1 2025:CGHC:13718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1088 of 2019 1. Latkhor Sahu S/o Late Shri Budhram Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Sadakchirchari, Tahsil- Churiya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Hemant Devi Sahu W/o Late Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Sadakchirchari, Tahsil- Churiya, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus (1) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (2) Collector Through District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (3) Additional Collector Through Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (4) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Through Dongergaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Vaishnav, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/03/2025 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.25 17:02:28 +0530 2 (1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “1. To direct the respondent authorities to grant financial help/ compensation of Rs 4, 00,000/- as per the policy. 2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the order dated 27/12/2018, passed by respondent no. 3. 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” (2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are husband and daughter-in-law of the deceased, namely, late Smt. Bhem Bai. On 16.05.2017, the dead body of Smt. Bhem Bai was found. She had gone to agricultural field to collect ‘Tendu Patta’. The postmortem was conducted and no definite opinion was given as the body was decomposed and after chemical examination it was found that there was no poison in the body. The petitioner claimed compensation according to the policy of the State Government dated 09.06.2015 which provides for the loss of life or property on account of natural calamity but the same was rejected by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 27.12.2018 stating that the death of the deceased is not covered within the parameters of the policy issued by the State Government. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was working in agricultural field and she died due to heat stroke and hunger. He further submits that death by heat stroke and hunger is already covered in the policy. He contends that if a person dies on account of a snake bite/ scorpion bite/ electrocution, dependents of such a person also get compensation as per the policy of the State 3 Government. He further contends that the case of the petitioners would fall within the category of natural calamity as the deceased died due to heat stroke and hunger. He argues that every word cannot be used in the policy by the lawmakers and that death by heat stroke in the agricultural field is included in the policy of the State Government. He further argues that Clause 5 of the policy states that the death on account of storm, heavy rain, flood, fallen trees, and electrocution would be considered a natural calamity. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the matters of Nomin Bai Netam Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 90 of 2019 and Aasho Bai & Ors Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 3167 of 2018. He prays that the order passed by the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon dated 27.12.2018 is liable to be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for compensation. (4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that the deceased died on agricultural land on account of heat stroke and hunger but there is no whisper to the effect that the deceased died on account of natural calamity. He contends that the respondent authorities inquired into the matter; recorded statements of the witnesses, conducted postmortem and thereafter, rejected the claim of the petitioners. He argues that no case is made out for interference and prays to dismiss this petition. (5) In the matter of Nomin Bai Netam (supra), one Bhaneshwar died due to a snake bite on 23.08.2016 and the claim for compensation was rejected by the State authorities. The Co-ordinate Bench allowed the 4 petition and directed the State authorities to pay compensation holding that “if a person dies on account of natural calamity or due to accidental snake or scorpion bite, it is not expected from ordinary villagers that they would request for postmortem examination”. In the matter of Aasho Bai (supra), one Asharam Sahu fell into the river from a bridge and succumbed to death near Khairagarh. The co-ordinate Bench held that the railing was not erected on either side of the bridge by the Public Works Department which caused Asharam Sahu to fall into the river. (6) In the present case, the deceased went to somewhere in agricultural field to collect ‘Tendu Patta’ and her dead body was found on 16.05.2017. As body was decomposed, no definite opinion was provided. From a perusal of the documents annexed to this petition and the postmortem report, it is apparent that the death of the deceased was not a result of any natural calamity. (7) Clause 5 of the Policy of the State Government in this regard reads as under:- (पांच) जन हानिन के लिए निनकटतम वारिस को आቕኌक सहायता अनुदान :- (1) ्ቚाकृ तितक आपदा, नैसቇኌ"क निवपलि#यों के काण एवं "ड्‌डे में नि"ने से मृत्यु होने प सप+, नि,च्छू मुहेा या मधुमक्खी के काटने नदी ताा,, ,ांध कुं आ, नह, नाा में संघन से अवा नाव दुघ+टना एवं सोई "ैस का सिसेण्ड फटने खदान धसकने, ू (आपातकाीन) से मृत्यु हो जाने प मृत व्यनि: के परिवा के निनकटतम व्यनि: / वारिस का रूपये 4.00.000 /- ( रूपये चा ाख) की सहायता दी जाए"ी। इसके लिए मृत्यु की सूचना ्ቚा्቎ होने प अनुनिवभा"ीय अतिधकाी/ तहसीदा / नाय, तहसीदा ्ቛाा आपातकाीन प शी्ቈ पहुंचक मृत्यु होने एवं उसके काणों की जांच की जाए"ी औ यही सूचना ही डॉक्ट से मृतक का पी्ቌण भी काया जाए"ा। मृत्यु होना पाए जाने प मृतक के परिवा के सदस्य /- निनकटतम वारिस को उ: धनाशिश की अनुदान सहायता केक्ट ्ቛाा स्वीकृ त की जाए"ी। आ" से जने के काण मृत्यु होने प भी इसी के अनुसा सहायता निदया जाए"ा। मृत व्यनि:' में ,्ሴा भी शानिम 5 समझा जाए"ा। परिवा में एक से अतिधक मृत्यु होने प वारिस को सहायता अनुदान ्ቚत्येक मृतक के मान से देय निदया । नि,जी नि"ना नैसቇኌ"क निवपलि# है। (2) कय या अतिधकृ त अन्य प቞ኌNक ट्रांसपोट+ के नदी में नि"ने या पहाड़ी आनिद से खड्‌डे में नि"ने के काण इन वाहनों प सवा व्यनि:यों की मृत्यु हो जाने प मृतकों के परिजनों को रूपये 2,00,000/- ( रूप्ये दो ाख) की आቕኌक सहायता ्ቚतित मृतक के से देय हो"ी। नोट 1. ाज्य के निकसी भी व्यनि: की मृत्यु ्ቚाकृ तितक आपदा से अपने "ृह सिजे के अतितरि: अन्य सिजे में होती है, तो मृतक व्यनि: के परिवा को उसके मू "ृह सिजे से अनुदान सहायता ्ቚदान की जाये। मृत्यु स् से घटना का सत्यापन ्ቚा्቎ क सं,ंतिधत केक्ट अनुदान सहायता की स्वीकृ तित देंवे। 2. आपदा के समय ात एवं ,चाव काय+ में "े अतिधकाी एवं कम+चारियों की मृत्यु होने प उनके परिवा को भी अनुदान सहायता की पा्ቔता हो"ी। 3. ाज्य के सीमावतT ्ቚदेशों में उपो: आपदाओं के समय निकसी भी व्यनि: की मृत्यु होती है तो उस ाज्य से घटना स् का ्ቚतितवेदन ्ቚा्቎ क मृत व्यनि: के मू निनवास सिजे में मृतक परिवा को अनुदान सहायता ्ቚदान की जावे। 4. ऐसे भातीय ना"रिक, जो अन्य देश की ना"रिकता ्ቇहण क लिये है, ाज्य म उपो: आपदाओं से मृत्यु होती है, तो उनके परिवा को आቕኌक अनुदान सहायता की पा्ቔता नही हो"ी। 5. उपो: ्ቚाकृ तितक आपदा के समय निकसी निवदेशी ना"रिक की मृत्यु होती है, तो उपो: आቕኌक अनुदान सहायता की पा्ቔता नही हो"ी। 6. आंधी, तूफान, अतितवृनिX, ,ाढ़ की ቞ኌस्तित के दौान पेड/ डं"ा के नि"ने अवा निव्ቕुत ्ቚवाह/ ता से मृत्यु होती है, तो दैवीय निवपलि# माना जायें। A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the State has to make payment of compensation if a person suffers any loss on account of natural calamity/snake bite/scorpion bite but there is no provision in case a person dies at his own house or agricultural land. Further, in the matter of Nomin Bai Netam (supra), the deceased died due to a snake bite and in the matter of Aasho Bai (supra), negligence on the part of PWD was found which caused the death of the deceased. Thus, the matter referred to by Mr. Vaishnav are distinct from the present case. 6 (8) Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the authority concerned rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners and no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant