1 2026:CGHC:18442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1376 of 2020 Smt. Kailash Bai W/o Late Ramji Lal Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Gidhali, Tahsil And Thana Mohala, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Upper Collector District- Rajnandgaon, CG., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohala District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Naib Tahsildar Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents AND WPC No. 2054 of 2021 Maktula Bai W/o Late Shree Bajundas Koliyare Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Paladur Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Department , Mantralay Atal Nagar , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mohla District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar Tahsil Mohla, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioners : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 22/04/2026 1. Since the issue involved in both petitions is identical, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 4.7.2019 / 02.02.2021 passed by Collector / Upper Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), respectively whereby applications filed by the petitioners, who are unfortunate widow of deceased namely; Ramji Lal Sahu & Banjnudas Koliyare, respectively, seeking ex gratia amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of their death, have been rejected. 3 3. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners, are that Ramji Lal Sahu and Banjudas Koliyare had gone to an agricultural field of the village to collect lacquer and had climbed a tree to do so. at that very moment, a sudden thunderstorm struck causing them to fall from the tree and sustain grevious injuries. They were immediately rushed to the hospital, where Ramji Lal Sahu died on the next day, whereas Banjudas Koliyare died on 27th May, 2020. Merg report was lodged by the police. The petitioners filed application for grant of ex gratia amount before Revenue Authorities, to which enquiry was conducted. In both the cases, concerned Naib Tahsildar, Mohla (C.G.) recommended to grant ex gratia amount to the petitioners, but subsequently, said Naib Tahildar submitted its negative opinion on the ground that both the deceased persons fell from the tree, therefore, their cause of death does not fall under part 6, Clause (4), paragraph 5 (2) Note (6) of the Revenue Book Circular dated 09.06.2015. On account of aforesaid negative report / opinion submitted by Naib Tahsildar, Mohla Collector / Upper Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) vide order dated order 4.7.2019 / 02.02.2021, respectively has rejected the application filed by the petitioners, therefore, they have filed instant writ petitions questioning the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions would submit that at earlier point of time, Naib Tahsildar has recommended for grant of ex gratia amount to the petitioners based on due consideration of enquiry, subsequently, Naib Tahisildar declined from his earlier opinion. He further submits that deceased namely, Ramji Lal Sahu and Banjudas Koliyare fell from the tree due to a sudden thunderstorm, due to which they suffered severe injuries and died, therefore, it is clear cut case of death on account of natural calamity, therefore, rejection of applications filed by petitioners seeking ex gratia amount is illegal and perverse, hence, the same are liable to be set 4 aside and the Collector, Rajnandgaon be directed to grant ex – gratia amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioners in both the petitions. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that applications filed by the respective petitioners have been rejected after considering the statements of the villagers, as it was found that both the deceased died due to falling down from the tree and as per Halka Patwari report, there was no thunderstorm reported on fateful day, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any ex gratia amount under the Revenue Book Circular. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. Undisputedly, nature of death of petitioners’ husbands namely Ramji Lal Sahu and Banjudas Koliyare, respectively, was unnatural, as they died due to falling from the tree when they had climbed on the tree for collection of lacquer. 8. It was also conceded by the State counsel that earlier Naib Tahsildar, Mohla has submitted “positive” report in favour of the petitioners, but later on, he declined from his earlier report. 9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions contained under part 6, Clause (4), paragraph 5 (2) Note (6) of the Revenue Book Circular dated 09.06.2015, which is reproduced below :- (पांच) जन हान⠿न के ल㈿ ए न⠿नकटतम वार〿स को आቕ喌क सहायता अनुदान :- (1) ्䵚ाकृ त␿तक आपदा, नैसቇ䞌#क न⠿वपल㈿$यो䬂 के काण एवं #्䵃े मे䜂 न⠿#ने से मृत⑍यु होने प सप*, न⠿+चᩍछू मुहेा या मधुमकᕍखी के काटने, नदी ता ा+, +ांध कुं आ, नह, ना ा मे䜂 संघन से अवा नाव दुघ*टना एवं सोई #ैस का स㠿स ेण⍍ड फटने, खदान धसकने, ू (आपातका ीन) से मृत⑍यु हो जाने प मृत व㕍यन⠿: के पर〿वा के न⠿नकटतम व㕍यन⠿: / वार〿स को रあपये 4,00,000 /- (रあपये चा ाख) की सहायता दी जाए#ी। इसके ल㈿ ए 5 मृत⑍यु की सूचना ्䵚ा्䵎 होने प अनुन⠿वभा#ीय अत␿धकाी / तहसी दा / नाय+ तहसी दा ्䵛ाा आपातका ीन प शी्䵈 पहुंचक मृत⑍यु होने एवं उसके काणो䬂 की जांच की जाए#ी औ यही सूचना ही डॉकᕍट से मृतक का पी्䵌ण भी काया जाए#ा। मृत⑍यु होना पाए जाने प मृतक के पर〿वा के सदस㡍य / - न⠿नकटतम वार〿स को उ: धनाश㘿श की अनुदान सहायता क ेकᕍट ्䵛ाा स㡍वीकृ त की जाए#ी। आ# से ज ने के काण मृत⑍यु होने प भी इसी के अनुसा सहायता न⠿दया जाए#ा। 'मृत व㕍यन⠿:' मे䜂 +्䴴ा भी शान⠿म समझा जाए#ा। पर〿वा मे䜂 एक से अत␿धक मृत⑍यु होने प वार〿स को सहायता अनुदान ्䵚त⑍येक मृतक के मान से देय न⠿दया। न⠿+ज ी न⠿#ना नैसቇ䞌#क न⠿वपल㈿$ है। (2) ्䵅य या अत␿धकृ त अन⡍य प቞庌O क ट्䴰ांसपोट* के नदी मे䜂 न⠿#ने या पहाडℼी आन⠿द से ख्䵂े मे䜂 न⠿#ने के काण इन वाहनो䬂 प सवा व㕍यन⠿:यो䬂 की मृत⑍यु हो जाने प मृतको䬂 के पर〿जनो䬂 को रあपये 2,00,000/- (रあपये दो ाख) की आቕ喌क सहायता ्䵚त␿त मृतक के से देय हो#ी। नोट 1. ाजᱍय के न⠿कसी भी व㕍यन⠿: की मृत⑍यु ्䵚ाकृ त␿तक आपदा से अपने #ृह स㠿ज े के अत␿तर〿: अन⡍य स㠿ज े मे䜂 होती है, तो मृतक व㕍यन⠿: के पर〿वा को उसके मू #ृह स㠿ज े से अनुदान सहायता ्䵚दान की जाये। मृत⑍यु स㡍 से घटना का सत⑍यापन ्䵚ा्䵎 क सं+ंत␿धत क ेकᕍट अनुदान सहायता की स㡍वीकृ त␿त दे䜂#े। 2. आपदा के समय ाहत एवं +चाव काय* मे䜂 #े अत␿धकाी एवं कम*चार〿यो䬂 की मृत⑍यु होने प उनके पर〿वा को भी अनुदान सहायता की पा्䵔ता हो#ी। 3. ाजᱍय के सीमावतU ्䵚देशो䬂 मे䜂 उपो: आपदाओं के समय न⠿कसी भी व㕍यन⠿: की मृत⑍यु होती है तो उस ाजᱍय से घटना स㡍 का ्䵚त␿तवेदन ्䵚ा्䵎 क मृतक व㕍यन⠿: के मू न⠿नवास स㠿ज े मे䜂 मृतक पर〿वा को अनुदान सहायता ्䵚दान की जावे। 4. ऐसे भातीय ना#र〿क, जो अन⡍य देश की ना#र〿कता ्䵇हण क ल㈿ ये है, ाजᱍय मे䜂 उपो: आपदाओं से मृत⑍यु होती है, तो उनके पर〿वा को आቕ喌क अनुदान सहायता की पा्䵔ता नही䀂 हो#ी। 5. उपो: ्䵚ाकृ त␿तक आपदा के समय न⠿कसी न⠿वदेशी ना#र〿क की मृत⑍यु होती है, तो उपो: आቕ喌क अनुदान सहायता की पा्䵔ता नही䀂 हो#ी। 6. आंधी, तूफान, अत␿तवृन⠿Z, +ाढ∼ की ቞庌स㡍त␿त के दौान पेडℼ / डं#ा के न⠿#ने अवा न⠿व्䵕ुत ्䵚वाह / ता से मृत⑍यु होती है, तो दैवीय न⠿वपल㈿$ माना जाये䜂। 6 10. From the perusal of aforesaid clause, it would reflect that if person died on account for aforesaid reasons, then his / her legal heirs are entitled to get ex gratia amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Death on account of falling from tree, or on account of falling branch of tree due to sudden thunderstorm, has also been considered as natural calamity. In instant case, alongwith deceased Ramji Lal Sahu, his wife and brother had also gone for collection of lacquer whereas alongwith deceased Banjudas Koliyare, his wife had also gone to collect the lacquor. 11. In the reports submitted in both cases, the Naib Tehsildar, Mohla has observed that the petitioners stated in their statements that their husbands fell from a tree due to a sudden thunderstorm. Nothing has been brought on record to disbelive their statements. Further, on relying their statements, earlier Naib Tahsildar, Mohla had also recommended for grant of ex gratia amount of the respective petitions, but nothing has been contended by learned State Counsel as to why and on which ground Niab Tahsildar declined from this earlier positive opinion, based on which, Collector, Rajnandgaon has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners whereas undisputedly deceased of both the cases died on account of falling from tree due to struck of sudeen thunderstorm, as has been stated by family members of the deceased in their statements. 12. The very object and purpose behind grant of ex-gratia amount is to provide immediate financial relief and humanitarian assistance to a person who has suffered loss on account of a natural calamity. Such compensation is not in the nature of a bounty or charity, but a welfare measure intended to mitigate the hardship caused by unforeseen and unavoidable disasters beyond human control. The State, being under an obligation to protect and support its citizens 7 in times of distress, extends such ex-gratia assistance as a measure of social justice and administrative fairness. In cases where the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss due to the calamity, denial or undue delay in disbursement of the ex-gratia amount defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is to ensure timely succour and rehabilitation. Therefore, the grant of ex-gratia amount must be considered in a liberal and purposive manner so as to advance the object of relief rather than frustrate it by adopting a hyper-technical approach. 13. In view of above discussion and considering earlier positive report submitted by Naib Tahsildar, which has subsequently been declined without any appropriate reason. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are found to be entitled for grant of ex gratia amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of their respective husbands on account of natural calamity. 14. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Collector, Rajnandgaon is directed to grant ex gratia amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to each of the petitioners in both the petitions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/ submission of copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.04.25 10:53:15 +0530