1 2025:CGHC:50702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2494 of 2019 Shiv Kumar S/o Banchor, Aged About 40 Years By Occupation Labour, R/o Village Kaneri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Naib Tahsildar Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10/10/2025 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 entire records relating to the case of the petitioner. 2 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 son of the petitioner namely Late Ramdeo, aged about 7 years and was in a good health condition. On 6th June, 2018 at about 7 pm while, he was playing nearby to his house, the poisonous Snake bite and while taking to hospital, he expired. It is mentionable here that no postmortem of the body of petitioner's son was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for grant of compensation stating that as per the policy of the State Government dated 9.6.2015, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, which was rejected by respondent No. 3- Deputy Collector, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 07.05.2019 on the ground that as per Revenue Book Circular 6(4) para 5 dated 9.6.2015, if no police report or post mortem has been conducted, the compensation could not be granted. The accident occurring due to above type of incident / accident are covered under the provision for grant of compensation. It is benevolent provision made by the State Government and liberal construction of the provision are to be made. It is a fact that son of the petitioner, died due to untoward incident / accident and is covered under the policy, as such, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. However, vide impugned dated 07.05.2019, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation for want of postmortem report. Against which, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning 3 the same. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that son of the petitioner namely, Ramdeo, aged about 7 years was playing nearby his house and sustained poisonous snake bite and passed away while he was taken to the hospital. The petitioner filed an application for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the policy dated 9.6.2015 issued by the State Government (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by respondent No. 5 and recorded statement of the petitioner, villagers and concerned Patwari. A Panchnama was also prepared. After being satisfied that son of the petitioner died on account of snake bite, the respondent No. 5 has made a recommendation to respondent No. 4 for grant of compensation to the petitioner vide order dated 12.02.2019. Respondent No. 5 thereafter examined the matter and send it to respondent No. 3 for taking appropriate decision on it. Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 13.03.2019, rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that no postmortem was conducted and no police report of the incident was filed, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation vide impugned order dated 7.5.2019, therefore, instant writ petition has been filed seeking aforesaid amount of compensation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / State would submit that though recommendation to pay compensation was forwarded by respondent No. 5, however, as neither any postmortem of the son of the petitioner was conducted nor any police report was filed, considering this aspect of the matter, claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 3, it cannot be said that son of the petitioner died on account of snake bite, which could entitle him to receive compensation in light of the policy of the State Government dated 9.6.2015 (Annexure P-2), writ petition does not call for any 4 interference, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have 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 appropriate to quote the policy of the State Government. which has been 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 this policy does not reflect that as to whether for any death on account of reasons mentioned in the said clause, police report is to be made. In the case in hand, when the application seeking compensation was made by the petitioner on account of death of his son, respondent No. 5 conducted enquiry 5 in this regard. Record also reflects that in the said enquiry, statement of various persons have been recorded. It also reflects that after due satisfaction, respondent No. 5 recommended the matter for grant of compensation to the higher officials. Rejection of the claim of the petitioner is merely on the ground that in this case, neither any police report was made nor postmortem report of the son of petitioner was conducted. In the opinion of this Court, this cannot be a ground for rejection of the application seeking compensation to the petitioner on account of untimely death of son of petitioner. If it is to be seen that the petitioner is rustic villager and this Court cannot lost sight of the ground where it is and that in normal course, a person would avoid visiting police station and hospital. Since the death of the petitioner's son was due to snake bite and there is no bar as such, that without police report, compensation as prescribed in the State Government policy dated 9.6.2015 (Annexure P-2) would not be granted. Conduction of postmortem does not appear to be mandatory. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the reasons assigned by respondent No. 3- Deputy Collector, Rajnandgaon for rejecting the claim of the petitioner appear to be based on a misconception. 9. Accordingly, 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-2). The respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No cost (s) 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: 2025.10.15 18:22:21 +0530