1 2025:CGHC:47881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3537 of 2021 Nandou S/o Kartik Ram Baiga Aged About 40 Years Caste Baiga, R/o Village Kurdu, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Additional Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Tahsildar Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Vedant Sadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 17/09/2025 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the 2 entire records relating to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 and further be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to release compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of petitioner, in accordance with law. 10.3 Any other relief deems fit in the present facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Facts, which emerges from writ petition is that on 16.01.2020 at noon, the petitioner’s son namely Panchram Baiga went to Nursery Pond, Kurdun to take bath and while taking bath, he drowned in the pond and he died. After the death of son of petitioner, his dead body was taken out from the pond and the police authorities sent the dead body for postmortem. The Incharge, Police Chowki, Belgahna, Police Station, Kota has registered merge No. 10/2020 regarding death of petitioner’s son. On 09.06.2015, the respondent No. 1 has issued an order for grant of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the family, who lost his family member in any natural calamity. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No. 4 for grant of compensation on account of death of petitioner’s son and based on petitioner's application, the respondent No. 4 has conducted enquiry and submitted report before the respondent No. 3 on 02.02.2021, whereby, the recommendation has been made to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- as per the circular/order issued by the respondent No. 1. In pursuance thereof, on 09.02.2021 the respondent No. 3 has forwarded the report to the respondent No. 2 for granting compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, vide impugned dated 25.02.2021 the respondent No. 2 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation, on the ground that for want of postmortem report, the cause of death is not clear. Against which, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the same. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 16.01.2020 at noon, the petitioner’ son namely- Panchram Baiga went to Nursery Pond, Kurdur to take bath and while taking bath, he drowned in the pond and died. After death 3 of son of petitioner, his dead body was taken out from the pond and the police authorities sent the dead body to autopsy. Merge intimation No. 10/2020 was registered at Police Chowki, Belgahna, Police Station, Kota. She submits that a policy has been framed by the State Government for grant of compensation in respect of unnatural death of the citizen in a natural disaster and falling into a pit, in the case of due to snake, scorpion, hornet or bee bites, drowning in a river, pond, dam, well, canal or drain, boat accidents, a cooking gas cylinder, etc., for which, nearest successor will get assistance of Rs.4,00,000/-. It has been further observed in the policy that upon receiving information about the death, the competent authority of the State Government will immediately arrive at the scene to investigate the cause of death and the circumstances, and where possible, have the deceased examined by a doctor and if the death is confirmed, grant-in-aid has to be paid in this regard. She submits that since the petitioner died due to drowning in dawning in the pond, therefore, in light of the policy of the State Government, which is filed as Annexure P/2, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 4 lacs. She submits that claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur vide its order dated 25.02.2021 stating that exact cause of death is not clear due to the absence of the postmortem report. She submits that though postmortem of the petitioner itself was conducted, however, on account of the death of the doctor, who conducted postmortem of the deceased, could not be received and as the postmortem report is not available, the cause of death of the petitioner’s son is not clear. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected denying the grant-in-aid compensation. Therefore, reliefs, as sought for the petitioner, may be granted to them. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that as cause of death could not be ascertain in absence of the postmortem report, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur. He further submits that the death of the deceased has not occurred due to natural calamity, therefore, he is not entitled to get grant in aid compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this writ petition, it would be apt to quote the policy of the State Government. which has been 4 formulated in Revenue Book Circular and filed as anneuxre P/ 2, relevant provisions of the said policy are reproduced below :- ¼ikap½ tu gkfu ds fy, fudVre okfjl dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk vuqnku%& ¼1½ izkd`frd vkink] uSlfxZd foifRr;ksa ds dkj.k ,oa xM~Ms esa fxjus ls e`R;q gksus ij] liZ] fcPNq] xqgsjk ;k e/kqeD[kh ds dkVus unh] rkykc] cka/k] dqavk] ugj] ukyk esa Mwcus ls vFkok uko nq? kZVuk ,oa jlksbZ xSl dk flys.Mj QVus] [knku /kldus] yw ¼Sun Stroke½ ls e`R;q gks tkus ij e`r O;fDr ds ifjokj ds fudVre O;fDr@okfjl dks #i;s 4]00]000@& ¼#i;s pkj yk[k½ dh lgk;rk nh tk,xhA blds fy, e`R;q dh lwpuk izkIr gksus ij vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh@rglhynkj@uk;c rglhynkj }kjk ? kVukLFky ij ’kh?kz igqapdj e`R;q gksus ,oa mlds dkj.kksa dh tkap dh tk,xh vkSj tgka laHko gks MkWDVj ls e`rd dk ijh{k.k Hkh djk;k tk,xkA e`R;q gksuk ik, tkus ij e`rd ds ifjokj ds lnL;@fudVre okfjl dks mDr /kujkf’k dh vuqnkj lgk;rk dysDVj }kjk Lohd`r dh tk,xhA vkx ls tyus ds dkj.k e`R;` gksus ij Hkh blh ds vuqlkj lgk;r fn;k tk,xkA e`r O;fDr esa cPpk Hkh ’kkfey le>k tk,xkA ifjokj eas ,d ls vf/kd e`R;q gksus ij okfjl dks lgk;rk vuqnku izR;sd e`rd ds eku ls ns; gksxkA fctyh fxjuk uSlfxZd foifRr gSA 7. From the perusal of aforesaid policy, it would reflect that postmortem report of the deceased is to be conducted as far as possible and from order impugned, it appears that the dead body of the petitioner’s son was sent for postmortem, and it was also conducted on 18.01.2020, but unfortunately, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, has passed away on 4.4.2020. If the postmortem has been conducted on 18.01.2020, till 04.04.2020 it is unfortunate that the same was not produced. From perusal of the record, it appears that Tahsildar, Kota has given a report with respect to the death of the deceased, which also indicates that it was the matter of ex gratia compensation of Rs. 4 lacs, which could be considered. Alongwith the writ petition, the documents have been annexed, which also indicates that son of the petitioner died on account of drowning and the statements of the witnesses have also been recorded. A Panchnama has also been prepared indicating herein the son of the petitioner died on account of the drowning in the pond. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Vikram Bhatt Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others vide its order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 563 of 2019 has observed thus: 5 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 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.” 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to receive Rs. 4,00,000/- as grant-in-aid (compensation) as per the circular dated 09.06.2015, part 6 -4 of Revenue Book Circular (Annexure P-4), therefore, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 15:13:44 +0530