1 2025:CGHC:2450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1676 of 2019 1. Smt. Maina Bai W/o Late Gulab Singh Aged About 35 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Gidhali, Post Gotatola, Tahsil And Thana Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Dipti D/o Late Gulab Singh Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Mother Smt. Maina Bai, W/o Late Gulab Singh Aged About 35 Years , Caste Gond, R/o Village Gidhali, Post Gotatola, Tahsil And Thana Mohla, 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, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (3) Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (4) Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue ) Mohla District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (5) The Tahsildar, Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 15/01/2025 (1) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. (2) 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 1/7/17, 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. (3) Facts of the present case are that the husband of petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2, namely, late Gulab Singh was a farmer. On 07.08.2016, the dead body of Gulab Singh was found in his own agricultural field. He had gone to his agricultural field on 06.08.2016. The postmortem was conducted and the cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to drowning and the nature of death was accidental. The investigation report was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon. 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 01.07.2017 stating that the death of the deceased is not covered within the parameters of the policy issued by the State Government. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was working in his own agricultural field and he died due to drowning. He further submits that death by drowning in a river/pond/drainage is already covered in the policy. He contends that if a person dies on 3 account of a snake bite/ scorpion bite/ electrocution, dependents of such a person also get compensation as per the policy of the State Government. He further contends that the case of the petitioner would fall within the category of natural calamity as the deceased died due to drowning which was a result of heavy rains in the area. He argues that every word cannot be used in the policy by the lawmakers and that death by drowning 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 01.07.2017 is liable to be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for compensation. (5) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that the deceased died on his own agricultural land on account of drowning 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. (6) In the matter of Nomin Bai Netam (supra), one Bhaneshwar died due 4 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 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. (7) In the present case, the deceased went to his own agricultural field on 06.08.2016 and his dead body was found on 07.08.2016 and the reason for the death was found to be by drowning. 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. (8) Clause 5 of the Policy of the State Government in this regard reads as under:- (पांच) जन हानिन के लिए निनकटतम वारिस को आर्थिक सहायता अनुदान :- (1) प्राकृ तितक आपदा, नैसर्गि"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 प्राप्त होने प अनुनिवभा"ीय अतिधकाी/ तहसीदा / नाय, तहसीदा द्वाा आपातकाीन प शीघ्र पहुंचक मृत्यु होने एवं उसके काणों की जांच की जाए"ी औ यही सूचना ही डॉक्ट से मृतक का पीक्षण भी काया जाए"ा। मृत्यु होना पाए जाने प मृतक 5 के परिवा के सदस्य /- निनकटतम वारिस को उ: धनाशिश की अनुदान सहायता केक्ट द्वाा स्वीकृ त की जाए"ी। आ" से जने के काण मृत्यु होने प भी इसी के अनुसा सहायता निदया जाए"ा। मृत व्यनि:' में ,च्चा भी शानिम समझा जाए"ा। परिवा में एक से अतिधक मृत्यु होने प वारिस को सहायता अनुदान प्रत्येक मृतक के मान से देय निदया । नि,जी नि"ना नैसर्गि"क निवपलि# है। (2) कय या अतिधकृ त अन्य पब्लिNक 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 आर्थिक सहायता प्रतित मृतक के से देय हो"ी। नोट 1. ाज्य के निकसी भी व्यनि: की मृत्यु प्राकृ 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 प्रदान की जाये। मृत्यु स् से घटना का सत्यापन प्राप्त 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 पात्रता हो"ी। 3. ाज्य के सीमावतT प्रदेशों में उपो: आपदाओं के समय निकसी भी व्यनि: की मृत्यु होती है तो उस ाज्य से घटना स् का प्रतितवेदन प्राप्त क मृत व्यनि: के मू निनवास सिजे में मृतक परिवा को अनुदान सहायता प्रदान की जावे। 4. ऐसे भातीय ना"रिक, जो अन्य देश की ना"रिकता ग्रहण क लिये है, ाज्य म उपो: आपदाओं से मृत्यु होती है, तो उनके परिवा को आर्थिक अनुदान सहायता की पात्रता नही हो"ी। 5. उपो: प्राकृ तितक आपदा के समय निकसी निवदेशी ना"रिक की मृत्यु होती है, तो उपो: आर्थिक अनुदान सहायता की पात्रता नही हो"ी। 6. आंधी, तूफान, अतितवृनिX, ,ाढ़ की ब्लिस्तित के दौान पेड/ डं"ा के नि"ने अवा निवद्युत प्रवाह/ 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 6 deceased. Thus, the matters referred to by Mr. Kotecha are distinct from the present case. (9) 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 at the motion stage itself. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya