g5; www IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU CHHATTISGARH w.P.(C) No. '\€b\\ /2oo9 Chandrapal Singh S/o. Shri Baijnath Singh aged about 68 years, R/o Village Surjideeh Tah. Dhamdha Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER f 1. State of Chhattisgrh, Management RESPONDENTS Through — The Secretary, Department of Revenue and calamity Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan ( wRaipur (C.G.) , 2. The Collector Durg, Collectorate Building, Distt. -— Durg (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Collector Durg, Collectorate Building, Distt. — Durg (C.G.) M» 4. The Nayab Tahsildar Dhamdha Distt. Durg (CG). / - . *A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI PROHIBITION ETC. ’ R HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1641 of2oo9 PETITIONER : Chandrapal Singh VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. ' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 06 day of July, 20 10) .: 1. Challenge in this petition is to the memo dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure F/3) issued by the Naib Tahsildar, iDhamdha, District Durg, wherein claim of compensation for the damages caused to the petitioner on account of natural calamity i.e. heavy rainfall and flood etc, was rejected on the gound that under the provisions of Part 6 Para No. 4 of the Revenue Book Circular dated 13‘ December, 2004, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Further, the order dated 3 1.03.2008 (Annexure P/4) whereby, the Deputy Collector, for Collector, Durg, has also rejected the application of the petitioner on the same ground, is also sought to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel aéieaiing‘for the State submits that admittedly, under the provisions of Part 6 Para No. 4 ofthe Revenue Book Circular dated 15‘ December, 2004 , there is no specific provision for any specific loss on account of either loss of some agricultural equipments or otherwise. The prescription is for any loss caused to the farmer due to natural calamity. 3. Part 6 Para No. 4 of the Revenue Book Circular dated 15‘ December, \\ 2004 provides for financial assistance to the farmers on account of 0/; damage and loss to the crops, houses, loss of human being or/and animals and other losses due to natural calamities. The Tahsildar, as well as the Deputy Collector, vide their orders dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) and 31.03.2008 (Annexure P/4) respectively, have not examined and applied the aforesaid provisions of the Circular dated 1st December, 2004, caremlly to the case on hand. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has suffered loss on account of natural calamity Le. flood and heavy rains. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of loss to the crops, including loss of lateral pipes for i drip irrigation. The revenue officers are required to examine and ascertain total loss on account of natural calamity including flood to the petitioner (agiculturist) whether it is a loss to the crops, house, human being, animals and any other loss, and extend financial assiStance as per provisions oflaw, as aforestated. Accordingly, the orders dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure P/3) and 3 1.03.2008 (Annexure P/4) are quashed. The Collector, District Durg, is directed to ascertain loss caused to the petitioner as per provisions as aforestated and fiirther grant benefit as provided 'under Part 6 Para No. 4 ofthe Revenue Dipole Circular dated IS‘ December, 2004. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Noorder asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge