Ex-gratia relief for drowning death cannot be denied based on epilepsy or water depth hyper-technicalities.

The mother of the petitioner, Suman Bai, died on September 6, 2020, after slipping into a water-filled agricultural field while cutting grass

The postmortem report confirmed the cause of death as "asphyxia due to drowning"

Initially, the Tahsildar, SDO (Revenue), and Upper Collector recommended an ex gratia payment of Rs. 4,00,000/-

However, the Collector remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry, during which villagers suggested the deceased suffered from epilepsy

Consequently, the Revenue Authorities reversed their stance, claiming the water depth (1 foot) was insufficient and that death occurred in an agricultural field rather than a designated water body, leading to the rejection of the claim on September 29, 2021

1. Whether the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to ex gratia compensation under the Revenue Book Circular despite the death occurring in an agricultural field rather than a river or pond

2. Whether the Revenue Authorities can deny compensation based on a hyper-technical interpretation of water depth and pre-existing medical conditions when the medical cause of death is established as drowning

The court primarily applied Paragraph 5(1) of Part 6, Clause (4) of the Revenue Book Circular dated 09.06.2015

This provision mandates financial assistance of Rs. 4,00,000/- to legal heirs for deaths caused by natural calamities or drowning in rivers, ponds, dams, wells, canals, or drains

The Rule establishes that once death is verified and the medical examination confirms the cause, the Collector is obligated to sanction the grant

The court observed that the initial enquiries by three separate authorities consistently recommended the grant based on the postmortem report certifying "asphyxia due to drowning"

The court critiqued the Collector's decision to remit the matter for a spot inspection a year after the incident, which led to a "hyper-technical" rejection based on water depth and alleged epilepsy

The court reasoned that the object of the Revenue Book Circular is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate humanitarian relief, and it must be interpreted in a liberal and purposive manner

It held that the State's obligation to support citizens in distress cannot be frustrated by arbitrary reversals of opinion when the core medical evidence of drowning remains undisputed

It directed the Collector, Rajnandgaon, to verify and disburse the amount to the deceased’s dependents (Saraswati, Harshkumar, Nikhil, and grandfather Jhabbulal) within 30 days

The court clarified that the married daughters (including the petitioner) are not entitled to a share as they were not dependent on the deceased