IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.598 of 2003. Bhim Singh son of Shri Balu Singh @ Virendra Singh VERSUS The State of Rajasthan & Others Dat e Of Or der ::: 2 2 / 0 4 / 2 0 0 8 . Hon 'ble Mr . Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain J. Mr. R.P. Garg, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. M.C. Gupta, Additional Government Counsel, for the respondents By t h e Cou r t : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2002 (annexure-3) passed by the Tehsildar, Phulea, District Jaipur rejecting his application for grant of relief/ compensation, as he lost his crop/ property owing to the natural calamities i.e. accidental fire. The petitioner has averred that on 05.04.2002 the electric high-tension line passing over the agricultural field of the petitioner and the other agriculturists, failed down on the electric service line, resulting in fire in the field of the petitioner, and due to it, the crop of the petitioner got fire, and his standing crop was completely damaged, therefore, he filed an application for grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/ -. It was further averred that the Patwari, Bhojpura-Kalan gave a certificate (annexure-1) dated 06.04.2002 that the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/ - due to fire, and lost his crop due to it. The said application was rejected by the Tehsildar vide its order dated 06.04.2002, which has been impugned in this writ petition. This Court vide its order dated 20.03.2003 issued notice to the non-petitioners, and in response thereto the respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition admitting therein that the Tehsildar made a report of the damages crops of the petitioner amounting to Rs.30,000/ -, but mere report in favour of the petitioner does not mean that he is entitled to receive the amount of compensation. It is further averred in the reply that the application of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 26.06.1991, but the petitioner was not found eligible, and the same was accordingly rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tehsildar has committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner, as the application of the petitioner has not been examined correctly. The petitioner was entitled to compensation, as prayed in the application. The learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned order dated 06.04.2002, other documents, annexed with the writ petition and reply, along with the copy of the circular dated 26.09.1991, and after considering the same, I find that it would have been more appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation either before the Collector or the State Government after rejection of his application by the Tehsildar, and in these circumstances, I direct that in case the petitioner approaches the Collector or the State Government by way of representation within a period of one-month from today, then the same will be considered, and the necessary order will be passed thereon within a period of three-months thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and directions. ( Nar en dr a Ku m ar Jain) J. ashok/