AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 242 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 25-5-2021 passed by the Deputy Collector for and on behalf of the Collector, Kabirdham in Revenue Case No.202102080900043/B- 121/2020-21, by which the petitioner's application for grant of ex gratia amount on the death of her husband on account of natural calamity, has been rejected finding no merit.
Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the learned Deputy Collector is not justified in rejecting the application for grant of ex gratia amount.
Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/State, would support the impugned order and oppose the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
The competent authority came to the conclusion that in front of the Community Hall, the deceased was installing loud speaker after climbing over the tree and fell down and died, therefore, it is not a case of natural calamity and there is no evidence that he died on account of natural calamity. This finding is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).