1 2025:CGHC:18652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1706 of 2025 Bisesar Nishad S/o Palturam Nishad Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Pendri, Tahsil And District Distt. Rajnandgaon CG ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur CG 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon CG 3 - The Additional Collector Rajnandgaon CG 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Distt. Rajnandgaon CG 5 - Tahsildar Distt. Rajnandgaon CG ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 24.04.2025 1 Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.25 17:51:33 +0530 2 2 The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution with the following relief(s):- “1, to quash/set aside the order dated 8/11/24 passed by respondent no.3. 2. To Direct the respondents to grant the compensation/financial help to the petitioner of Rs.4,00,000/-. 3. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3 It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, the Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the Writ Appeal No.563 of 2019 vide order dated 09.01.2020 observing as follows : “8. From perusal of records, particularly, the report submitted by the SHO of Police Station, Gandai district Rajnandgaon, wherein it is mentioned that the report was lodged by one Himanchal Bhatt S/o Ram Kumar Bhatt (one of the residents of village) along with Kotwar of Village and some other villagers that on 15-07- 2018 at about 04:00 PM, Heera Lal was lying at Surahi Nala and Nakul Vishwakarma and Anil Chawle who are resident of the same village tried to pull-out the body of Heera Lal from the said Nala but due to rainy season and heavy water flow, they could not able to pull it 3 out, and the body flowed away along with heavy water flow. On the basis of said information, case was registered as 'missing person' bearing No. 11/18. From perusal of said report of 08-03-2019 submitted by the SHO to Naib Tahsildar, the fact that, on 15-07- 2018 and some villagers including Kotwar of the Village have lodged the report, on the other hand, statement of Nakul Vishwakarma is also and Anil Chawle who are resident of the same village available at page 14 of the writ petition and the gist of his statement is already mentioned as part of report by the SHO, dated 08-03-2019. After direction/order of the Naib Tahsildar, Panchnama of incident was also prepared on 04-04-2019 which was signed by Jagdish Das, Kotwar of Village, Dashrath Gond, Patel of the Village (appointed under Section 222 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Record) Bahur Singh, Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat as well as Secretary of Village Panchayat Maanpur Pahadi. Perusal of gist of Panchnama would show that on 15-07-2018, such incident took place, it was informed to villagers by witness who were present at old Panchayat building to attend panchayat meeting; Panchnama reads further that after getting information of incident villagers reached the spot and tried to search for the body of deceased but they failed in their attempts. It also records that for about 20 days, when deceased could not be traced out or he himself did not return, then according to the opinion of the members of the community 4 and villagers, they accepted it as death and last rites ceremony was performed by the appellant. 9. In view of the aforementioned materials available on record, the claim made by the appellant/ petitioner prima facie cannot be treated to be false and fabricated claim in view of the statement of witnesses recorded by the Naib Tahsildar, Police report and the Panchnama. It is not a case that the deceased Heera Lal was suffering from mental illness or critical disease or there was any other reason for leaving house. Looking to the statement of Jagdish Das, it reveals that there was incident of drowning and flowing away of the deceased's body, villagers tried to search the body, also the divers called by the police authorities made their attempts to trace it out but deceased's body could not be traced out. From the aforementioned materials available on record, there appears to be some substance in the claim of drowning and flowing away of the body to which the Naib Tahsildar after investigation has not given adverse finding on the application of grant in aid but the application of the appellant/ petitioner has only been dismissed on the ground that the death as well as the cause of death could not be proved. The circular dated 09-06-2015 has been issued by the State Government to grant financial aid to the affected persons suffering as a result of natural calamity and looking to the object of the circular i.e. grant of financial aid to the affected persons who lost life of their 5 family member due to some natural calamity then the said person/ family should not be deprived of the benefit accrued from the said circular on the grounds of technicalities when all other things or facts particularly the incident is proved. 10. 10. The Naib Tahsildar was having an obligation to enquire into the incident reported to him by way of filing application under part of Revenue Book circular part 6-4. The application forwarded to the Naib Tahsildar was supported by affidavit in which names of eye-witnesses were mentioned but Naib Tahsildar has not recorded the evidence of the said eye-witnesses nor given very specific finding with regard to happening of incident as mentioned in the application filed before it by the appellant. 11. In view of the above facts available on record, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit back the matter to the Court of Naib Tahsildar with a direction to re-open the case No. 39B/121/2018-19 and to record evidence of Nakul Vishwakarma and Anil Kumar, who are shown as eye-witnesses to the incident. We further direct the Naib Tahsildar to record specific finding on the issue as to whether the incident, as pleaded, took place or not on the basis of materials available and if he reaches to a conclusion that incident of drowning and flowing of the body of Heera Lal was correct and proved, then he shall pass appropriate order keeping in mind the object of the Circular 6 dated 09-06-2015, part of Revenue Book Circular part 6-4. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of.” 4 They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.563 of 2019, this writ petition may also be disposed off in the same terms. 5 In the present case as well, petitioner's son namely Jitendra Nishad aged about 24 years, went to village Pendri Pond with a group of people to immerse of Saraswati/Durga on 04.10.2022 and drowned in the deep water of a pond, which immediately not known to the crow, but after few hours when deceased was not found, a search was conducted and petitioner's son was found on 05.10.2022. As per Revenue Book Circular policy, the petitioner is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- which illegally had been rejected by the respondents. Initially the recommendation was made, but subsequently, the same was changed on the ground that postmortem was not conducted and no police report was lodged. On 18.10.2024, the Tahsildar, recommended that petitioner is not entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and the recommendation of Tahsildar was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, and Sub Divisional Officer vide order-sheet dated 25.10.2024, forwarded the same to the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon and the Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 08.11.2024, rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on the same point. 6 From perusal of the record would show that the rejection of the 7 application on the ground that the policy does not covers compensation, if the person dies due to drowning, but the policy clearly states that compensation should be paid if a person dies due to drowning into potholes, river, lake, canal, dam, well, gutter, etc. 7 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that the claim made by the petitioner prima facie cannot be treated to be false and fabricated claim in view of the fact that his son was died due to drowning in deep water of a pond. I hereby directed the respondent authorities to record specific finding on the issue as to whether the incident, as pleaded, took place or not on the basis of materials available and if the authorities reach to a conclusion that incident of drowning of the body of Jitendra Nishad was correct and proved, then they shall pass appropriate order keeping in mind the object of the Circular dated 09.06.2015, part of Revenue Book Circular part 6-4. 8 Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No.563 of 2019. Sd/- - (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh