Shivanand Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:5909

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4995 of 2021

¶6

Shivanand Dhiwar S/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Bhathapara Village Podi Dalha Distict Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Collector District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. Tehsildar Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

03/02/2026

1. Heard.

2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Respondent No.2, Annexuere-P/1.

¶22

Digitally DEEPTI signed by JHA DEEPTI JHA

¶23

2

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondents to grant compensation to the petitioner as claimed under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular.

¶25

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. ”

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had a young infant namely namely Pradeep Kumar, aged about 2 years, who passed away on 16.07.2020 due to the drowning in the pit near the government hand-pump. After the incident had occurred, merg intimation was lodged immediately before the concerned police station. Investigation of the unnatural death of his son was carried out and post mortem of the dead body was also conducted and the cause of death was drowning. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted with respect to grant of ex gratia compensation in terms of provisions of the Revenue Book Circular and also executing instruction dated 09.06.2015. in the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar, the statement of witnesses was also recorded. Thereafter, Tehsildar given a finding that the deceased died on account of drowning in the pit, the petitioner may be granted ex gratia compensation to the tune of Rs.4 Lakhs to Sub Divisional Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). The report of the Tehsildar was accepted SDO Janjgir and recommended the case to Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.) for disbursement of ex gratia compensation to the petitioner. However, by the impugned order, the Collector held that deceased died in the water tank and for which there is no provision under the Revenue Book Circular 6(4) amended on 09.06.2015, therefore, the case of the petitioner was closed. He further submits that recommendations made by the Tehsildar, SDO and post mortem report also indicates that deceased died on account of drowning. The final report submitted by the police also indicates that the deceased fell down in the pit near the hand-pump and died

¶27

3

¶28

on account of drowning. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Collector, thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay ex gratia compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs to the petitioner.

¶29

4. Opposing the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gupta submits that though the documents appended by the petitioner, suggest that deceased died on account of drowning in the pit nearby government handpump, however, the findings recorded by the Collector that the deceased died on account of drowning in the water tank. As such there is no provision for any ex gratia compensation, if the death is caused in drowning in the water tank, the case of the petitioner was closed.

¶30

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire record carefully.

¶31

6. The Collector has closed the case of the petitioner holding that deceased died in the tank constructed near the hand-pump. It is also held that the verification was conducted by the Tehsildar, Akaltara and recorded the statement of the petitioner, which goes to show that deceased died in the tank.

¶32

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the merg intimation was recorded immediately after the death of the deceased, in which, it has come on record that deceased went towards the hand-pump for playing, fell in the ditch which was filled up with the water and as a result he died. The police has investigated the incident and also conducted the post mortem of the deceased. According to the final report of the police, the deceased died of drowning on the basis of post mortem report and it has also found by the investigating agency that deceased fell in the pit near the government handpump. Perusal of the record also indicates that recommendations were made by the SDO for grant of ex gratia compensation.

¶33

4

¶34

8. 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 formulated in Revenue Book Circular and filed as Anneuxre-P/8, relevant provisions of the said policy are reproduced below :-

¶35

¼ikap½ tu gkfu ds fy, fudVre okfjl dks vkfFkZd lgk;rk

¶36

vuqnku %&

¶37

¼1½ izkdfrd vkink] uSlfxZd foifRr;ksa ds dkj.k ,oa xM~Ms esa fxjus ls eR;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 (Sun Stroke) ls eR;q gks tkus ij er 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, eR;q dh lwpuk izkIr gksu s ij vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh@rglhynkj@uk;c rglhynkj }kjk ?kVukLFky ij ’kh?kz igqapdj eR;q gksus ,oa mlds dkj.kksa dh tkap dh tk,xh vkSj tgka laHko gks MkWDVj ls erd dk ijh{k.k Hkh djk;k tk,xkA eR;q gksuk ik, tkus ij erd ds ifjokj ds lnL;@fudVre okfjl dks mDr /kujkf’k dh vuqnkj lgk;rk dysDVj }kjk Lohdr dh tk,xhA vkx ls tyus ds dkj.k eR; gksus ij Hkh blh ds vuqlkj lgk;r fn;k tk,xkA er O;fDr esa cPpk Hkh ’kkfey le>k tk,xkA ifjokj eas ,d ls vf/kd eR;q gksus ij okfjl dks lgk;rk vuqnku izR;sd e`rd ds eku ls ns; gksxkA fctyh fxjuk uSlfxZd foifRr gSA”

¶38

9. Thus, taking into consideration the eventuality for which, ex gratia compensation can be granted is apparently available in the case in hand. The Collector in misconceived notion held that deceased died in the water tank. The sufficient evidence is available to say that the deceased died of drowning in the pit near the government hand-pump filled with water. Thus, the finding of the Collector closing the case of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia compensation appears to be bad in law and it is hereby set aside.

¶39

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to receive Rs.4 Lakhs in grant in head within compensation, as per the Circular dated 09.06.2015, part 6 – 4 Revenue Book Circular (Annexure-P/8). An amount of

¶40

5

¶41

Rs.4 Lakhs shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents.

¶42

11. Cost of Rs.5000/- is also imposed upon the State for the litigation expenses.

¶43

12. According, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶44

13. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge