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
Anna Eknath Telap in its meeting dated 5.6.1997 and recommended his case.
The Additional Collector by his letter dated 8.7.1997 differed with the
recommendation on the ground that there was no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1975. However, High Power Committee sanctioned pension on
13.10.1997.
He appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded wherein
he has stated that he was underground freedom fighter and cut shindi trees.
- 330 -
Although, he has stated that arrest warrant was issued against him, he did not
produce any copy of arrest warrant.
He named Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap only after he
received notice dated 16.06.1996. In the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna
Eknath Telap the name of Waman Nivrutti Sanap is added in the space left blank and
in different type on different machine and different ink. Apart from this, the incidents
stated in his own affidavits are not stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom
fighters, He has not referred to the incident of burning Pachangri Naka and Daskhed
police patil wada and office and attack on Antarwali naka which is stated by the
supporting freedom fighters. This makes the case made out in the application further
unreliable and since the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
about whom the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and High Power Committee were fully aware
that they have been indiscriminately giving supporting affidavits, the sanction of
claim based on their affidavits that too when the same were contrary to the contents
of the freedom fighters himself is beyond comprehension. In his statement before the
Mane Committee recorded on oath on 18th February 2003, he stated that he did not
know Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and he had been recommended
by Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Bhanudas Patil and the only incident he stated was
that he hoisted flag at Wadzari against Nizam Government.
In view of the above stated contradictions and the infirmity in the affidavit
pointed out, the High Power Committee was not justified in accepting the
recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti. Moreover infirmities in the affidavits were
not brought to the notice of the High Power Committee in the note put up for its
consideration. The Commission finds that he had failed to prove his entitlement to
the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 331 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.6.1997 considered his case
and relying on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap
recommended his case for grant of pension.
- 332 -
He appeared before Mane Committee and he stated that when there was attack
on rajakar at Ashti and Kharda camps at that time Sona Rama Jabhay and Wamanrao
Vaze were with him. He studied at Ambejogai private school upto Vth Std. He
further stated along with his application that he gave affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay
and Manik Anubhule but he did not name Anna Eknath Telap whereas he has named
Manik Anubhule.
He filed affidavit dated 30.4.1990 wherein he stated that there was warrant
issued against him. He took part in burning Karodgiri naka and he was with Uttam
Dhondiba Sanap and Ramrao Ganapati Sanap and filed affidavits of Uttam Dhondiba
Sanap and Ramrao Ganapati Sanap of the same date. In both these affidavits it is
stated that warrant was issued against him.
There is also one application in the proforma which is undated and in which he
stated the incidents of burning Daskhed police patil office and cutting shindi trees.
He filed another affidavit dated 9.1.1997 wherein he named Ramling Swami, Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane, Wamanrao Vaze and Anna Eknath Telap and in this affidavit he has
stated that he took part in manufacturing of Bombs and providing them to the freedom
fighters and giving shelter to the underground freedom fighters. He produced
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telalp dated 12.1.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane of the
same date. In the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap his name is added in space already
left blank for that purpose which is obvious from different ink and even in the
- 334 -
affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane the name is added after the earlier portion was
typed but regarding the difference in ink nothing can be stated on mere examination.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case in the meeting held on
5.6.1997 relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.
The Additional Collector pointed out by letter dated 4.7.1997 to the Deputy
Secretary that he (Bhagwan) did not comply with the provisions of the Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995
The two freedom fighters whose affidavits are relied upon by him for
compliance of Government Resolution dated 4.7.95 have narrated the incident of
burning Pachangri Naka and Daskhed police patil wada, office as narrated in his
original application and he has also named Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath
Telap in the same application . The affidavit ofAnna Eknath Telap suffers from
infirmity of addition of name but the same is not the case with the Nivrutti Fakira
Dhakne and there are affidavits of other freedom fighters who are ofcourse not
having qualification of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia of being sentenced to
two years imprisonment.
In the supporting affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 23.6.1997 his name is
added in ink in the portion left blank to the typed format wherein there is reference to
the incident of Antarwali Naka to which the freedom fighter himself has not made any
reference in his own affidavit and in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay, a reference
- 336 -
is made to the attack on Pachangri Naka and burning of Das Kheda Police Patil office
and Wada. This affidavit also suffers from the same infirmity that the name of
Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale resident of Sangavi, Taluka Ashti is added in ink in the
format of affidavit already typed.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.7.1997 relied on the affidavit of
the respondent and two supporting affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath
Telap and recommended his case.
Before the High Power Committed a note was put up, which was common to
the cases of 9 persons including the present respondent. The note was to the effect that
except Narayan Haribhao Garje the other eight persons complied with the
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. They filed affidavits of two freedom fighters
who were sentenced to two years imprisonment. However the attention of the High
Power Committee was not drawn to the defects in the two supporting affidavits and
High Power Committee sanctioned pension.
It is thus clear that apart from the fact that the incidents which he earlier stated
in the first affidavit are not stated in the second affidavit the incidents stated by the
supporting freedom fighters are different and there is inter-se contradiction between
the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters and his own affidavit and the
affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are also defective in the sense that there
is addition of the name of Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale in handwriting in the typed
format andthere is no signature or initial of any person, which defect has been
consistently pointed out in almost all cases. Apart from this these two freedom
- 337 -
fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap have been consistently filing
supporting affidavits in number of cases which has been pointed out in the general
reasons part in respect of under ground freedom fighters.
In his affidavit filed before the Commission he stated for the first time that for
thirteen months he was required to live away from his house and this statement is
obviously made with a view to show compliance with provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4.07.1995.
The claim of the respondent would not have been accepted had the defects in
the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters were noticed by the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti or the High Power Committee or had some consideration been given to the
contradictory statements and the absence of any statement showing compliance with
the Government Resolution in the affidavits filed earlier.
The Commission is therefore of the view that he did not make out a case of
having worked as underground freedom fighter in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement
and was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as per Government Resolution
dated 4.07.1995 and the same granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 338 -
Prabha Thakuba Garje applied for grant of freedom fighter’s pension on the
ground that he was underground freedom fighter, and he filed supporting affidavits of
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne, and Anna Eknath Telap.
His application was received by the Collector Office, Beed on 3rd May, 1989.
Along with application he filed affidavit of which Xerox copy is on record. The said
affidavit is dated 24.04.1989. In the affidavit, he stated that he took part in the
freedom movement and was working as congress and Sevadal worker. He was
residing at Mirajgaon camp. However, he did not state any specific incident in which
he was involved. He filed affidavit dated 3.1.1997, wherein, he added the names of
Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Waze, Namdeorao Khade, which were not stated in the
earlier affidavit. However, in this affidavit also no particular incident was mentioned.
In support of his claim, Anna Eknath Telap filed affidavit dated 4.7.1997 in
which the name of Prabhakar Thakuba Garje is added in ink to the typed format of
affidavit and reference is made to the incident of attack on Pachangri Naka and
Antarwali Naka which are not specifically stated in the affidavit of Prabha Thakuba
Garje. Similar is the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in
- 339 -
its meeting dated 20.06.1997 referred to the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and recommended his case for grant of pension. The High
Power Committee considered the case of Manik Dnyanoba Chaure, Prabha Thakuba
Garje, Gorakh Anandrao Tarte, Sonaji Daji Dhol, Vasant Baburao Upare, Ashruba
Rambhau Sonwane, Bhausaheb Gulabrao Bhosale, Narayan Haribhau Garje and
Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale together.
The note put up before the High Power Committee further states “they have
filed affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two years
imprisonment and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended their cases. Moreover, there
is recommendation from M.L.A. Bajirao Sonaji Jagtap. Only Narayan Haribhau Garje
has filed affidavit of only one freedom fighter and therefore, excluding his name the
other persons are sanctioned pension and the Member Secretary advocate Rajabhau
Zarkar has also recommended the case for sanction.” In view of this, the High Power
Committee sanctioned pension to the aforesaid persons.
The contradictions in the affidavit of the freedom fighter and the supporting
freedom fighters are already pointed out as the incident mentioned in the supporting
affidavit is not mentioned by the freedom fighter himself. Moreover, the name of the
freedom fighter is added in the typed format of the supporting freedom fighter at later
stage and there is no signature on the additions.
He appeared before Mane Committee on 5th March 2003 and his statement
was recorded on oath. He no doubt stated that he was at Kharda Camp when he was
aged 15 to 16 years. He used to collect bread (bhakari) for those living in the Camp.
He also referred to the incident of burning pachangri and antarveli nakas and stated
the names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap.
should interfere in the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and accordingly
recommends continuance of the same.
arrest warrant against him only for 9 months. But the two other freedom fighters were
sentenced to two years imprisonment and were qualified.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting dated 5.6.1997 and
relying on affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay recommeded
his case for grant of pension. He also filed further affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
probably when the matter was before the High Power Committee but the said affidavit
also suffers from the same defect as the name of Bajirao Annasaheb Tandale is added
in ink to the typed affidavit. The High Power Committee considered the cases
together, of 9 persons and accepted the recommendations of Zilla Gaurav Samiti.
The incidents referred to in his affidavit are also stated in his original
application and although the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters suffer from the
infirmities which are common to almost all affidavits filed by them there being
consistency in his statement through out and his contention that he resided at Kharada
camp also appears consistent. The fact remains that he was living away from his
house and for such contradictions and the infirmities in the affidavits of freedom
fighters, the Commission finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to
him need not be interfered with and recommends continuance thereof.
- 342 -
He applied for pension on 26th July 1996 and in his application stated that he
took part in the burning of Pachangri naka and Daskhed police patil wada and office
and worked under the Leadership of Wamanrao Vaze and Bhima Umaji Bangar.
He filed affidavit dated 26th July 1996 in which he stated the names of Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane as well as Ramling Swami. The affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
dated 26th July 1996 refers to the incidents of burning pachangri naka and Daskhed
police patil wada and office. However, in this affidavit the name of Sonaji Daji Dhole
is added in ink in the blank space and it is stated that Sonaji Daji Dhole was one of the
50 to 60 persons who took part in that incident. The same incident is stated by Bhima
Umaji Bangar.
He further produced affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 19th April 1997
wherein also the two incidents stated above are referred to.
three years. The entire statement regarding having been hurt by bullet having been
required to live away from house for two to three years is exagerated as the freedom
movement did not continue so long.
In the application filed before the Commission through his advocate he has
gone to the extent of saying that he was convicted and sentenced to two years
imprisonment for his activity in the freedom movement and he was relieved on 17th
September, 1948 after the police action.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 28.8.1997 recommended his
case on the basis of affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap.
However, the Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 3.10.1997 that he
(Ramchandra) did not comply with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
- 345 -
in the initial application and the first affidavit of the respondent create serious doubt.
The affidavits are worthless in view of the additions and alterations.
There are also letters of various leaders like Pramod Mahajan to Sharad
Pawar and letter of Sharad Chandra Pawar to Shri Pramod Mahajan. One Shreeniwas
Vyankatesh Khot has also filed affidavit dated 1.8.1996 stating that Dattopant Hamine
had taken part in freedom movement of Hyderabad State. Shreeniwas Khot is also a
well known freedom fighter.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered her case in the meeting dated 6.3.1997. It
is stated in the proceeding that on inquiry by the Committee they were satisfied that
Dattopant Hamine had taken part in the freedom movement. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti
unanimously recommended the case for grant of pension.
- 348 -
The note was put up that she has not filed affidavits of freedom fighters who
were sentenced to two years. There is no evidence that Dattoopant Hamine was
required to stay away from house or gave up education because of his activities in
freedom movement.
The Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar made a note on the file
that the case is recommended by Anantrao Bhalerao arathwada” daily Editor, who has
written history of Hyderabad Freedom Movement and who was in jail and there was
also recommendation of Tarabai Paranjape and Shreeniwas Khot andcase is
recommended by the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and pension be sanctioned from the date of
application.
She appeared before Mane Committee and stated that her husband took part in
the freedom movement. He worked with Purushottam Chapalgaonkar, Anantrao
Bhalerao, Shreeniwas Khot etc. He was also arrested and kept in custody for one day
by the police. The Mane Committee was also influenced by the certificate of well
known freedom fighters and cleared her case.
Even before this Commission Shri Avargaonkar who is said to be the person
behind the Public Interest Litigation stated that he has no objection for grant of
pension to Kamalabai.
The question however, is not whether anybody has objection or not or whether
the case is recommended by the well known freedom fighters. The question is
whether there is compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
She has admittedly not filed affidavits of two freedom fighters sentenced to
two years imprisonment which is the basic requirement for considering the case on
the ground that person was working underground in the freedom movement. The
supporting certificates have also not stated that he was living away from his
house or gave up his education because of his role in freedom movement.
The Commission also accepts that the four freedom fighters who have
recommended the case are highly respectable and would not make any false
- 349 -
assertion in their recommendatory letters. However, that does not mean that she is not
required to comply with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.
The Commission is therefore of the view that she failed to prove entitlement
of her husband to the pensionary benefits and Sanmanpatra and the same granted to
her should be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in its meeting dated 7.9.1998
referring to the affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapat Sanap and Sona Rama Jaybhay and
recommended his case.
Thus both the supporting affidavits suffer from the infirmity of addition of
name and also addition of some material portion to the affidavits in the blank space in
ink to the typed format of affidavits and these additions and alterations are not signed
and as observed in the general reasons these cannot be treated as affidavits having
- 350 -
sanctity of statement on oath. He was exposed fully when appeared before Mane
Committee. He stated that he used to provide bread (Bhakari) which he was
preparing at his house. The incidents stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom
fighters are also not found in his own affidavit.
The Commission therefore is of the view that he had failed to comply with the
requirements datd 4th July 1995 Government Resolution as the affidavits filed in
support were totally unreliable and therefore he failed to prove his entitlement and the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
He filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap ans Sona Rama Jaybhay dated
26.07.1997. In both the affidavits his name is added in ink and it is not initiated and
vague incidents of participation are referred.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his application in its meeting held on
15.09.1999 and in view of the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama
Jaybhay recommended his case.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing bread
(bhakari) in Domgri Camp. There are contrary statements in the affidavits of the
freedom fighter and the supporting affidavits and his statement recorded by the Mane
Committee.
In his first affidavit dated 25.1.1991 he has not made reference to any
particular incident in which he was involved in freedom movement and even in the
later improved affidavit dated 11.7.1997, although he added names of other freedom
fighters and the supporting freedom fighters, he did not refer to the incidents which
were stated in the affidavits of the supporting fighters. In the affidavit of Anna Eknath
Telap dated 17.7.1997 the name is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit and
reference is made to the incident of burning Antarwali Naka and murder of one
Pathan by Teli. Even in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay his name is added in ink
to the typed format of affidavit and reference is made to additional incident of burning
Police Patil Office and Wada at Daskhed to which respondent has not made any
reference.
When examined before Mane Committee, in his statement on oath he did not
make reference to this incident on the contrary stated that he was providing breads
(bhakari) to the freedom fighters and has not done any other work in the freedom
movement which falsifies his statement as well as those of supporting freedom
fighters. Thus he was not required to live away from his house. He was not beaten by
the police and he was only providing breads from his house to the freedom fighters
which means he was living at his house only and he has therefore failed to comply
with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. There is nothing worth
noting in the affidavit filed before the Commission. The Commission is therefore
convinced that he has failed to prove his entitlement and the Sanmanpatra and the
allied benefits granted to him should be cancelled and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 352 -
He produced affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakne and Sona Rama Jaybhay and
in both the affidavits his the name is inserted in blank space in already typed
affidavits. He has also filed affidavit of Manikrao Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapat
Sanap dated 09.11.1998. In the file there is a letter by Deputy Chief Minister
addressed to the Chairman of High Power Committee recommending sanction of
pension to Sahebrao Eknath Nagargoje.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for sanction on the basis of
affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dahakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay.
His claim was earlier rejected by the High Power Committee in view of the
discrepancy in the affidavits and he was informed accordingly and thereafter he filed
additional affidavits containing the averments which are required as per the provisions
of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. Even in his earlier affidavits dated
8.8.1995 no reference was made to his part in any of the incident nor had he stated
that he was required to live away from his house. After he was communicated the
reasons for rejection of his claim he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and
Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Manik Tulshiram Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganpati
Sanap. It is clear that after he was informed of the reasons of rejection he made out
case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution which is obviously after
thought in as much as in the application as well as in the affidavit filed earlier, there
made no reference either to the names of these freedom fighters who have later on
filed supporting affidavits or to the incidents referred to by them in their affidavits.
It is obvious from the perusal of the file that the entire approach of the High
Power Committee took a radical turn after receiving the letter of Deputy Chief
Minister recommending his case for granting of pensionary benefits. The incidents
stated in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are not stated in his own
affidavit and the case made out that he was required to live away from his house for
ten months is also afterthought in as much as when he was examined on oath on 20th
February 2003 before Mane Committee, he stated that he was providing breads
(bhakari) i.e. he was living in his house and providing bread (bhakari). He no doubt
stated that his father was sentenced to two months imprisonment but no documentary
evidence in support of this statement is produced. Even accepting that his father may
have been a freedom fighter who was connected with freedom movement of
Hyderabad and sentenced, in his statement recorded as late as in 2003 does not refer
to any incident in which he himselfwas involved in the freedom movement and
therefore the incidents stated in his later improved affidavit and the later improved
affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters can not be relied upon. The Commission
is therefore of the view that he failed to prove his entitlement as per the Government
Resolution 4.7.1995 and a Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be
cancelled.
- 354 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 13.08.1999 referred to the
affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap and stated that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti is satisfied about the role of freedom
fighter and recommended grant of pension. One of the Member P.V.Joshi however,
recorded that only one of the freedom figher is qualified to give affidavit as Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap was absconding for two years whereas other freedom fighters were
not qualified to file supporting affidavit as required by the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 20.3.1999 that only
one person namely Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was qualified to file supporting affidavit
and there is no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
- 355 -
As a matter of fact defect in his case was rightly pointed out by one of the
Member of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti that out of freedom fighters who have filed
supporting affidavits, only Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was having the necessary
qualification in the sense that he was absconding for two years. However, in the note
put up before the High Power Committee this defect noted in recommendation of the
Zilla Gaurav Samiti was not high lighted and was also not brought to their notice. In
view of this it is clear that he had failed to comply with the requirements of the 4th
July 1995 Government Resolution and therefore had not proved his entitlement and
the Commission therefore recommends that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him be cancelled forthwith.
- 356 -
Smt. Limbabai Bapurao Pingle filed application for pension in her capacity as
freedom fighter on 20.9.2995 stating that she has taken part in Hyderabad Freedom
Movement under the leadership of Kashinath Jadhav worked as underground freedom
fighter. She has filed her affidavit on 20.9.2995 stating therein name of Kondiram V.
Bhaurao Gavane of Gevrai dt. 20.9.1995 and Sudam Laxman Wadmare of Takalgaon
Tq. Gevrai.
The notice was issued to her on 06.06.1997 and thereafter she filed affidavits
of Yogiraj Santram Raut and Balaji Dhurane Landge.
Thereafter along with her letter dated Nil, she filed affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap and Namdev Balawant Aher. Both of them stated about their own role in the
freedom movement and added that Limbabai was involved in the incidents of burning
of Pachangri Naka and Police Patil Office and wada Daskhed and Antarwali naka.
She again filed affidavit dated 30.7.1998 and stated the names of Anna Eknath
Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay and Namdev Balawant Aher.
She again filed affidavit dated 21.09.198 wherein she stated that she worked
under Ramling Swami and Wamanrao Vaze and she was supplying bread (bhakari)
and cloths to the freedom figher.
She appeared before Mane Committee and stated that she and her husband
were on strike and they have burnt the houses of muslim persons. She did not know
- 357 -
in which village this was done. She and her husband were absconding and she was
supplying bread (bhakari ) to the freedom fighters.
After notice was issued by the Commission she filed affidavit and referred to
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aaher.
After the notice she filed further affidavits on 16.11.1996 in which also no
specific incident is quoted by her.
However in the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Saheb it was stated that he was
arrested with 116 persons and convicted and sentenced and at that time Limbabai was
with all the said accused whereas Limbabai herself does not say in any of her affidavit
that she was part of such incident. Thus her earlier affidavits are vague and there is
contradiction in her own affidavits and affidavits of freedom fighters who have
supported her in the sense that although she referred to certain incidents in which she
was taking part along with them she herself did not say that she had taken part in that
incident. When examined on oath before the Mane Committee she stated that she
and her husband set the house of one muslim person on fire and she used to provide
breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters, It is therefore difficult to accept as to how
the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended her case even when one of the Member
brought it to the notice that she did not state the incidents in which she herself was
involved.
- 358 -
All these details were not properly placed in the note put up before the High
Power Committee.
She therefore failed to make out the case of entitlement as per 4th July 1995
Government Resolution to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same need to
be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal,
Asraji Ravji Jagtap , Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and relying on
affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap recommended his case for
grant of pension.
The High Power Committee referred to the fact that he was required to live
away from his house for six months. As stated in his own affidavit and relying on the
suppoting affidavits of two freedom fighter, sanctioned the pension.
He appeared before the Mane Committee and stated that he worked in the
freedom movement and right from 1942 he was working in the freedom movement of
India. He has filed affidavits of freedom fighters who were sentenced to
imprisonment for two years.
In his first application filed in the year 1988 he had referred to the incident of
burning Karodgiri naka at Pimpalkbuti, Waghjai which are also stated in the statement
recorded by Mane Committee in 2003. It is true that affidavit of supporting freedom
fighters suffer from the infirmity which is noticed in almost all cases regarding
addition of names to a typed format of affidavit but even in the very first application
he had stated that his house was ransacked by the Razakars and his land was lying
barren because he could not cultivate. It would show that the statement although
made after the notice was issued to him that he was living away from his house cannot
be rejected out right as after thought and therefore the Commission finds that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted need not interfered with but be continued.
- 360 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 13.01.1999 relied on the
aforesaid affidavits and recommended his case for grant of pension on 20.03.1999.
- 361 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting heldl on 9.3.1999 recommended his
case relying on the aforesaid two affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap.
In the statement recorded before the Mane Committee he stated that he did not
know persons who supported his case for grant of pension and stated that he did not
know full name of Namdev Balawant Aher and he never came in contact with
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher.
- 363 -
The incidents stated in the affidavits of respondent and the supporting freedom
fighters are same and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters corroborated
the case made out. He also referred to Namdeo Balwant Aher, Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap and Manik Tulsiram in the statement before the Mane Committee. Marotrao
Tatyba Sarpate did not change the names of supporting freedom fighters. The
Commission therefore finds that there is no infirmity in his Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits and recommends continuation thereof.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 recommended his
case for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand
Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth. It is worth noting that these two persons had
taken part in freedom movement of India and they are getting pension for their role in
that freedom movement.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 recommended his case
for sanction of pension on the basis of affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and
Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.
The Additional Collector pointed out by that he (Sarjerao) did not comply with
the requirements of Government Resolution.
- 366 -
He appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was recorded and in the
statement he referred to the names of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Nivruti Gopal Khade,
Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulshiram Anubhule.
He filed before the Commission his affidavit but nothing worth noting is
stated.
In his application filed in the year 1990 he stated that he took part in burning
karodigiri naka and ransacking police patil office and even in his affidavit dated 14th
February 1990 he made the same statement on oath. In his further detailed and
improved affidavit dated 30th January 1999 he referred to the incidents in which two
persons were killed namely Limba Bappaji Sanap and Yadav Patilbua Sanap.
However, for the first time he stated that after this incident he along with 400 to 500
persons went with guns and swords to Wadzari and there they attacked the Nizam
police. If in such incident he had in fact been involved, it should have come out at the
first available opportunity and therefore it is obvious that it is afterthought statement,
similarly at later stage he stated that he was away from his house for nine to ten
months.
Same incidents are stated in the affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and
Manik Tulsiram Anbhule. These affidavits cannot be relied upon to prove
involvement of Sarjerao Kashinath Sanap in the incidents stated therein.
Before Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath on
24.2.2003 he stated that he did not know Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and except
providing information to the persons residing in camp he had not done any work
which falsifies his contention in his detailed affidavit and affidavits of supporting
freedom fighters regarding part taken in the incidents by him and therefore he failed
to establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same
granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 367 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti considered his case in the meeting held on 9.3.1999
and recommended the same on the basis of affidavits of Narayan Keshav Pawar and
Namdev Balwant Aher who were sentenced to two years improsonment.
The Additional Collector, however, informed the Government “the case is not
fit for sanction as there is no compliance wih the Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995”.
He filed second affidavit dated 27.7.1997 in which he named for the first time
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap and other like Ramling Swami,
Wamanrao Vaze.
In support of his claim Anna Eknath Telap filed affidavit dated 23.6.1997 and
Sona Rama Jaybhay dated 26.6.1997. In this affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay the
name of Ashruba Rambhau Jadhav is added in ink in the typed format. Thereafter he
again filed affidavit dated 17.2.1999 wherein he added the names of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap, Karbhari Tatya Bangar, Bhima Umaji Bangar, Namdev Balawant
Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and also stated for the first time that he was
- 369 -
required to live away from his house for ten months. He filed supporting affidavits of
Namdeo Balwant Aher in which some portion in the affidavit is added in different
type which is obvious from printing ink.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated nil relied on the affidavit of Sona
Rama Jaybhay Anna Eknath Telap and recommended his case for grant of pension.
The Additional Collector by letter dated 10.7.1998 pointed out that there was
no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The High Power Committee agreed with the recommendation and granted
pension on 15.10.1999.
Aashruba Rambhau Jadhav filed affidavit after notice was issued to him and
also filed the supporting affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Manikrao Tulshiram
Anbhule. There are no contradictions in the supporting affidavits. There is no
infirmity of addition of names in typed affidavits and the one incident which has been
stated by him through out is regarding attack on Madalmovi Naka and has been
referred to in the affidavit of one of the supporting freedom fighters Manikrao
Tulsiram Anubhule. He was residing at Kharda Camp and as such it can be accepted
that he was livng away from his house in the area beyond the borders of Nizam. He
worked as freedom fighter. The Commission therefore finds no infirmity in the order
of the Government granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends
continuation thereof.
- 370 -
He then filed another affidavit dated 11.1.1999 in which he has stated names
of Sahebrao Sanap Wadzari, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar,
Karbhari, Tatya Bangar and has also stated for the first time that he was required to
live away from his house for 10 to 11 months and the police entered his house and
took away the grains and also had beaten his father and he has filed supporting
affidavits of persons who were sentenced for to two years imprisonment or were
absoconding for that period. He filed affidavit of Narayan Keshvrao Pawar dated
11.1.1999.
He has not produced any copy of warrant what he has produced is a copy of
judgment of criminal court which is not relevant as he was accused in the said case
and was not convicted.
- 371 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 29.1.1999 referred to the
recommendation letter of Jayavantrao Tilak and the affidavits of Namdev Balawant
Aher and Narayan Keshav Pawar and copy of Urdu warrant and its translation and
stated that he took part in freedom movement and has filed affidavits of two persons
who were sentenced to two years imprisonment. The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is convinced
about his participation in the freedom movement. However, one of the members
P.V.Joshi mentioned that the Xerox copy of warrant is in respect of Arya Samaj Strike
which is not in respect of Hyderbad freedom movement and his name is not there.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 20.3.1999 and stated
that after going through the papers ‘there is no evidence that Narayan Keshav Pawar
was sentenced to two years and there is no compliance with Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995’. However Narayan Keshav Pawar was sentenced to two years
imprisonment in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.
The High Power Committee considered the case and in the note put up before
the High Power Committee it is stated ‘the Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his
case and applicant has taken part in Goa Freedom Movement and produced
certificate’. It refers to the certificate of Jayavantrao Tilak. The note further states
that he worked underground and has produced certificate of persons who were
sentenced to imprisonment and their recommendation is self explanatory and
therefore Zilla Gaurav Samit has recommended and as certificate regarding his part in
Goa Freedom Movement is produced the pension be sanctioned. It is further stated
that on oral recommendation of the Member Secretary, it is placed before the
Committee. In the further portion it is stated very clearly that the copy of certificate
of Jayvantrao Tilak and his name is recommended, by Goa Liberation Samiti. His
name is not in the list of Goa Liberation Samiti. However, a person to whom
Jayvantrao Tilak has recommended, his name would normally be in the list of Goa
Liberation samiti. However name of Pandharinath is not in the list of Goa Liberation
Samiti.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case as underground freedom
fighter and Shri Gite has produced certificate that he was a Satyagrahi in Goa
liberation movement and warrant was issued against him. The warrant should have
- 372 -
been got verified through the District Collector, Beed and one of the Member of the
Zilla Gaurav Samiti has stated that in the warrant copy produced by him his name is
not seen. In the further note of the Under Secretary it is stated that the case is not
connected with Goa Liberation movement and the application and report of Collector
to the Zilla
Gaurav Samiti be re-examined from this angle.
The note further states that the District Collector has examined the case as
underground freedom fighter and applicant has worked underground against the
Nizam Government and has stated about his suffering. His affidavit is clear and he
complied with the conditions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and therefore
Zilla Gaurav Samiti made recommendation. Thereafter the matter was kept pending
for sometime because of Code of Conduct was in force and after it was over the
pension was sanctioned.
There are certain aspects of this case which need to be high lighted. He has
produced one recommendation letter from Ex-MLA Shri. Annabhau Gite wherein it is
stated that he took part in Sanyukta Maharashtra Moment. There is also a
recommendation letter from Jayawantrao Tilak, Ex-Sabhapati and Secretary of Goa
Liberation Samiti wherein it is stated that this respondent took part in Goa Liberation
Movement under the leadership of Wamanrao Deshmukh and entered the territory of
- 373 -
His statement in the affidavit has been corroborated by one of the freedom
fighters. He was living at Domri Camp beyond Nijam State there appears no such
serious infirmity for which the Commission should recommend cancellation of
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and therefore recommends continuation thereof.
- 374 -
The High Power Committee relying on the two affidavits accepted the
recommendation of Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned the pension on 02.02.2000.
The Zilla Gaurav Samittee in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 relied on the
affidavits of Achyut Amrutrao Rasal and Sona Rama Jaybhay dt. 23.07.1997 in which
the name of the applicant is added in ink in the blank space left open in the typed
affidavit.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 4.7.1998 that there
is no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The High power Committee granted pension in veiw of the two affidavits and
additional affidavits of Namdeo Balwant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and his
later statement that he was required to live away from his house.
- 377 -
He has filed supporting affidavits of Shri Rasal and Sona Rama Jaybhay and
later on he produced before the High Power Committee the supporting affidavits of
Shri Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik Tulshiram Anubhule which were
considered by the High Power Committee. The infirmity regarding the addition of
name is only in the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and not in the other two affidavits
and the contents of the affidavits of Trimbak Misal are similar to the contents of
affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher. In any case there
are no serious contradictions in these affidavits and the Commission therefore does
not find necessary to interfere in the order of the Government sanctioning
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends continuation thereof.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 relying on the
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane recommended the case
for grant of pension.
In his earlier affidavit dated 17.8.1995 he referred to the fact that he was
working under Shri. Asaraji Jagtap and took part in the burning of Waki Naka and
also in attacks at other places. His case was also considered by the earlier Zilla
Gaurav Samiti of which the Asaraji Ravji Jagtap was one of the member and was the
Kendra Pramukh also and although the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti
Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity, there are two affidavits of Manik Tulsiram
Anubhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher which corroborate the incidents referred to in
his first affidavit and his statement before Mane Committee that he took part in the
incident of attack on Waki Naka.
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 relied on the affidavits of
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne and Anna Eknath Telap but the Additional Collector vide
letter dated 15.07.1998 recorded objection that there is no compliance with
Government Resolution.
He has filed affidavit dated 25.3.1996 in which the statement is to the effect
that he took part in incident of burning Karodgiri Naka and was working under
Kashinath Jadhav who was Kendra Pramukh. Earlier he had filed affidavits of two
- 380 -
freedom fighters but they were not sentenced to two year’s imprisonment and
therefore he filed affidavits of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. In
both the affidavits his name is added to typed written affidavit later on with different
type by different ink and the incidents which are stated in the affidavits of the
supporting freedom fighters are not stated in the affidavit of Bappasaheb Madhavrao
Shinde.
All this coupled with the fact that the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne can not be treated as affidavits as having sanctity of a
statement on oath as stated in part of general reasoning in respect of underground
freedom fighters cases. If at later stage he comes out with improved version and
produces affidavits of other two freedom fighters who have sworn, similar affidavits
in support of many others, he can not be said to have made out a case of entitlement to
the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as required by Government Resolution dated
4.7.1995. The fact that he even did not whisper earlier anywhere that he was requird
to live away from his house shows that it is an afterthought statement made in view of
provisions of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The Commission therefore, finds that he has failed to make out case of
entitlement as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and
- 381 -
He applied for pension on 4.1.1985 and in the prescribed format filed with the
application, he stated that he took part in attack of Madalmohi police choky and in
burning Government buildings at Padalsingi and also attack on Ahergaon and Georai
Razakar camps.
and Namdev Balawant Aher, for the first time and also stated that he took part in the
incident of attack on Waghluj police station in which four police of Nizam were killed
and he was required to live away from his house for four to five months.
Before Mane Committee when his statement was recorded on oath, he merely
stated that he provided Breads (bhakari) to the residents of pathardi camp and stated
further that he provided breads for seven to eight days to five to six persons at
pathardi camp and he has not done any other work in the freedom movement. This
statement falsifies his earlier version contained in his affidavit and even in the
affidavits of supporting freedom fighters. Thus the statements contained in his
affidavit and in the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters regarding the various
incidents in which he is stated to have taken part are not reliable and therefore his part
in the freedom movement is doubtful. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits are
granted to him on the grounds which were non-existant and the same deserve to be
and be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 383 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti also relied on the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended grant of pension.
The High Power Committee rejected the claim on 10.12.1997 on the ground
that there was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
Thereafter a note was put up to the High Power Committee that by letter
15.09.1998 he was informed about rejection and thereafter he has stated about several
things in the Freedom Movement and filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended grant of pension.
Moreover, the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti Shri Bangar has made personal
request for sanction of pension to him.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he used to collect bread
(bhakari) and provide the same to the Freedom Fighters.
It is clear from the above discussion that the High Power Committee had
rejected his claim on the ground that he does not comply with requirements of the
Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. After the letter was sent by the
Chairman, Zilla Gaurav Samiti in respect of 58 persons in his individual capacity and
there was also on record letter of Deputy Chief Minister, the case was reconsidered.
The entire approach of High Power Committee changed after the letter of Shri
Bangar and a different note was put up and the claim was sanctioned. Not only in
respect of Ambadas Dhondiba Dhakane but in respect of all the 58 persons of which
list was sent by Shri Bangar, Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti.
- 385 -
It is therefore clear that the claim of the Respondent that he had taken part in
the freedom movement is doubtful and in view of statement before Mane Committee
it is clear that he was not involved in the incidents which are stated in his affidavit and
affidavits of supporting freedom fighters in as much as he had not made any reference
to the said incidents.
In his statement before Mane Committee he has stated that Ramling Swami
and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane had hanged Daud (Razakar) and at that time he was also
with them. If in fact he was involved in any such incident or had even witnessed the
same, he would not have forgotten to mention in his affidavit, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
has also not made any reference in his affidavit to this incident even in any of the
affidavits filed in other cases by him. It is thus obvious that the contention of the
Respondent that he had taken part in the freedom movement is doubtful and therefore
the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
- 386 -
Tulsiram Anubhule dated 7.1.1999. There is one more affidavit of Namdev Balawant
Aher in which his name is added by typing at different time.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 24.6.1997 relied on the
affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap and recommended his case
for grant of pension.
The Additional Collector Beed by his letter dated 3.7.1997 pointed out that
there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The High Power Committee rejected his claim as it was stated in the note that
the affidavits are stereotype and said freedom figher’s have given number of such
recommendations.
After rejection of his claim further note was put up that in the affidavit names
of the persons who filed affidavits later on are not mentioned and again the claim was
rejected on 9.2.1999.
Thereafter it was stated in further note that his claim has been rejected but he
has filed affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Manikram Tulashiram Anubhule
and has stated that he worked as underground freedom figher for one year. Further
note is put up on the file regarding his affidavit and the work done in Kharda camp
under Namdeo Khade and the certificate given by Namdeo Khade. He had stated
about his sufferings due to the part he had taken in the freedom movement and MLA
Bajirao Jagtap has written letter to Chairman and recommended his case the note
further states that taking into consideration the documents filed by him, he has
complied with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 5.7.1995 and there is
unanimous recommendation of Zilla Gaurava Samiti and the matter may be
reconsidered.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he cut shindi trees at
Gevrai and on the instructions of Kashinathrao Jadhav, he provided “Bhakari” for two
years at Hingani, Madalmohi and Wanjarwadi and one Sheshrao Patil was also doing
- 388 -
the same work with him. He has filed necessary document that is affidavits of
freedom fighers who were sentenced to two years.
In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has stated that he was away
from his house for 13 months. This was stated in order to show that he fulfills the
conditions. This was never stated earlier.
Thus apart from the fact that the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters
suffer from the infirmity that the name of Bhanudas Sadhu Jagatap is added to the
typed affidavit and two are blank and name is not even written, there is no consistency
in the statements contained in his affidavits and the affidavits of the supporting
freedom fighters. There are also blank affidavits. In fact his claim was twice rejected
by the High Power Committee and it is mentioned that the supporting freedom
fighters have filed affidavits in support of number of persons which creats doubt
regarding reliability of their version and it is only after the letter of Bajirao Jagatap
MLA that the High Power Committee changed radically its approach and note
favourable for accepting the claim was put up and the claim was sanctioned.
However, when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was
recorded on oath, he not only could not state the incidents but stated that he only
provided breads (bhakari) to the camp from Hingane and Madalmohi on instructions
of Kashinathrao Jadhav. He does not claim to have taken part in any activity against
the Nizam Government and therefore inference can be drawn that he was not at all
involved in the freedom movement. He could not have provided breads to the freedom
fighters if he was living away from his house. That the contention is falsified by his
statement that he only provided breads (Bhakari).
This case in fact discloses a very well planned strategy adopted in filing
affidavits. The freedom fighters claiming the benefits as well as the supporting
freedom fighters had ready formats of affidavits in which blank spaces were left for
adding names and as and when any person approached the names were being inserted
with ink or by different typewriter and the affidavits were sworn at times with blank
spaces and even adopted identifying the deponents and that the officer of the level of
Naib Tahasildar / Awal Karkun either ignored it or connived at it. That they were
- 389 -
He filed application on 11.8.1995 for the grant of pension on the ground that
he worked as a underground freedom fighter. He stated that he worked at Kharda
camp under the Leadership of Namdev Khade and Babu Nana Gite. He filed affidavit
dated 11.8.1995 wherein he has stated names of (1) Sopan Nana Bangar, (2) Babu
Nana Gite, (3) Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and (4) Namdev Khade.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 5.6.1997 recommended grant of
pension relying on affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.
Thereafter he wrote letter dated 17.8.1998 and filed improved affidavit and
has described the sufferings he had undergone.
After his claim was rejected, he filed affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati sanap
and Namdev Balawant Aher. From the note put up thereafter to the High Power
Committee, it is clear that apart from the additional affidavits there was personal
recommendation of the Chairman, Zilla Gaurav Samiti and on record there is also
recommendation letter from the office of the Deputy Chief Minister and therefore on
his application the Member Secretary, High Power Committee made a note that the
case be put up with recommendation and therefore detailed note was put up
mentioning that the two additional affidavits and the details of his involvement in the
freedom movement and the claim was sanctioned.
However when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was
recorded, he clearly admitted that when he was arrested he gave written apology and
got released. It is obvious that thereafter he was not involved in the freedom
movement as he had already tendered apology. Before the Mane Committee no
incident is stated. He further stated that he is not aware as to who had filed affidavits
in his support. It is therefore clear that his participation in the freedom movement is
doubtful. Moreover having tendered apology he is not entitled to claim to be a
freedom fighter.
The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and recommends accordingly.
- 391 -
He applied for pension on 10.10.1992 and in his application sated that in the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement he had given slogans and police were behind him to
arrest and so he went underground. He filed affidavit dated 09.12.1991 wherein he
stated that Razarkars entered his house and tortured his family members. A notice
was issued to him on 18.06.1997 and thereafter he produced affidavit of Anna Eknath
Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Sona Rama Jaybhay who were sentenced to two year
imprisonment.
He also filed his own affidavit dated 23.07.1997 in which the name of various
Freedom Fighters are stated. It is stereo type affidavit as similar affidavits are in many
other cases.
- 392 -
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 referred to the supporting
affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended his case
for grant of pension.
In support of his claim he filed affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amarut Rasal in which
the name of Ashruba Krishna Lokhande is added in different type in blank space left,
in already typed affidavit. The name as well as the sentence about involvement of Dr.
Acyut Amrut Rasal in Hyderabad freedom movement is added at a later stage. The
affidavit is a carbon copy of material earlier typed on some other paper in which these
two sentences are added.
- 394 -
Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal was sentenced to imprisonment for more than two
years in the freedom movement of India and the entire statement in the affidavit
which was earlier typed was with reference to the freedom movement of India. The
name and the fact that he worked in Hyderabad Mukti Sangram is added later on in
different type.
Ashruba filed another affidavit dated 11.3.1999 in which he added that he was
required to live away from his house for three to four months and filed affidavit of
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 11.11.1998.
One thing is obvious from the above that from time to time he went on
improving story to suit the purpose and added affidavits of the persons.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti referred to the affidavits of Dr.Achyut Amrut Rasal,
Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth and relying on the
affidavit of Dr. Rasal and Dr. Changedia recommended his case for sanction of
pension.
The High Power Committee stated that there is clear cut statement about the
sufferings of the applicant and he is supported by Dr. Rasal and Shri Deth and Dr.
Changedia as well as Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and
Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case and there is compliance with provisions of
Government Resolution and so pension was sanctioned on 16.7.1999.
The affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Manik Tulsiram Anbhule were
not before the Zilla Gaurav samiti which referred only to the affidavits of Achyut
Amrutrao Rasal, Dr. Premchand Changedia and Dr. Mohan Narhari Deth who were
involved in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad freedom movement
and were sentenced for their activities in the freedom movement of India. Even their
affidavits also show that they were involved in the freedom movement of India. In
this affidavit of Dr. Changedia also name of Aashruba Krishna Lokhande is added in
ink in the blank space and there is no signature or initial of anybody and the similar is
the affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth who was also sentenced to imprisonment in the
freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad freedom movement. He has also
not referred to any incident in Hyderabad freedom movement wherein he was
involved.
with the said affidavit. There is no reliable statement to show that he was required to
live away from his house and even his wife did not state that he was required to live
away from his house during the freedom movement. However in the affidavit before
the Commission she made the said averment which is obviously afterthought.
He filed application on 21st January 1991 and along with application he filed
affidavit dated 18th January 1991 wherein he stated that he worked under Nivruti
Aaba Rakh as underground freedom fighter. He has however not stated any specific
incident in which he was involved. In his application filed in 1998 he stated that he
produced additional affidavits of the freedom fighters who were sentenced to two
years imprisonment.
In the affidavit filed on 3rd August 1998 he stated the names of Namdev
Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap along with other freedom fighters and
these two have filed supporting affidavits. In this affidavit he stated for the first time
that he was required to live away from house for eleven months. However, he has not
quoted any particular incident whereas Namdev Balawant Aher has referred to the
incident of attack on pachangri naka and burning of Daskhe police patil office and
house. In the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap the name of Vithal Yadavrao Rakh
- 397 -
resident of Therala taluak Patoda is added afterwards to the typed affidavit which
appears to be carbon copy and the statement in this affidavit is regarding the incident
for which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was sentenced along with 166 persons. Although
it is stated that Vithal Yadavrao Rakh was with them in that incident, he was not even
prosecuted. The other incidents which are stated in the affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap are obviously the incident in which Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and others were
involved and there is no statement to the effect that Vithal Yadavrao Rakh was also
involved in the said incident. Thereafter he again filed affidavit of Manik Tulsiram
Anubhule dated 28th July 1999 and the incidents stated in the said affidavits are not
referred to in the affidavits of Respondent.
Thus in the application dated 7.1.1991 he did not refer to any incident. He did
not state anything in first affidavit. He even did not refer to the names of Namdeo
Balwant Aher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule or Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap. He has also not
stated that he was required to live away from his house. The later improved version of
himself and of supporting freedom fighters Manik Tulsiram Anbhule and others can
not be believed. It is clearly afterthought and made in order to show compliance with
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The Commission therefore finds that he failed to make out case of entitlement
as per Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits and recommends cancellation thereof forthwith.
- 398 -
It appears that earlier also he had given application but the same was not
traceable so he has filed affidavit and in one of the affidavit he has stated that he had
earlier filed application in the year 1988 and 1995 which are not traceable and in
another affidavit filed by him he has stated the names as Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap,
Bhimrao Umaji Bangar, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aher and
also number of incidents and also stated that he was required to live away from his
house for 10 to 11 months.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti relied on the affidavits of Namdev Balwant Aher and
Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and recommended grant of pension. One of the members
P.V.Joshi made endorsement that all the affidavits were stereotype.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he took part in the
freedom movement in burning check post. He did not know which check post he had
burnt. He was aged 12 to 15 years and no warrant was issued against him. He did not
know Namdev Balawant Aher.
By the time notice was issued by the Commission he was no more and his
wife filed affidavit. She has no personal knowledge.
Although his statement before Mane Committee is vague he has through out
stated that he was living away from his house and therefore the Commission finds that
this is not case in which the Commission should interfere with the findings of the
Government and Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be
continued and recommends accordingly.
- 400 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting held on 4.8.1997 recommended his
case on the basis of affidavits of Anna Eknath Tellap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane who
were sentenced to two year’s imprisonment for taking part in the freedom movement.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 8.8.1997 that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The High Power Committee considered his case and it was stated that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution and claim was rejected in view of
the non compliance with Government Resolution.
Thereafter further note was put up in which it is stated that the claim was
rejected and he was informed on 15.9.1998 accordingly. Thereafter he wrote letter on
9.12.1998 and has filed affidavits of two freedom fighters who were sentenced to two
year’s imprisonment and in the new affidavit he described how he was required to
suffer in the freedom movement. There are already affidavits of other freedom
fighters namely Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who were also
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and the Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his
case. Moreover Chairman Shri Bangar made a personal request therefore considering
these two affidavits and in view of the letter, pension was sanctioned by the
Government.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated “he cut shindi trees and
worked under Ramling Swami. He aged 16 to 17 years. He used to tether the cattles.
He did not go anywhere. He was undergraound. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap brought the
affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap”.
In fact his claim was rejected by the Government earlier and according to the
Commission rightly. However, thereafter without any further material on record a
note was put up. It clearly appear that the reason for putting up further contradictory
note was recommendation from the Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti in his individual
capacity. It is difficult to appreciate how the individual recommendation of the
Chairman was considered sufficient for putting up totally different and contradictory
note and sanctioning his claim. The affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters
suffer from the infirmity of addition of name without any initial or signature to the
addition and both the affidavits are stereotype mentioning the same incidents of attack
on pachangri naka and antarwali naka and burning of police patil office and wada at
Daskhed which are stated in almost all the affidavits of said two freedom fighters.
- 402 -
There is also one more reason which appears to have made change in the
approach and it is the letter from the office of Deputy Chief Minister to the Member
Secretary on which a note was put up with the list given by Shri Bangar attached to it.
Thereafter matter was reconsidered. On the letter of Shri Bangar the Member
Secretary has clearly stated that the papers be placed again before the High Power
Committee with recommendation with reference to the 58 persons mentioned in the
list which included the name of Respondent. The High Power Committee reviewed
earlier findgins because of the said letters. The Commission therefore finds that the
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be and be cancelled
forthwith and recommends accordingly.
In the application dated 30.10.1987 he has stated that he took part in burning
Karodgiri naka and giving slogans and he suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- as his
application filed in the year 1984 was not considered.
making further improvement and stating the names of Ramling Swami. She is
claiming as wife and legal heir of Sahebrao Chavan.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 28.8.1997 referred to her
affidavit dated 16.07.1997 and affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama
Jaybhay and recommended grant of pension.
imprisonment and the Member Secretary made endorsement that her case be re-
examined and put up with further comments.
She appeared before Mane Committee and in her statement she stated “she
produced certificate from Gram Panchayat that she is legal heir of Sahebrao Chavan
and when she married she was not of the age of understanding and she does not know
whether her husband worked in the freedom movement. The application was filed by
her husband for grant of pension”.
In the affidavit filed before the Commission she has claimed pension as legal
heir of Sahebrao Chavan and not claiming herself to be freedom fighter.
Although in the affidavit filed by Savitribai dated 16.7.1997 she claimed the
pensionary benefits as wife of Sahebrao Raoji Chavan and did not make any claim in
her personal capacity as freedom fighter, the supporting affidavits of Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane is to the effect that Savitribai and Sahebrao both were freedom fighters and
their names are added in the ink in blank space and similar statement is contained in
the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay. When Savitribai does not claim to be freedom
fighter it is surprising that the supporting freedom fighters, who were sentenced to
imprisonment, mentioned in their affidavits that she was also a freedom fighter along
with her husband. The further affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anbhule, Namdev
Balawant Aher do not make reference to Sahebrao Chavan as freedom fighter and
claim that it was Savitribai who worked in the freedom movement. It was because
she had claimed in her affidavit dated 20.4.1999 that she had taken part in the
freedom movement. It is obvious that these persons filing supporting affidavits were
ready to go to any extent and therefore supported the claim of Savitribai as freedom
fighter when she herself never applied for the same and only claimed to be legal heir
of Sahebrao Chavan. The Sanmanpatra was given after the death of Sahebrao
- 405 -
Chavan and the same is obviously granted on the grounds which are not at all
sustainable. The Sanmanpatra granted to Savitribai deserves to be and be cancelled
forthwith because she obviously had no role to play in the freedom movement and the
Commission accordingly recommends the cancellation of the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to her.
Dagadu Ganapati Dongre applied for pension on 27.1.1999 on the basis that he
was underground freedom fighter.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relied on the affidavit of
Narayanrao Keshavrao Pawar Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar who was not sentenced to two
year’s imprisonment.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 9.3.2999 that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution.
Out of two supporting freedom fighters, Dnynoba Jijaba Bangar was not
sentenced to two year’s imprisonment in the freedom movement and as such his
affidavit filed in support is not as per the requirement of 4th July 1995 Government
Resolution. The Respondent had therefore failed to comply with the Government
Resolution of filing affidavits of two freedom fighters. More over from his statement
before Mane Committee it is clear that he was quite young aged about 15 to 16 years
and claims to have collected contributions and bread (bhakari) and did not take part in
any other activity in the freedom movement.
The Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to claim Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits and the same deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
- 407 -
is also made for the first time. He stated that he has produced affidavits of Nivruti
Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. However, he has produced affidavit of
Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 11.9.1998 and affidavit of Bhima Umaji Bangar
which are stereotype.
There is also on record letter of State Minister dated 10.7.1999 in which his
case is recommended to the Government and on the said letter there is endorsement of
Member Secretary of High Power Committee to put up the matter with necessary
note.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 8.10.1998 referred to the
affidavits of two freedom fighters supporting his case namely Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap and Bhima Umaji Bangar and recommended his case.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Section Officer on 23.10.1998 that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution. Even Bhima Umaji Bangar was not
qualified to file such affidavit.
The High Power Committee however referred to his affidavit and the
supporting affidavits and accepted the recommendation and sanctioned pension.
Affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane are not on
record.
From the above stated fact it is clear that even the supporting affidavits filed
by him only Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap was qualified as per the Government Resolution
- 409 -
dated 4.7.1995 as Bimrao Umaji Bangar was neither sentenced for two years nor was
there arrest warrant against him for two years, but warrant against him was for the
period of 9 months. He, therefore, did not qualify himself to make a supporting
affidavit.
In view of this the Commission finds that he has failed to comply with the
requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and therefore he failed to
establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted
to him be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
He filed affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated
3.5.1997.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.6.1997 referred to the
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended his
case.
The Additional Collector wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 4.7.1997 that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
Before the Commission he filed affidavit and stated names of Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane although he had mentioned the names of Namdev
Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule. He stated that he was absconding for
13 months this statement was made for the first time.
In his statement he has quoted one of the incidents that in 1947-48 one
Ahmed Pathan of his village had killed one cock in front of Maruti Temple and
therefore he along with Namdeo Gena caught hold of him, snatched the sword and
took him out of the village. Namdeo Gena was holding his hands and he (Bhiku)
assaulted him with sword and killed him on the spot. There is no record of this
incident. If this was a fact then it is surprising as to how he made no reference of the
aforesaid facts in the application or in the earlier affidavits. All this shows that with a
view to claim benefits he can go to any extent. His statement either in his affidavit or
before the Mane Committee is not trust worthy. The fact that he was providing breads
- 411 -
However, did not state in the application that he was working as underground freedom
fighter.
In his affidavit dated 11.2.1997 filed after the receipt of notice issued in
pursuance of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and stated for the first time that
he was required to live away from his house. In this affidavit also he has not stated
stated that he was required to live away from his house. It is however, not stated that
Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande or freedom fighter supporting him i.e. Maroti Mahadev
similar to the affidavit of Maroti Mahadev Kakade and in that also it is not stated that
In this affidavit it is stated for the first time that he was required to live away from his
house for 4 to 5 months and took education in private school and thereafter could not
pursue education. This portion is however added to the typed affidavit by scoring out
dated 22.2.1998, which is stereotype like other affidavits of the said freedom fighter
in number of cases and in which the name of Murlidhar Bhaurao Lande, his residence
etc. are added in the blank space left for that purpose, which is not signed or initialed
by anybody and similar is the case of another affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
dated 12.2.1997 in which also the name is added in ink to the stereotype typed
affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 12.6.1995 recommended his case
for grant of pension in view of the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna
Eknath Telap.
- 413 -
The Additional Collector, wrote to the Deputy Secretary on 9.7.1997 that there
affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters and the facts stated in the application
Zarkar put up a note on 4.2.1999 requesting to confirm as to whether the name of the
He filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap who
were sentenced to two years imprisonment for taking part in the freedom movement.
These affidavits are of 13.4.1999 and in both the affidavits it is only stated that earlier
affidavit was given in support of Murlidhar Bhaurav Lande who worked as
underground freedom fighter but in that affidavit the name of Murlidhar Bhaurao
Lande is typed by mistake as Murlidhar Bhaurav Kashid.
In the earlier affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap dated 11.7.1998 the name of the
persons securing affidavit his residence, age etc. are all mentioned after erasing the
earlier portion by using whitener and there is no signature or initial to the said
Kashid r/o Ghatsawali and the similarly in the affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
who was also sentenced to two years imprisonment the name is mentioned as
- 414 -
Murlidhar Bhaurav Kashid. These two names in these affidavits of 11.7.1997 are
The explanation given by these latter affidavits was accepted and pension was
accordingly sanctioned.
Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknath Telap. He has also not specifically stated
that he was underground . However, he has stated that he was providing bread
(bhakari) for three to four months to the freedom fighters in the camp.
In the affidavit filed before the Commission he has however stated that he was
underground freedom fighter.
The Commission therefore finds that the evidence produced in support is not
reliable. He failed to make out case as required by the Government Resolution dated
4th July 1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted be cancelled and
recommends accordingly.
- 415 -
He filed another affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal in which also his name
is added to the typed affidavit afterward and the typing on the face of it appears
different. Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal was also sentenced to imprisonment for taking
part in the freedom movement of India.
The Additional Collector by his letter dated 15.7.1998 to the Deputy Secretary
recorded that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
The then Deputy Chief Minister had informed that if in cases of freedom
fighters of Beed district, there were recommendations from the freedom fighters from
Nagar district, same should be accepted and therefore pension was sanctioned.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he did not know Dr.
Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Deth and Achyut Rasal and he worked
with Bhaurao Bhagat.
The supporting affidavits produced by him are of the persons who had taken
part in the freedom movement of India and not in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.
The affidavits also suffer from the infirmity that his name is added to the type written
affidavit afterwards and there is no signature or initial. As pointed out by the High
Power Committee in one of the matters, the High Power Committee itself suspected
bonafides of Dr.Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and
inquiry was ordered against them as the information received by the Member
Secretary of High Power Committee was that they were collecting money for giving
supporting affidavits. Moreover their affidavits did not disclose any incident in
which they had taken part which was in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom
Movement. That is why in his statement before Mane Committee he has gone to the
- 417 -
extent of saying that he did not know Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Chagedia and Dr.
Achyut Amrut Rasal or Mohan Narhari Deth which clearly shows that they had not
worked in the Freedom Movement of Hyderabad with him. His case of having taken
part in the freedom movement is not at all trustworthy and the statements of the
supporting freedom fighters are also not credit worthy and therefore the Commission
finds that he has failed to comply with the requirements of Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995 and he had failed to establish his entitlement to the Sanmanpatra and
allied benefits and the same granted to him be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
In his affidavit dated 3.8.1995 he has stated that he used to give slogans and he
worked under the Ashraji Raoji Jagtap. However, he did not name any other freedom
fighter.
added in ink in the blank space left. Similar is affidavit of Mohan Narhari Deth dated
1.8.1997 in which also the name is added in ink in the blank space. These additions
are not signed or initialed by anybody. He again filed affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut
Rasal dated 25.7.1997.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.12.1997 recommended his case
for sanction relying on affidavits of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Dr.
Achyut Amrut Rasal. These two freedom fighters took part in the freedom movement
of India.
However, the High Power Committee referred, to his own affidavit and to the
suffering narrated therein and to the affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr.
Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth, Namdev Balawant Aher
and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and accepted the recommendation.
movement of India and they have not stated the incidents in which they took part in
the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. The affidavits of other two freedom fighters
were not before the Zilla Gaurav Samiti in as much as they were filed afterwards and
were sent directly to High Power Committee. Although he has stated that he was
living away from house, when examined before Mane Committee admitted that he
used to come home at night which falsifies the version that he was required to live
away from his house and thus there is no compliance with Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995 and he has failed to prove his entitlement. The Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
freedom fighter dated 6.9.1996. In the detailed statement contained in the application
he has not named freedom fighers whose affidavits he filed later on in support.
freedom fighters not referred to earlier specially Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama
Jaybhay and filed their supporting affidavits. In both these affidavits the name of
- 420 -
Raghunath is added in ink to the typed proforma and not signed or initialed by
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.7.1997 recommended grant of
pension relying upon the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.
The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap,
Sona Rama Jaybhay, Thaksen Shankar Dhase and Narayan Dagadu Chaure etc. and
the statement that he had to live away from his house and gave up his education and
accepted the recommendation.
It is pertinent to point out that in his affidavit he has not stated that he was
required to live away from his house and gave up his education. Even the two
supporting affidavits of the freedom fighters relied upon have not made such
statement.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was only supplying
breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters for 5 to 10 months. He has not done any
other work. He could not name any other freedom fighters. He further stated that he
filed supporting affidavits of Karbhari Tatya and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and he had
served breads (bhakri) in his own field.
Thus apart from the infirmity in the affidavits of the supporting freedom
fighters Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay regarding addition of his name
in ink to the type written affidavit without there being any signature or initials, the
- 421 -
statements in their affidavits that he was required to live away from his house is
contrary to his version. In affidavit there is no such averment and when he appeared
before Mane Committee he merely stated that he was providing breads (bhakari) to
the freedom fighters and that to in his own field. Thus he was living in his own
house. He did not claim in the said statement that he was involved in any particular
incident in the Freedom Movement. Therefore even his role in the freedom movement
is doubtful and apart from it, he has failed to comply with the provisions of
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and thereby failed to prove his entitlement
and Sanmanpatra as well as allied benefits granted to him therefore deserve to be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
He filed affidavit dated 1.2.1999 in which apart from the earlier assertion, he
added names of Namdev Balawant Aher, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and also stated
that for 10 months he was required to live away from his house.
- 422 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relied upon the
affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar stating that against
Bhimrao Umaji Bangar there was arrest warrant for nine moths.
However, Zilla Gaurav Samiti recommended his case for grant of pension on
the basis of these two affidavits. Neither any of them was sentenced to two years
imprisonment nor was there arrest warrant against any of them for two years.
In the note put up, there is only reference to his activity against the Nizam
Government and that he worked as underground and the affidavits of two freedom
fighters without any reference to the fact that they were either sentenced to two year
imprisonment or there was warrant against them for two years and recommendation
was accepted with these remarks.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing breads
(bhakari) and giving secret information to the freedom fighters and he did work of
preparing bread (bhakari). For 9 - 10 months he stayed away from his house. He
stated that he filed affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule, Bhima Umaji Bangar but
the affidavit of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule is not on record. He also stated he filed
affidavit of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, which is also not on record. There are
Affidavits of Dyanoba Jijaba Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar. Their names are not
stated by him in the statement recorded.
- 423 -
Janrao Kisan Misal applied for pension on 11.6.1997 and in the application he
stated to have worked underground from the Kharda camp referring to the names of
Wamanrao Vaze and Sona Rama Jaybhay.
In his affidavit filed on 12.6.1997 for the first time he named Ramling Swami
and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane.
5.9.1997 wherein also name Janrao Kisan Misal is added in ink in the blank space and
both the affidavits are stereo type.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.12.1997 referred to his
supporting affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakae and Sona Rama Jaibhaye who sere
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and recommended his case for grant of
pension.
Thus apart from the infirmities in the affidavits of the supporting freedom
fighters that his name is added in the ink to the already typed affidavit in the space left
blank for that purpose, his entire claim appears to be doubtful for the simple reason
- 425 -
that when he appeared before Mane Committee and his statement was recorded on
oath he categorically stated that he was not living away from his house and therefore
the statement in the affidavit of himself and supporting freedom fighters appears to
have been made with the intention of getting Sanmanpatra and allied benefits. When
he himself contends that he was just providing breads from his house and was living
in his own house only that shows he had failed to comply with the provisions of the
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and failed to prove his entitlement and so
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and
the Commission recommends accordingly.
Thereafter he sent one more application after receipt of notice and thereafter
he filed affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay.
- 426 -
In his further affidavit dated 16.7.1997 he has referred to Sona Rama Jaybhay
and name of Ramling Swami. He also filed affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and
Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Bhima Umaji Bangar, Anna Eknath Telap.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.7.1997 referred to the
affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay and recommended case
for sanction.
The High Power Committee considered his case stating that he did not
produce anything except the affidavits of two freedom fighters that is to say that he
did not produce any evidence about his suffering or his having been required to live
underground and no other document is produced.
The Member Secretary, Advocate Rajabhau Zarkar remarked that the claim be
rejected and it was signed by the further authorities including the State Minister.
However, thereafter further note was put up on the file, that file was kept
pending as it was tagged with other files and there was recommendation not to
- 427 -
sanction the pension which the High Power Committee accepted and intimation was
given to Bapusaheb Bajirao Pawar.
However in the meantime he filed another application along with his own
affidavit and affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.
The note further states that there is also specific mention of his suffering in his own
affidavit and therefore Zilla Gaurav Samiti has recommended his case. After this
Under Secretary Nalawade discussed the matter and the Member Secretary agreed and
the pension was sanctioned.
The perusal of the notes put up at the different times to the High Power
Committee clearly show that High Power Committee was also convinced earlier that
the case was not fit for sanction of Sanmanpatra and pensionary benefits and so his
application was rejected and he was also informed after which he gave his additional
affidavit and the supporting affidavit of Manik Tullsirak Anbhule and Sahebrao
Ganpati Sanap. The statement “he was required to live away from his house” was
made for the first time in later affidavits and if it were a fact, the same would have
appeared in his earlier affidavits. His statement before Mane Committee clearly
negatives his ascertion because there is a statement that he used to collect bread from
adjoing villages and provide same to the persons residing in the camp which
obviously means that he was living in his house and was not living away from his
house. He had therefore failed to prove his entitlement and the Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 428 -
Thereafter Vithal Nivrutti Misal filed his own affidavit dated 3.2.1999 wherein
the name of eight freedom fighters who had participated in the freedom movement
along with him are mentioned. In addition to it he filed affidavit of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap, Manik Tulsiram Anubhule dated 3.2.1999 supporting his claim.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.2.1997 recommended the case
of the applicant by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane.
The Collector, Beed in his report dated 15.6.1998 observed that there is no
compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995, so it is not a fit case to grant
pension.
The High Power Committee on 24.9.1999 granted the application by relying
on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and the
recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti.
Vithal Nivrutti Misal appeared before Mane Committee. His statement was
recorded on oath wherein he stated “he has not done anyother work. He supplied
bread, water and other miscellaneous things for a period of ten months to the activists
in the freedom movement”.
Thus apart from the infirmity pointed out in the affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivrutti Phakira Dhakane, the supporting freedom fighters, whose
affidavits are relied upon by Zilla Gaurav Samiti the statement before Mane
Committee and that apart from providing bread and water to the freedom fighters for
10 months he did nothing and did not take part in any activity in the freedom
movements clearly falsify his claim of being a freedom fighter. The statements in the
other affidavits i. e. affidavit of Sanap and Anubhule are contrary to the statements
contained in the affidavits of Dhakane and Telap as they refer to the different
incidents. These affidavits are also after thought as they contain clear improvement
which is not in the earlier application and the affidavit of the Freedom Fighter
himself.
- 430 -
In support of the application he filed his own affidavit dated 2.6.1997 which is
in a typed format. In support of his claim he filed affidavit dated 5.2.1997 of Sona
Rama Jaybhay and affidavit dated 5.4.1997 of Anna Eknath Telap. The affidavits of
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap are in typed format and the name of
Kashinath Doiphode is added with pen in the affidavits of both the deponents. He
- 431 -
also filed affidavit of one Bhimrao Umaji Bangar. The affidavit is also in typed
format wherein the name of Kashinath Apparao Doiphode is inserted in ink. Bhimrao
Umaji Bangar is not qualified to file lsupporting affidavit.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.12.1997 recommended the
application of the Kashinath Doiphode by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay. The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated
15.7.1998 did not recommend the application as there was no compliance with the
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
His application was dated 11.6.97 and his own affidavit was of 2.6.97 whereas
affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhaye is of 5.2.1997 and affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap
was of 5.4.1997 whereas the affidavit of Bima Umaji Bangar is of 6.11.1996. In the
normal course it is not probable that affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters
would be sworn earlier. All affidavits to the application mention incident of
Pachangri naka and burning of Police Patil Wada and Office. Similiarly Anna Eknath
Telap has mentioned the incident of Pachangri Naka and burning of Anterwali naka.
In the supporting affidavits name of the claimant freedom fighter is added in ink
- 432 -
without any signature or initial. Similar is the affidavit of Bhima Umaji Bangar which
was prepared long before the filing of application in which also his name is added to
the typed affidavit and the same incident is mentioned. All this considered together
shows that these freedom fighters had kept ready typed written affidavits which were
sworn before the competent authority and were provided to the persons approaching
them. Therefore even though he filed affidavits of two freedom fighters, the entire
claim in the application becomes doubtful.
When his statement was recorded before Mane Committee, he could not even
state the names of the supporting freedom fighters participating in the incident of
burning of Pachangri Naka or Police Patil Wada and Office and vaguely stated that he
was accompanied by 10-15 persons. Even according to his statement he was not
involved in any incident along with Ramalingswami, Namdeo Khape, Wamanrao
Waze. The claim is doubtful and the Commission therefore finds that he has failed to
make out case required by the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995. The statement
of the supporting freedom fighters can not be relied upon and therefore Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the
Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 9.3.1999 relying on the affidavit
of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Dnyanoba Jija Bangar and Bhima Umaji Bangar
recommended case of Sarjerao Khandu Wanve.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 9.3.1999 reported that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a fit
case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. Even one of the supporting freedom
fighters was having arrest warrant issued against him for nine months only.(Bhima
Umaji Bangar)
Sarjerao Khandu Wanve appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he
was of ten to twelve years of age when the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze was attended
by him. He further stated that for two three months he was providing breads, water to
the freedom fighters from the field and he had not done any other work than providing
breads (bhakari). He was unable to state where and how he came in contact with the
Bhima Umaji Bangar and Manik Tulsiram Anubhule.
From the above stated facts, it is clear that only one out of three freedom
fighters who filed supporting affidavit i.e. Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was qualified in
as much as there was arrest warrant against him for two years whereas against Bhima
Umaji Bangar the arrest warrant was effective only for 9 months and Dyanoba Jija
Bangar was neither sentenced to imprisonment nor was there any such warrant for
two years against him.
However, despite the letter of Additional Collector the note put up before the
High Power Committee was silent regarding this material aspect and it is stated that
he has filed affidavits of persons who were sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed
by Government Resolution.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances he had failed to comply with
the provisions of 4.7.1995 Government Resolution. He even admitted before the
Mane Committee that he merely provided bread (bhakari) and water to the freedom
fighters from his field and did not do any other work. It means he was living in his
house and was not away from house.
Therefore he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the
same granted to him deserved to be and be cancelled forthwith. The Commission
recommends accordingly.
Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changediya, Ashraji Raoji Jagtap about his participation
in Hyderabad Freedom Movement.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 18.08.1997 did not
recommend the application as there was no compliance with Government Resolution
dated 04.07.1995.
The High Power Committee vide its order dated 10.06.1999 granted the
application relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne,
Manik Tulshiram Anbhule and Namdeo Balwant Aher.
affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Anna Eknah Telap. In the affidavit of Anna
Eknath Telap the incident of pachangri naka and antarveli naka is quoted stating that
there were 50 to 60 persons with him including Aadinath Vithoba Muley and in the
affidavit of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane the incident of pachangri naka and burning of
Daskhed police patil office and wada are stated mentioning that there were 50 to 60
persons along with him including respondent. The aforesaid two freedom fighters
filed affidavits of similar contents in support of number of persons but as pointed out
in another part of this report their versions that those 50 to 60 persons included
Aadinath Muley are far from truth.
The assertion that he was required to live away from his house is made by him
for the first time in later improved affidavit of 15th March 1999 and the supporting
affidavits of Manik Tulsiram Anubhule and Namdev Balawant Aaher are practically
similar as regards contents thereof. Therefore neither the version of the Respondent
regarding his participation in the freedom movement with reference to the particular
incidents nor the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are trustworthy and thus
he had failed to prove his entitlement as required by the provisions of 4th July 1995
Government Resolution. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him
therefore deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
On going through the notes put up before the High Power Committee, it is
noticed that Member Secretary Rajabhau Zarkar had earlier put up a note that
supporting freedom fighters namely Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane
had given affidavits in support of number of persons, so the same are not reliable and
claim be rejected. Thereafter the Sabhapati made a note that inquiry be held against
the said persons. Note directs that the District Collector, Beed be asked to hold
inquiry against Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay
and that note is made on a different file and inquiry has been ordered, however, it is
now found that such inquiry was ever held.
Further note was put up that Raghunath Shinde had taken part in freedom
movement and he was living away from his house for 5 to 6 months. There is also
- 438 -
However when he was examined before the Mane Committee he did not make
reference to any of the incidents which he had earlier stated or to which the
supporting freedom fighters have made reference in their affidavits and he only stated
that he cut trees and provided bread (bhakari), and had not done any other work and
this work was also done at Padelsinji. He was collecting breads (bhakari) for about 15
days to one month for freedom fighters but he could not even state as to for how many
persons he provided the same. He even stated that he did not know Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Namdev Balawant Aher and Sahebrao Ganapati
Sanap, who filed supporting affidavits. Therefore the entire case of Raghunath
Shinde and statement contained in his affidavit and affidavits of supporting freedom
fighters become very suspicious. It is clear that if at all he was providing breads
(bhakari) , he was residing in his house and not away from his house and there is
absolutely no compliance of the Government Resolution with 4th July 1995 and
Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied
benefits granted to him. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him therefore
deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 439 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 8.10.1998 recommended the
application of Respondent Keshav Maruti Wanve relying on affidavits of Bhima
Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 23.10.1998 expressed that
there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a
fit case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension.
The statement of Keshav Maruti Wanve was recorded before Mane Committee
on 17.3.2003 in which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp and had provided
breads to freedom fighters. He has specifically stated that he has not done any other
work than providing breads (bhakari).
In the affidavit filed before the Commission he stated the names of freedom
fighters with whom he worked and he further stated that he did not remember the
names of two freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support of his claim.
From the aforesaid facts it is clear that out of two supporting affidavits filed
by him only Sahebrao Ganapati sanap was qualified as required by the Government
Resolution as Bhima Umaji Bangar was having arrest warrant for nine months against
him. His statement before Mane Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari) at
Domri camp shows that he was living in his house. He therefore failed to make out
case as is required by the provisions of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and was
not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 441 -
Bhima Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap dated 22.9.1998 in support of his
claim. Against Bhima Umaji Bangar there was arrest warrant only for nine months.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 8.10.1998 recommended the
application of Respondent Keshav Maruti Wanve relying on affidavits of Bhima
Umaji Bangar and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 23.10.1998 expressed that
there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 so it was not a
fit case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension.
The statement of Keshav Maruti Wanve was recorded before Mane Committee
on 17.3.2003 in which he stated that he was residing at Domri camp and had provided
breads to freedom fighters. He has specifically stated that he has not done any other
work than providing breads (bhakari).
In the affidavit filed before the Commission he stated the names of freedom
fighters with whom he worked and he further stated that he did not remember the
names of two freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support of his claim.
From the aforesaid facts it is clear that out of two supporting affidavits filed
by him only Sahebrao Ganapati sanap was qualified as required by the Government
Resolution as Bhima Umaji Bangar was having arrest warrant for nine months against
him. His statement before Mane Committee that he was providing breads (bhakari) at
Domri camp shows that he was living in his house. He therefore failed to make out
case as is required by the provisions of 4th July 1995 Government Resolution and was
not entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him which deserve to be
cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 443 -
alleged that he worked in Kharda camp under the leadership of Namdeo Khade and
Nivrutti Gopalrao Khade and performed all underground activities till 17.09.1948.
In the affidavit dated 28th February 1997 filed by him it is noticed that there is
no signature of Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar either below the contents or even at the
place where the authority before whom it is sworn has signed and the authority is not
less than the Avval Karkun . The Avval Karkun, who is a Government officer, has
signed on the said affidavit in the absence of signature of the deponent any where in
the entire format.
He filed further affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap
dated 27.7.1997 and both the affidavits suffer from infirmity that they were already
typed having similar contents as filed by the said freedom fighters in many other cases
and the name of Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar is added in ink to the typed format where
there is no signature or initial of any person or authority. However the Zilla Gaurav
samiti recommended his case in the meeting dated 9th July 1997.
The Additional Collector however pointed out by his letter dated 10th July
1997 that there was no compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.
The High Power Committee rejected his claim in view of the note of the
Member Secretary, but thereafter again he sent one more application to the
Sabhapati. After that the note dated 4th December 1998 was put up that the freedom
fighter Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar met the Chief Minister and there was discussion
with the Principle Secretary Chief Minister’s office and the matter was directed to be
placed again before the High Power Committee.
Even after this the Member Secretary had noted on the file ‘already there is
direction of inquiry against Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane in
number of files and the Zilla GaluravSamiti does not appear to have examined the
evidence’. There is also contradiction in his affidavit filed at this stage and earlier
affidavit and the claim be rejected.
- 445 -
After this note of the Member Secretary, the Sabhapati made a note with
reference to aforesaid endorsement that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti should get it analyzed
what Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar wanted to say, as the statement cannot be said to be
contradictory as pointed out in the note of Member Secretary.
After this, further note was put up which was positive and in view of that the
recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti was accepted by the High Power
Committee.
It is clear from the above discussion that even the High Power Committee was
made aware of the fact regarding suspicious nature of affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and others not only in this file but in number of files
and even inquiry was ordered against them. The defect in the affidavits of Sahebrao
Bapurao Bangar that it was not bearing his signature at any place was not brought to
the notice of the High Power Committee in any of the note although different notes
have been placed before the said Committee from time to time. The note of the staff
member of the Mantralaya however strong cannot cure the defects in the documents
and the affidavit produced by Sahebrao Bapurao Bangar. The file also contained
letter dated 13.12.1998 written by the Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samittee Babasaheb
Bangar to the Member Secretary in his individual capacity to reconsider the case and
this letter was sent along with affidavits of Namdev Balawant Aher and Bhima Umaji
Bangar out of whom Bhima Umaji Bangar was not having the necessary qualification
to file affidavit. There is also recommendatory letter of Deputy Chief Minister dated
28th July 1995 and it is obvious that the High Power Committee changed its approach
in view of the recommendations from various persons and authority like Deputy Chief
Minister, MLA etc. Although in his affidavit dated 30.12.1998 he has quoted various
incidents and the supporting freedom fighters have also quoted various incidents
stating that he was also involved along with them, when he appeared before Mane
Committee and his statement was recorded on oath, he stated that he was present in
the meeting held by Wamanrao Vaze and Ramling Swami and the only work he had
done was of cutting shindi trees and providing breads to the freedom fighters and he
used to collect about 25 breads (bhakari) every day and provide to the freedom
fighters and although he has filed affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher and Bhima
- 446 -
Umaji Bangar he die not came in contact with them at any time earlier and he also did
not come in contact with Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay.
From the above discussed fact and circumstances it is clear that although he
had failed to make out case as required by the Government Resolution and even the
High Power Committee was not earlier convinced, the case came to be reconsidered
in view of various recommendations including that of Deputy Chief Minister and
Chief Minister. The fact remains that he had failed to make out case as per the
requirement of Government Resolution and had failed to procure reliable evidence of
freedom fighters. The affidavits filed in support of his application were not
trustworthy and the Commission therefore finds that not having made out the case of
entitlement under the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995, the
claim should have been rejected. The Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him
deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 21.07.1997 recommended the
case relying on the affidavits of SonaRama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 01.08.1997 addressed to the
Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai endorsed
that there was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995 so it was
not a fit case for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension. However, he further asked
Government to take decision in the matter.
The said decision was communicated to Rama Manik Wanwe vide letter dated
15.09.1998.
pension claims of Freedom Fighters and requested for necessary action The Member
Secretary endorsed the letter to the Deputy Secretary to take appropriate action.
Alongwith the said letter a copy of the letter addressed to Member High Power
Committee by the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti is appended with the list of 58
freedom fighters complying with the defects found in their applications and amongst
those 58 persons there is name of Rama Manik Wanve at Sr. No.28 and along with
that list the President Zilla Gaurav Samiti placed on record the copy of the application
of Manik chanaji Bangar and affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar dated 24.11.1998,
and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap dated nil.
The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap does not bear the endorsement and
signature of the authority competent to verify the affidavit. The said affidavit is
without verification. It is not even worth the stamp paper on which it is typed. It is
further significant to note that the affidavits of Dnyanoba Jijaba Bangar, Manik
Chanaji Bangar, Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap are irrelevant as they were not qualified to
file supporting affidavits as per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995.
Moreover, those affidavits pertain to the matter of Manik Chanaji Bangar and not to
that of Rama Manik Wanve. There was no reason to include these documents in the
file of Rama Manik Wanwe.
Thus from the above stated facts it is clear that the affidavits of Anna Eknath
Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay were suffering from the same infirmity that the name
of Rama Manik Wanave was added to the typed written affidavit in ink and there
were no signature or initial to that addition and the so called affidavit of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap cannot be said to be affidavit as it is not even signed and sworn in
presence of authority competent to sign and competent to administer oath. It is
however treated as affidavit although not worth the paper on which it is typed.
In fact Mantralaya staff preparing and putting up note to the High Power
Committee ought to have brought this to the notice of High Power Committee.
However in this case there was recommendation letter in his individual capacity from
the Chairman of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti including list of 58 persons along with letter.
- 449 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti is no doubt competent to examine the cases and forward the
same with recommendation of the Committee but the recommendation of the
Chairman in his individual capacity cannot be substitute or cannot be considered as an
additional factor in support of the claim. Whatever incidents stated in his own
affidavit by Rama Wanave and in the supporting affidavits are not stated by him,
when he was examined by Mane Committee on oath wherein he stated that he only
supplied breads (bhakari) for four months to ten freedom fighters involved in the
struggle and he even did not know Sona Rama Jaybhay and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap
as well as Anna Eknath Telap. It is on such material that the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and
High power Committee have sanctioned Sanmapatra and allied benefits to Rama
Wanave. The earlier order of the High Power Committee rejecting his claim was
correct order but a different approach was taken after endorsement by the Secretary to
Chief Minister regarding discussion with the Chief Minister and the letter of
Babasaheb Bangar Chairman Zilla Gaurav Samiti in his individual capacity. As per
the Government Resolution dated 10th March 1999 sub clause 5 the Government had
no power to review its own decision after it was rejected.
The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to prove his entitlement as
required as per the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and Sanmanpatra and
allied pensionary benefits granted to him be cancelled forthwith and recommends
accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 04.07.1997 recommended the
application for grant of pension relying on the affidavits of Sona Rama Jaybhay and
Anna Eknath Telap.
From the affidavit of Namdeo Balwant Aher it is evident that the affidavit was
already typed and the name of Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware is subsequently
inserted therein. The affidavit of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap is silent about
Pandharinath Baburao Nanaware having worked with him in the freedom moment at
any time.
- 451 -
All these facts considered together create serious doubt regarding the
involvement of Pandharinath Baburao Nannvare in the freedom movement and as
these facts were not considered, the approach of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the High
Power Committee was without application of mind to the documents placed on
record.
- 452 -
His statement before Mane committee recorded on oath on 19th March 203
further falsifies his claim made and the contents of the affidavits of himself and the
supporting freedom fighters as he stated before Mane Committee that he took part in
burning pachangri naka which is not stated in the earlier affidavit but stated that he
was providing bread (bhakari) to the freedom fighters.
The Commission therefore finds that he had failed to make out case as
required by the provisions of the Government Resolution and to establish that he was
entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be
and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
When he appeared before Mane Committee he stated on oath that he did not
know freedom fighters who filed affidavits in support. He specifically stated that he
did not know Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Nivruti Fakira
Dhakane, they were not in his group, he worked near about Pathardi only. Thus the
- 454 -
entire evidence in the form of affidavit produced by him was not at all reliable and his
claim could not have been granted on such documentary evidence. He had failed to
comply with the requirements of Government Resolution by producing reliable
documents and was not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the
Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and other benefits granted to him
deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 14.07.1998 sent to the
Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, Freedom Fighter’s Cell,
Mantralaya, Mumbai expressed that as there was no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995 on the part of the Vithal Madhavrao Nirale, it is not a fit
case for grant of freedom fighter’s pension. However, the Government may take final
decision in the matter.
- 456 -
Mr. Sahebrao Darekar, MLA Ashti-Patodi Constituency vide his letter dated
02.11.1998 requested Deputy Secretary, freedom fighter’s cell ,Mantralaya, Mumbai
to grant the application of the Vithal Madhavrao Nirale for pension.
In his reply dated 05.12.2005 given to the notice issued by this Commission
and he filed affidavit dated 05.12.2005. He again submitted a written reply dated
29.05.2006 which is styled as affidavit but not verified and sworn before the
competent authority wherein all details of his active participation in the freedom
movement are stated.
He has stated in his so called reply dated 29.05.2006 that he was required to
live away from his house and family members for about 13 months. He made this
statement for the first time on 29.05.2006 so as to fulfill the requirement of
Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
He also produced one entry of criminal case register at Ashthi to show that he
was prosecuted in case No. 121/4 of 1356 Fasli dated 14 Isfandar 1356 F i.e. 14
January 1948 to according to which the offence took place in 1356 Fasli equivalent to
14.5.1947. The accused in that case was arrested on 5 Azur 1357 Fasli equal to
- 457 -
5.10.1947. In that case four persons appeared to have been prosecuted which included
one name Vittal Madhavrao. This case was ultimately withdrawn by the police and as
such there was no prosecution. He produced the identity card issued by Election
Commission in which the name is written as Vittal Madhavrao Misal. However he has
nowhere explained earlier that his surname was Misal as well as Nirale and
throughout he has stated his name as Vittal Madhavrao Nirale. He also filed affidavits
of his brother Pandurang Madhavrao Nirale before Mane Committee to explain that
the Nirale is also known by surname Misal. In any of the affidavits filed in support of
his application he has nowhere stated that his surname is Nirale alias Misal. Moreover
he did not even claim in the application and the affidavits filed with the application
that there was criminal case against him. He has not stated as to what was the case and
what were the allegations. He was prosecuted under the sections 212 of the
Hyderabad Penal Code. If there was a criminal case in fact against him he could have
narrated the incident on the basis of which the prosecution was lauched. The school
leaving certificate of his brother is produced by him before Mane Committee wherein
also surname Misal is not mentioned. This contradiction in the surname has not been
properly explained to accept that the criminal case was in respect of the same person.
Apart from this he has relied on supporting affidavits of Dr. Achyut Amrut
Rasal, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Asaraji Ravji Jagtap and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand
Changedia. As pointed out in many other cases Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal and Dr.
Premchand Uttamchand Changedia were sentenced for the activities in the freedom
movements of India and there is no document on record to show their rule in the
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. In the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay the name of
Vittal Madhavrao Nirale is added in ink to the typed format of affidavit where there is
no signature of any person. Similarly in the affidavit of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand
Changedia his name is written in ink to typed format of affidavit. A perusal of the
affidavit of Dr. Achyut Amrut Rasal makes it clear that he has not stated to have taken
part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement and even the statement is to the effect that
Vittal Madhavrao Nirale was taking part in the freedom movement of India along
with Dr. Achutrao Amrutrao Rasal.
own affidavit are not borne out from the affidavits of freedom fighters working in
Hyderabad Freedom Movement. As the record of criminal case does not mention his
name and there is no reliable evidence that Nirale or Misal are the surnames by which
his family is known. He has failed to produce reliable evidence in support of his claim
of having taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and he had also not complied
with the requirements of the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and his late
assertion in the affidavit filed before the Commission that he was required to live
away from his house for 13 months is after thought and unreliable.
The Commission therefore finds that he was not entitled to the Sanmanpatra
and allied benefits and the same granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and
the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 459 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 04.08.1997 recommended the
application of Gyanba Baburao Gaikwad relying on the affidavit of Anna Eknath
Telap and Nivrutti Fakira Dhakane.
Member Zilla Gaurav Samiti , Beed and additional affidavits of supporting freedom
fighters placed on record.
Thus there is consistent statement of the respondent that his brother was killed
in Hyderabad Freedom Movement which is borne out from the letters of
recommendation and one of the letters is given by the member of Zilla Gaurav Samiti
Shri. P. V. Joshi. As his brother was killed in his house, it is natural that he must have
left the house and his statement that he was required to leave the house and live away
need not to be suspected and the same appears to be genuine. He produced additional
affidavits before the High Power Committee and considering the facts, the
Commission does not find it proper to interfere with the order of the Government
granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits which deserve to be and be contined.
- 461 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.06.1997 recommended the
application by relying on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama
Jaybhay.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 05.07.1997 addressed to the
Deputy Secretary General Administration Department, Freedom Fighter’s Cell,
Mantralaya, Mumbai submitted that there was no compliance with Government
Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
On the basis of affidavits earlier produced by him out of which the affidavits
of the supporting freedom fighters were found defective his claim was rejected.
Thereafter his application with additional documentary evidence of additional
affidavits of other freedom fighters his claim has been reconsidered. The incidents
quoted earlier by him are mentioned in these supporting affidavits and there appears
no reason to reject this statement regarding his involvement in the incidents stated.
The Commission therefore finds no reason to interfere with the order of the
Government granting him Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and recommends
continuation thereof.
- 463 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti Beed in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 recommended
the application of Balkrishna Misal relying on the affidavit of Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne
and Anna Eknath Telap.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 25.07.1998 submited to the
Deputy Secretary General Administration Department Freedom Fighter’s Cell,
Mantralaya, Mumbai stated that the requirements of Government Resolution dated
04.07.1995 were not fulfilled and therefore the application was not fit for
recommendation however further requested Government to take final decision.
dated- 03.12.2005 does not find place in his earlier statement before Mane Committee
and earlier affidavits.
Thus the affidavits filed earlier that of Anna Eknath Telap and Nivrutti Eknath
Fakira Dhakane suffer from the infirmity that the name of Balkrishana Gyanoba Misal
is added to the already typed affidavit and there is no intial or signature of the person
to the addition.
However, there after he filed further affidavits of himself and two other
freedom fighters. In these affidavits dated 2.2.1999 he has stated the incident in which
the Nizam Police and Pathan attack Wadzari Village and killed two persons. He
claims to have given this information to Domri Camp and to have attacked Wadzari
Village along with 500-600 Congress workers in which the freedom fighters had fired
on the Nizam Police and two police were killed in said firing. He also stated that he
was living away from his house for about 10 months. These incidents are referred to
even in the supporting affidavit. However when examined on oath before Mane
Committee as late as 21.3.2003, he merely stated that he was providing breads
(Bhakaries) to the freedom fighters for 4-5 months. He used to collect the same from
different houses and from his own house and this work he was doing by residing in
his own house and added further that apart from this he had not done any other work
in the freedom movement which statement clearly falsifies his earlier version
regarding part taken by him in the freedom movement and therefore obviously the
later evidence and the supporting affidavits can be said to be after thought which are
further falsified by his own statement on oath recorded in 2003.
The Commission therefore finds that even his involvement in any activity in
the Hyderabad Freedom Movement is not satisfactorily established and he was not
entitled to the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits as there was no compliance with the
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 465 -
He applied for pension on 3.5.1989. In his affidavit dated 20.5.1989 he has not
referred to any incident in connection with the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in
which he had taken part. In his further affidavit dated 25.5.1997 names of Anna
Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay are added to the typed written affidavit and
there is no signature of any person on the addition and even the affidavits of Anna
Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay suffer from the same infirmity of addition of
his name in the blank space and the affidavits of both the freedom fighters who have
supported him contain the same incidents as they have stated in other affidavits. Thus
the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are not reliable.
Thus the statements in affidavits of the respondent freedom fighter and the
statement contained in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters are
contradictory and as such he had failed to produce reliable evidence in support of his
claim and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted on the basis of such evidence
deserve to be and be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends
accordingly.
- 466 -
Manik TulshiramAnbhule and Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap and further added that he
cannot tell where he worked with them.
Thus supporting affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona Rama Jaybhay
suffer from the infirmity of addition of name to the already prepared affidavit. A close
look at the affidavit of Anna Eknath Telap shows that earlier the name of some other
person was written who was resident of Padalsingi, Taluka Gawarai which letters are
legible even though that portion has been erased by using whitener and there after the
name of Maroti Nana Golhar is added as there was some space between two
paragraphs. It was added in ink and to the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay also the
name is added in ink to the typed format. The aforesaid two affidavits contain the
same incidents which they have said in their affidavits filed in support of other
freedom fighters. After this he filed further addidavits dated 6.10.1998 in which
further improvement is made and the names of Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik
Tulshiram Anubhule are added and different incidents are stated. In the supporting
affidavit of Manik Tulshiram Anubhule dated 5.9.1998 the name of Maroti Nana
Golhar is added after erasing name written earlier by use of whitener and the
statement that he was required to live away from his house has come for the first time
in these affidavits. However, when examined before Mane Committee on oath on
28.3.2003, the truth came out from his mouth. He stated `he was living in his own
house and he was not required to live away from his house and he never resided in
any camp and does not know who were the camp leaders. He also does not know
Anna Eknath Telap, Sona Rama Jaybhay, Manik Tulshiram Anubhule and Sahebrao
Ganpati Sanap’. Thus he does not know the persons who have filed the affidavits
stating his involvement along with them in different incidents connected with the
freedom movement and it is therefore clear that the statements contained in his own
affidavits and that of the freedom fighters supporting are not trustworthy. He had
failed to produce reliable of evidences in support of claim and therefore the
- 468 -
Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and
the Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1997 recommended the
case relying on the affidavit of Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap whereas
Additional Collector, Beed in his report Dated 15.07.1998 did not recommend the
application for want of compliance with the Government Resolution dated 4th July
1995.
Thus apart from the infirmity noted in the affidavits of the supporting freedom
fighters his statement before Mane Committee falsifies his assertion that he took
active part in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. When examined on oath on
21.3.2003 he stated ‘he does not know what was the movement but he used to
provide bread to the persons at Domgri who were in that movement. He does not
know who was the head of Domri Camp. He was servant of Sahebrao Ganpati Sanap
and Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap was paying him salary for grazing cattles and
application is made on advice of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap. He does not know who
has filed the supporting affidavits and he does not know Anna Eknath Telap and Sona
Rama Jaybhay’. He has thus falsified the entire statement contained in his own
affidavit and the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters. It clearly shows that he
had no concern with the freedom movement but since he was servant of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap the application had been failed for claiming the pensionary benefits.
The Commission therefore finds that the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to
him deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 471 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 07.09.1998 recommended his
case relying on his own affidavit and supporing affidavits of Bhima Umaji Bangar ,
Sona Rama Jaybhay and Anna Eknath Telap. However, one of the member P.V. Joshi
doubted the genuiness of the signature of deponents.
The Additional Collector, Beed wrote to the Section officer dated nil that there
was no compliance with Government Resolution dated 04.0.1995. The High Power
- 472 -
Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and sanctioned
the pension on 25.5.1999.
He appeared before Mane Committee and reiterated the same facts.
In the affidavit filed before the Commission there is nothing worth noting.
The infirmities noticed in the earlier affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and Sona
Rama Jaybhay are not in the later affidavits of Namdeo Balwantrao Aher and Manik
Tulshiram Anubhule. His application, his statement recorded on oath before Mane
Committee on 21.3.2003 totally falsify earlier assertion made in the affidavits of
himself and his supporters. In his statement he stated that in order to oppose the
recovery of levy he pelted stones at the house of Kulkarni (As Kulkarni was the
person collecting levy). In his statement he has not referred to any activity against the
Nizam Government in which he has taken part and the only act stated is of pelting
stones at Kulkarni’s house which is not contained in his affidavit or supporting
affidavits. Therefore the statements contained in those affidavits are not reliable and
he is not entitled to Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to him
deserved to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission recommends accordingly.
The Zilla Gaurav Samit in its meeting dated 09.12.1997 relied on the affidavits
of respondents and supporting affidavits of Dr. Changediya and Mohan Deth and
recommended his case for grant of pension.
The Additional Collector by letter dated 15.07.1998 reported that there was no
compliance with the provisions of Governement Resolution dated 04.07.1995.
He appeared before Mane Committee and stated that he was providing breads
to the freedom fighters. He used to collect Bhakaris from different houses in villages
for that purpose. He was required to live away from his house for one month. He
specifically stated that he has not worked with the freedom fighters who are from
Nagar though he stayed with them at Nagar.
- 474 -
In the affidavit filed before the Commission his has made further
improvements by narrating various incidents and he suffering in the freedom
movement.
From the above discussion it is clear that the supporting affidavits are in fact
not affidavits as much as the affidavits of Mohan Narhari Deth as well as affidavit in
the name of Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia are signed by Dr. Premchand
Uttamchand Changedia at two places and on both these affidavits there is no
endorsement and signature of the authority competent to verify. Moreover as already
pointed out Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia and Mohan Narhari Deth had not
taken part in Hyderabad Freedom Movement and there is no evidence regarding their
involvement in any activity concerned with the Hyderabad freedom movement. They
were sentenced for their acts in the freedom movement of India.
Whatever Kisan Yadav Pawar stated in his earlier application and affidavit is
falsified by his statement before the Mane Committee wherein he only stated that he
used to give breads (bhakari) to the freedom fighters and has not referred to any of the
incidents in which he took part during the freedom movement of Hyderabad. He even
stated that he has not worked with Mohan Narhari Deth and Dr. Premchand
Uttamchand Changedia. Thus the statements contained in his affidavit and the
affidavits of supporting freedom fighters are not reliable. There is no evidence on the
basis of which his claim could be accepted. Sanmanpatra and allied benefits are
granted to him inspite of the fact that he had failed to make out the case as required by
the Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 supported by necessary documentary and
oral evidence and the same deserve to be cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 475 -
He filed his own affidavit dated 14.8.1995 wherein he stated to have worked
under Kashinath Jadhav and Balkrishna Mahadev Patwardhan. He did not name any
other freedom fighter.
Thereafter he filed another affidavit dated 7.7.1997 in which he stated for the
first time the names of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane, Ramling Swami, Wamanrao Vaze,
Bhima Umaji Bangar and Namdev Khade, as well as Anna Eknath Telap. He filed
affidavits of Sona Rama Jaibhay dated 25.6.1997 and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane dated
23.6.1997 respectively and in both the affidavits name of Jagannath Govindrav Javkar
is added in the typed affidavit.
- 476 -
In the file there is one letter of recommendation by the then M.L.A. and
Leader of Opposition Gopinathrao Munde dated 26.10.1993 on which the then
Member Secretary, Kewalchand Jain has given direction to immediately place the file
before him for consideration.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting 9.7.1997 recommended his case relying
on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Son Rama Jaybhay.
The High Power Committee rejected his claim on 6.10.1998 earlier on the
ground that he did not comply with the 4.7.1995 Government Resolution.
Thereafter however, note was put up on 15.5.1999 in which it is stated that he
is not informed about rejection of his claim and thereafter member secretary raised the
point when the case is rejected in view of the fact that no adequate evidence is
produced, he has now produced further affidavits which are sufficient to show that he
took part in Hyderabad freedom movement and thereafter concluded by stating that
the case is fit for sanction of which the Member Secretary mentioned that in the old
file there is recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and thereafter the claim is
sanctioned on 25.9.1999.
Before Mane Committee his wife Yamunabai appeared. She could not make
any statement as she had no personal knowledge.
Before the Commission also she has filed affidavit which need not be
considered as she has no personal knowedge.
Thus apart from the fact that the supporting freedom fighters affidavits are
defective as his name is added afterwards in the blank portion and the affidavits
contain the same statement of fact these freedom fighters stated in various other cases.
The additions in the affidavits are not signed or initialed by anybody.
- 477 -
Apart from the fact that his claim was rejected on 6.10.1998 on the ground of
non-compliance with the provisions of Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995
and the note for reconsideration was put up on 15.5.1999. However in view of
Government Resolution dated 10.3.1999 the Government could not have reconsidered
the case as after that Government Resolution in view of the provisions of para 5 in no
case the Government could reopen or review the cases already rejected.
Thus for the aforesaid reasons the Respondent had failed to prove his
entitlement to the grant of Sanmanpatra and allied benefits and the same granted to
him are on the grounds which are not existant and which in any case are not proved
deserve to be cancelled and the Commission recommends accordingly.
- 478 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 22.9.1997 referred to his own
affidavit and the affidavits of supporting freedom fighters Sona Rama Jaybhay and
Anna Eknath Telap and recommended case for grant of pension.
The High Power Committee relied on the affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap and
Sona Rama Jaybhay as well as Namdev Balawant Aher and Manik Tulsiram
Anubhule and accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and
sanctioned pension.
Thus apart from the defects in the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters
pointed out above, his case is falsified by his own statement before Mane Committee.
- 479 -
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 31.12.1999 relied on affidavit of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended grant of pension.
The High Power Committee accepted the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav
Samiti and relying on the affidavit of Haribhau Yadav Rakh and two supporting
affidavits granted pension on 18.1.2000.
Thus the affidavits of both the supporting freedom fighters contain additions
not signed or initialed. Thus there was no reliable evidence to support his application
as required by the provisions of Government Resolution. Even his own affidavit dated
12.02.1997 is a carbon copy of somebody else’s affidavit and his name is added in
blank space left open for that purpose. The statement of supporting freedom fitghters
are inconsistent and unreliable. He failed to make out case as required by
Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995 and so Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
granted to him deserve to be and cancelled forthwith and the Commission
recommends accordingly.
- 481 -
Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 06.11.1997 relying on the affidavit of
Anna Eknath Telap and Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and recommended his case.
The High Power Committee referred to statement in his own affidavit and the
affidavits of Anna Eknath Telap, Nivruti Fakira Dhakane as well as Manik Tulshiram
Anbhule and Zilla Gaurav Samiti’s recommendation and granted pension on
28.10.1999.
Before Mane Committee his wife appeared. She stated that she and her
husband used to supply breads (bhakaries) to the freedom fighters in one camp in
Ahmadnagar District. She and her husband had fled to Bongurde in Ahmadnagar
District.
- 482 -
As pointed out earlier, she had clearly stated before Mane Committee that
along with her husband she was providing food to the freedom fighters at Hatolna in
Ahmadnagar District as there was Freedom Fighter’s Camp. She had also stated that
both of them were living in their house and doing this work and later on added that
they left the house fled to Bangurde village in Ahmadnagar District. This statement
was recorded on 24.3.2003 and if it was truthful she would have stated the same facts
in the affidavits filed before the Commission. However, in this affidavit she stated
that her husband was working with Ashraji Jagtap, Wamanrao Vaze, Sahebrao
Ganpati Sanap and he attended the meeting of Wamanrao Vaze. She further stated
that when her husband was underground the Police used to visit her house and used
to inquire regarding whereabouts of her husband.
Apart from this the application of her husband Govind Bhagwan Janjire does
not make reference to these facts. He has stated that he had fled Solapurwadi, Loni,
Takli and he worked under the leadership of Swami Ramanand Tirth.
In the affidavit dated 24.4.1989 he had merely stated that he worked for
Congress party and was volunteer of Seva Dal and used to give slogans. He even did
not state that he was working underground.
After the notice was issued to him on 19.6.1997 he filed his own affidavit
dated 9.7.1997. This is stereotype affidavit typed in a particular format wherein his
name is added in ink to the typed affidavit without any signature or initial and similar
is the case of the affidavits of the supporting freedom fighters Anna Anna Telap and
Nivrutti Fakira Dhakne wherein his name is added in ink in the blank space to typed
format.
the incident of burning of Daskhed Police Patil Wada and office and Rohatwadi
Karodgiri Naka.
Thus affidavits can not be stated as affidavits in the proper sense as term and
can not be given sanctity of a statement on oath. The entire evidence produced in
support of the claim is totally unreliable and is also contradicted by his wife when she
appeared before Mane Committee. The Commission has already described in detail
how indiscriminately there freedom fighters were filing supporting affidavits. It is
stated in a separate part of this report.
In view of this the Commission is of considered view that the respondent had
failed to make out the case as required by the provisions of Government Resolution
dated 4.7.1995 and the Sanmanpatra and allied benefits granted to him deserve to be
and be cancelled.
- 484 -
The affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama Jaybhay are typed
affidavits wherein the name of Kisan Limbaji Kadam is added in ink.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 24.6.1997 recommended the
application relying on the affidavits of Nivruti Fakira Dhakane and Sona Rama
Jaybhay.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 4.7.1997 submitted to the
Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department reported that there was no
compliance with the requirements of Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995.
Thereafter Kisan Limbaji Kadam complained to the Lokayukta and along with
it submitted additional affidavits of his own dated 12.5.1998 and affidavit of Sahebrao
Ganapati Sanap dated 27.4.1998 and affidavit of Namdev Balawant Aher dated
27.4.1998 to remove the lacunae which High Power Committee found while rejecting
his application on 29.12.1997. The said complaint was forwarded by Lokayukta
alongwith affidavits and his letter dated 28.5.1998. It is significant to note here that
- 485 -
affidavits of Sahebrao Ganapati Sanap and Namdev Balawant Aher are the typed
affidavits wherein the name of Kisan Limbaji Kadam is added subsequently with
another typing machine.
Thereafter Kisan Limbaji Kadam died so his wife Radhabai appeared before
Mane Committee on 25.3.2003 and stated that she has no personal knowledge of the
role of her husband in freedom struggle.
The Zilla Gaurav Samiti in its meeting dated 10.12.1997 recommended the
application while relying on the affidavits of Ashraji Raoji Jagtap Achyut Amrut
Rasal and Dr. Premchand Uttamchand Changedia, Mohan Narhari Deth.
The Additional Collector, Beed in his report dated 14.7.1998 sent to the
Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department stated that the requirements of
Government Resolution dated 4.7.1995 were not fulfilled.
The High Power Committee granted the application on 24.9.1999 relying on
the recommendation of the Zilla Gaurav Samiti and the affidavits of Mohan Narhar
Deth, Dr. Changedia and Ashraji Raoji Jagtap.
Thus the affidavit of supporting freedom fighters are of the persons who were
not involved in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement. They had taken part in the
- 487 -
freedom movement of India and they have not stated any particular incident in
connection with the Hyderabad Freedom movement in which Namdev Sakharam
Zagade was involved along with them. Even the affidavit of Asaraji Raoji Jagatap
suffers from the same infirmity of addition of name to the typed format. Thus
Namdev Sakharam Zagade had failed to produce adequate material and evidence
supporting his contention of being a freedom fighters who had taken part in
Hyderabad freedom movement and he was granted Sanmanpatra and allied benefits
on the basis of evidence which was not reliable and the same deserves to be and be
cancelled forthwith. The Commission recommends accordingly.