Savita Wd/O Dhanraj Kinekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9762 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:13880-DB


               J.wp.2077.22.odt                                                 1


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.2077 OF 2022

               1.         Savita wd/o Dhanraj Kinekar
                          Age - 31 years, Occupation - Farming

               2.         Sanidhya s/o Dhanraj Kinekar
                          Age - 4 years, Occupation - Nil

               3.         Dhanshri D/o Dhanraj Kinekar
                          Age - 3 years, Occupation - Nil

               4.         Narayan s/o Soma Kinekar
                          Age - 76 years, Occupation - Farming

               5.         Bhagratha w/o Narayan Kinekar
                          Age - 72 years, Occupation - Farming

                          (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are minor through
                          their Natural Guardian mother
                          i.e. petitioner No.1)
                          All the petitioners are
                          R/o At Minthur, Po Nawegaon Pandav,
                          Tal. Nagbhir, District Chandrapur
                          Maharashtra - 441205
                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                                             VERSUS
               1.         The State of Maharashtra,
                          through its Principal Secretary
                          Revenue and Forest Department
                          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032

               2.         The Regional Forest Officer,
                          At. Nagbhir, Tah. Nagbhir,
                          District Chandrapur (M.S.) 441205
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
 J.wp.2077.22.odt                                                        2


______________________________________________________
           Ms Sonali D. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Mr. M.K. Pathan, AGP for the respondents/State.
______________________________________________________

                      CORAM :     AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
                                  URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
           RESERVED ON        :   SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
        PRONOUNCED ON         :   SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

JUDGMENT (Per Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the communication of the

respondents dated 23/12/2020 by which the application for

compensation of the petitioners is rejected.

3. The petitioners have applied for the compensation amount on

account of death sustained by Dhanraj s/o Narayan Kinekar in a wild

boar attack. The petitioners are wife, children and parents of the

deceased. On 06/11/2020, deceased Dhanraj was proceeding on his

motorcycle from his home to his workplace. When he was passing

through Kodepar - Jankapur road, it is claimed that one wild boar from

the adjoining forest area attacked on his motorcycle due to which he

sustained injuries. During his treatment in the hospital, he died on

16/11/2020. As per the contention of the petitioners, the petitioners

were completely dependent upon the earning of the deceased. Due to

the death of the deceased they have suffered mentally and financially. In

view of the Scheme of the Government vide Notification dated

26/08/2019, the present petitioners are entitled for compensation,

therefore, they applied for the compensation by issuing communication

to the Forest Officer, Nagbhid region, but the Divisional Officer of Forest

Department, Nagbhid region has rejected the said application on the

ground that the deceased has not died due to the attack but he died due

to the accident, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any

compensation. As per the contention of the petitioners, said action of

the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside and the

directions are required to be given to the respondents to award the

compensation to the present petitioners.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition

on the ground that in view of the Government Resolution dated

26/08/2019 only the persons who are injured or relatives of the

deceased who died in the attack of wild animals are entitled for the said

compensation. The merg report and various statements of the witnesses

shows that the deceased died due to the accident, and therefore, the

petitioners are not entitled for any compensation.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. She reiterated the

contention and submitted that in view of the Government Resolution

dated 26/08/2019, present petitioners are entitled for compensation.

She also placed reliance on the communication of the respondents,

which shows that the deceased fell from the motorcycle as his

motorcycle was dashed by the wild boar. She submitted that in view of

the said communication also it is crystal clear that the deceased died due

to the attack by the wild boar, however, the respondents misinterpreted

the Government Resolution and rejected the application for

compensation.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as the

deceased died due to the accident, the petitioners are not entitled for

any compensation.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, on perusal of

the record it reveals that regarding the said accident, merg report was

filed at Nagbhid police station, District Chandrapur. After the incident,

the police have drawn the spot-panchnama. Death summary and

postmortem report are also filed on record. Thus, there is no dispute that

on 06/11/2020 when the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle,

he fell down and sustained injuries, and during treatment, he

succumbed to the injuries. Now only question arises is whether the

petitioners are entitled for any compensation on account of accidental

death of the deceased. It is submitted by the petitioners that the wild

boar has dashed against the motorcycle, and therefore, the deceased fell

down and sustained the injuries.

8. Before entering into the question whether the petitioners are

entitled for compensation or not, it is necessary to see the Government

Resolution dated 26/08/2019 which is as under :

"शासन निर्णय :-

१. वन्यप्राण्यां च्या हल्लयात मृत झालेल्या व्यक्तीच्या वारसां ना शासन निर्णय दिनां क २८/११/२०१८ मधील तरतू दीनुसार दे य रू. १५.०० लक्ष अर्थ सहाय्याच्या रकमे पैकी रू. ५.०० लक्ष धनादे शाने तात्काळ वापरासाठी योग्य वारसां ना दे ण्यात यावे व रू. ५.०० लक्ष ५ वर्षाकरिता फिक्स डीपॉझिटमध्ये ठे वावे आणि उर्वरित ५.०० लक्ष १० वर्षाकरिता फिक्स डिपॉझिट मध्ये ठे वावे . दहा वर्षानंतर वारसां ना पू र्ण रक्कम मिळे ल.

२. सदर फिक्स डिपॉझिट दे य असलेल्या व्यक्तींच्या नावे किंवा एका पेक्षा जास्त वारसदार असल्यास सर्व वारसदाराचे मिळू न एक संयुक्त खात्यात राष्ट्रीयकृत बँकेत ठे वावी. अज्ञान अपत्यां बाबतीत दे य रक्कम अज्ञान अपत्ये व संबंधीत वनपरिक्षेत्राचे वन परिक्षेत्र अधिकारी यां च्या संयुक्त नावे ठे वण्यात यावे. वारसां ना अर्थ सहाय्य दे ण्याचे निकष शासन निर्णय, महसूल व वन विभाग क्र. डब्ल्यूएलपी- २०१२/प्रक्र.३३७/फ-१, दिनां क २९/०५/२०१३ प्रमाणे कायम राहिल.

३. वन्यप्राणी हल्ल्यामु ळे व्यक्ती मृत झाल्यास मृत व्यक्तीच्या वारसां ना अर्थसहाय्य दे ण्यासाठी असलेल्या इतर अटी व शर्ती शासन निर्णय, महसूल व वन विभाग क्र. डब्ल्यूएलपी-१०.०८/प्रक्र.२७०/फ-१, दिनां क ०२/०७/२०१०, शासन निर्णय, महसूल व वन विभाग क्र. डब्ल्यूएलपी-२०१२/

प्रक्र.३३७/ फ-१, दिनां क | ३०/०३/२०१३, शासन निर्णय, महसूल व वन विभाग क्र. डब्ल्यूएलपी- २०१२/प्रक्र.३३७/फ-१, दिनां क २९/०५/२०१३ प्रमाणे कायम राहिल."

9. Thus, in view of the Government Resolution it is specifically

mentioned in Clause (3) that if the person sustained injuries or died in

an attack by the wild animals then they are entitled for compensation

from the Government. The recitals of the petitions, merg report shows

that the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injuries

and met with an accident. In the communication dated 23/12/2020 also

the Forest Officer informed the petitioners that the deceased died due to

the dash by the wild boar to the motorcycle of the deceased. As the

contention of the petitioners was that the deceased died due to the

attack and eye-witnesses Narendra Pandurang Bhule has witnessed the

said incident, therefore, this Court had directed an enquiry by order

dated 09/08/2023. Said enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar.

During this enquiry, the statement of Narendra Pandurang Bhule is

recorded. From his statement, it reveals that at the relevant time at

about 8.30 a.m. this witness halted near Kodepar - Jankapur road to

answer the nature's call. At that time, he heard some noise of dash. He

also saw one wild boar running across the road. He also saw that one

motorcycle is fallen down condition and a person was lying near said

motorcycle. From his statement it reveals that he has not witnessed

actual incident but he only witnessed one wild boar proceeding from the

spot and the person who was proceeding from the motorcycle was lying

on the road.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Anuja

Arun Redij Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. (Writ Petition

No.3116/2022) decided on 26/09/2022. After going through the facts

of the cited case it reveals that the deceased died due to the attack by

the wild boar. Here it is not the case. Entire record shows that the

deceased died as he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained the

injuries. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the

deceased met with an accident due to the attack by the wild boar,

therefore, the present petitioners are not entitled for any compensation.

The case of the petitioners is not covered under the Government

Resolution dated 26/08/2019 or the Government Resolution dated

02/07/2010. In both the resolutions the requirement is that the

deceased would be entitled for compensation if he was attacked by the

wild animals.

11. In view of the reasons recorded above, the prayer of the

petitioners cannot be considered and no directions can be given to the

respondents. In view of that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

12. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

13. Rule stands discharged.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

*Divya

Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 20/09/2023 14:17:10