1 CGHC010033362022 2026:CGHC:31228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 646 of 2022 1 - Kachruram Bhuarya S/o Late Dhansai Bhuaarya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gotulmunda , Tahsil Manpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management , Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohala, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Manpur District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :- Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 22.07.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1 to quash/set aside the order dated 31/7/2021 passed by respondent no. 4. 2. To Direct the respondents to grant the compensation to the petitioner. 3 To direct the respondent authorities to grant financial help/ compensation to the petitioner. 4. 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.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of ex gratia compensation on account of the death of his wife, namely, Kishore Bai, who died due to burn injuries caused by fire. It is submitted that, as per the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation and, accordingly, an application along with all relevant documents, including the post-mortem report, was submitted before the competent authority which recorded that the deceased died due to burn injuries caused by fire. Learned counsel further submits that the claim made by the petitioner for grant of ex gratia compensation was to 3 the extent of ₹4,00,000/-. As per the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, the Tehsildar is having jurisdiction to consider claims only up to ₹2,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tehsildar was not vested with the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate and reject the claim of the petitioner. Instead, the matter was required to be forwarded to the competent higher revenue authority, either the Collector or the concerned SDO (Revenue), for consideration in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Tehsildar, while entertaining and rejecting the application beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, has acted without authority of law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Tehsildar rejecting the claim of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter be directed to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel appearing for the State submits that, as per the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, the application for grant of ex gratia compensation is required to be filed before the concerned Tehsildar. It is submitted that, thereafter, if the Tehsildar has the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to grant compensation, he may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, if the amount of compensation claimed exceeds his pecuniary jurisdiction, the Tehsildar is required to 4 forward the matter to the competent higher revenue authorities for consideration and necessary orders. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the Tehsildar is vested with jurisdiction to consider and grant compensation only up to the extent of ₹2,00,000/-, whereas the claim made by the petitioner is for an amount of ₹4,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the Tehsildar was not having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner and was required to forward the matter to the competent revenue authority having jurisdiction to consider the claim. 6. It is settled principle of law that an authority exercising jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed under law cannot adjudicate a matter and any order passed without jurisdiction cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by respondent No. 4/Tehsildar is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Tehsildar with a direction to forward the claim of the petitioner along with relevant documents to the competent revenue authority having pecuniary jurisdiction, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The competent revenue authority, before whom the matter is forwarded, shall consider and decide the claim of the petitioner 5 afresh, in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular and applicable law, without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the Tehsildar. The said authority shall make all endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the record. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, and the competent authority shall consider and decide the same independently, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha