1 / 4 2025:CGHC:46144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4798 of 2025 Umendra Mandavi S/o Shubam Mandavi, Aged About 63 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Kalkasa, Tahsil Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3 - The Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5 - Naib Tahsildar, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1 to quash/set aside the order dated 13/6/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.12 18:44:28 +0530 2 / 4 passed by respondent no. 2 and 3 2 To Direct the respondents to grant the compensation/financial help to the petitioner of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 13/6/2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and 3 on the basis of which the application under Clause 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of Petitioner's son due to drowning in the Dabri (Water Tank) and was found dead on 11/05/2019, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Respondent No. 2 & 3 in the impugned order dated 13/6/2025 stated that the case of the petitioner deserves to be rejected because the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy (Mirgi) and therefore same is not an accidental death as per the provisions of Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in absence of any solid proof of the cause of death which favours their case, denial of the compensation on misinterpreting the facts is against the spirit of justice and policy of the State. He would next contend that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for want of documents which in any case cannot be obtained by them. 3 / 4 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court in Aasho Bai and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPC No. 3167/2018 categorically held that the compensation under Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular should be awarded to nearest dependent of a person who died due to fall in well. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is produced as under:- “...the State Government has itself issued the circular for awarding compensation to the nearest dependent/legal representative of a person who died on account of natural calamity or due to fall in river, tank, dam, well, nahar, or nallah, there is no reason as to why the appellants should not be allowed to avail the benefit of the circular of the State Government. If a person falls through the bridge and suffers injuries after falling into the river or nallah the same would amount accidental death attracting clause Five (5) of the circular dated 09.06.2015” 8. The witness Umendra Mandavi who is the father of the deceased, stated in his evidence that his son Suresh Mandavi, aged about 11 Years, was doing the labour work of cleaning and painting in the 4 / 4 house of one Frasis Tedy, wherein in the water Tank (Pond) he drowned and thereby he died. On being informed to the police, the police registered a merg and started investigation and thereafter the postmortem was conducted. The witness namely Lakhan Singh Mandavi and Sukhiram Netam supported the statement of the witness. 9. Documents reveal that firstly the Tehsildar and SDO has recommended the matter for sanctioning the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the father of the deceased for further action along with recommendation for sanctioning the aforesaid amount, however, subsequently, the application of the petitioner has been rejected. 10. Admittedly, there were no eye witnesses at the time of drowning in pond and the petitioner’s son late Shri Suresh Mandavi died due to asphyxia due to obstruction of air pressure due to drowning as per postmortem report. 11. Considering the aforesaid judgment and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned authorities are directed to make payment of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, in terms of the clause 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Revenue Book Circular within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu