Bundelkhand Crop Insurance Data Raises Alarms Over Inflated Land Coverage

Major Irregularities in Crop Insurance Scheme in Bundelkhand: Insurance Taken on Land Four Times Larger Than Village Area

Discrepancies between land records and crop insurance data in parts of Bundelkhand are drawing growing concern, after official figures suggested that insurance coverage under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana may have extended far beyond the actual size of several villages. In multiple locations, the area insured for crops during recent Kharif seasons reportedly exceeded the geographical limits of villages by three to four times, raising questions over how such claims were approved and paid.

Field-level checks and document reviews indicate that these irregularities were not confined to a single village or season. Instead, similar patterns have surfaced across different districts, with insurance data showing inflated acreage year after year. Farmers and local representatives say this points to systemic weaknesses rather than isolated clerical errors.

According to records examined during verification, basic safeguards such as matching insured land with revenue maps and checking land-use categories were often missing. In some cases, the same plot appeared multiple times in insurance records, while other claims were linked to land that could not be identified as cultivable farmland at all.

The village of Luhari in Mahoba district has become a key example cited by officials and farmers alike. While government records place the village’s total area at just over 747 hectares, insurance data from Kharif 2024 showed crops insured on more than 1,100 hectares. The mismatch widened further in the following season, when insured land linked to the village reportedly crossed 2,800 hectares—nearly four times its documented size. After these figures came to light, payouts for the season were put on hold.

Farmers argue that errors of such magnitude cannot occur without collusion. Ram Samujh, a farmer from the region, said land records obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed acreage figures that simply did not exist on paper. “If the land is not there in the records, how did it qualify for insurance?” he asked.

Similar complaints have emerged from nearby areas, where farmers say insurance coverage doubled within a year and then multiplied again, despite no change in cultivable land. In Jhansi district, some farmers allege that plots converted for industrial use were still reflected as farmland in insurance data, allowing claims to be processed even though cultivation had stopped long ago.

Two cases from Mahoba district illustrate the broader trend. In Bhatewarakala village, insured land reportedly rose from about 1,500 hectares in Kharif 2024 to over 3,100 hectares the next year, despite the village’s total recorded area being far lower. In Samiriya village, insurance coverage jumped to nearly five times the official land area within a single season, resulting in payouts worth crores.

Despite repeated mismatches between insurance records and revenue data, farmers say accountability has been slow. They allege that neither officials nor insurance intermediaries responsible for approving claims have faced decisive action, even as questions continue to surface over verification practices.

Policy analysts warn that schemes handling large volumes of land and beneficiary data are particularly vulnerable when records are not reconciled across departments. Without disciplined tracking of acreage, ownership and payouts - similar to reconciliation practices followed in professional bookkeeping services in india inflated claims can remain hidden within aggregated data, delaying detection and undermining trust in welfare programmes designed to protect farmers.

Unless stronger checks and transparent audits are introduced, farmers fear that the credibility of crop insurance as a safety net will continue to weaken, leaving genuine beneficiaries at risk.