# Lakshmi Devi v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 514
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-01
- **Case number:** W.P. No. 5219 (MB) of 2011
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakshmi-devi-v-union-of-india-ors-43230
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-21-claim of exgratia payment-denied on ground no post
postmortem report produced by claimantsignoring
G.O.
Dated
24.01.2005-death
caused
due
to
lightening-considering
definition of Natural Calamity as well as 'exgratia payment'-hypertechnicalties avoidedgrant of relief should be interpreted liberallyorder
without
application
of
mind-not
sustainable-direction to ensure payment
within 2 months.
Held: Para-14
Furthermore,
no
material
has
been
brought on record by the respondents to
show that the cause of death of the
petitioner's husband was not due to
lightening but due to any other reason.
Therefore, it is clear that the impugned
order has been passed without application
of mind and considering all aspects of
matter. Even otherwise, for grant of relief
provisions should be interpreted very
liberally to cover every victim of natural
disaster.

## Text

514
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incorporating
a
situation
where
a
transgender can be recognized as a head
of an eligible household.
7. For the purposes of these
proceedings, we are of the view that the
form which has been prescribed by the
State Government, duly takes into account
the
concerns
of
the
transgender
population
by
recognizing
their
entitlement to seek access to food security
and to avail of the status of the head of a
household.
8. We are of the view that the
clarification, which we have issued above,
would sufficiently subserve the important
public purpose, which is served by the
institution of the writ petition by a
member of the Bar. The effort which has
been made by the learned counsel must be
duly appreciated by the Court.
9. The petition is, accordingly,
disposed of. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA,J.
W.P. No. 5219 (MB) of 2011
Lakshmi Devi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharwan Kumar Pandey and Rajeiu Kumar
Tripathi
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C. , A.S.G. and Neeraj Kumar Tiwari
Constitution of India, Art.-21-claim of exgratia payment-denied on ground no post
postmortem report produced by claimantsignoring
G.O.
Dated
24.01.2005-death
caused
due
to
lightening-considering
definition of Natural Calamity as well as 'exgratia payment'-hypertechnicalties avoidedgrant of relief should be interpreted liberallyorder
without
application
of
mind-not
sustainable-direction to ensure payment
within 2 months.
Held: Para-14
Furthermore,
no
material
has
been
brought on record by the respondents to
show that the cause of death of the
petitioner's husband was not due to
lightening but due to any other reason.
Therefore, it is clear that the impugned
order has been passed without application
of mind and considering all aspects of
matter. Even otherwise, for grant of relief
provisions should be interpreted very
liberally to cover every victim of natural
disaster.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)
1. Petitioner's husband, namely,
Ashok Kumar (deceased) died unnatural
death on 18.4.2011 on account of natural
calamity (lightening) while harvesting the
wheat crops. According to petitioner, a
"panchnama" was prepared in presence of
Village Pradhan, Area Lekhpal and NaibTahsildar on the spot itself. In the
report,cause of death of the petitioner's
husband has been indicated due to
"lightening" in clear words. As there is a
Circular/Government Order providing for
compensation to the family of the
deceased under the National Calamities
Emergency Fund, the petitioner preferred
an application to the competent authority
for ex-gratia payment of compensation
and completed the necessary formalities.
The said claim of the petitioner has been
rejected by the impugned order dated
12.8.2011.
2 All] Lakshmi Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
515
2. Aggrieved by the order so passed
by the Assistant Collector, Bhinga,
District Bahraich, the petitioner is before
us in this petition.
3. We have heard the learned
Counsel for the parties to the lis and also
carefully perused the documents on
record.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the petitioner is being denied her
legitimate claim by the opposite party
nos.3 and 4 on the ground that the
petitioner has failed to furnish the copy of
post-mortem report. It has been averred
that the act and conduct of opposite party
no.4, while passing the impugned order
dated 12.8.2011 is against the very aim
and object of the National Calamities
Emergency
Relief
Fund
and
the
guidelines framed for its disbursement.
5. It has been contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order dated 12.8.2011 refusing
compensation is not only against the
Government Order dated 24.1.2005 but
shows the colourable exercise of the
power of the administrative authorities.
6. The claim of the petitioner has
been resisted by the respondents and a
counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf
of opposite party nos.2 and 3 by SubDivisional Magistrate, Bhinga in which it
has been indicated that no post-mortem
report of the deceased was furnished to
establish that the death had occurred by
natural calamity. It has been further
averred in the counter affidavit that the
body of the deceased Ashok Kumar was
found burnt at the spot but in order to
confirm that the body has been burnt due
to sky lightening, [thunder] it was
necessary that post-mortem of the dead
body ought to have been done but in the
instant case, the members of the family of
the deceased have failed to get conducted
the post-mortem of the deceased Ashok
Kumar. Therefore, the claim of the
petitioner for grant of compensation has
been rejected.
7. Having examined the material on
record minutely, we are of the view that
ex-gratia payment is made with the sole
object to rehabilitate the family who has
lost their beloved one all of a sudden due
to natural calamity or an Act of God.
8. First of all, it would be apt to
understand the meaning of 'Act of God,
'Natural
Calamity'
and
'ex-gratia
payment'.
"Act of God" (natural events) means,
a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible
act of nature which could not, by any
reasonable care, have been foreseen or
resisted. To put it differently, one cannot
predict the events of nature that is why
they are called "Acts of God".
"Act of God" - Vis Major has been
defined in the Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition,
1997,as under: Act of God Vis Major may
be defined to be any accident, due directly
and exclusively to natural causes without
human intervention, which by no amount of
foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have
been expected,could have been prevented.
The general characteristics of such perils are
very intelligible. LR 1 CPD 423: Province
of Madras v. I.S. And G. Machado, AIR
1955 Mad 519, 524,525.
9. An act of God is an unforeseeable
natural phenomenon as explained by Lord
Hobhouse in Transco plc v Stockport
516
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Metropolitan Borough Council as describing
events;
(i) which involve no human agency
(ii) which is not realistically possible
to guard against
(iii) which is due directly and
exclusively to natural causes and
(iv) which could not have been
prevented by any amount of foresight,
plans, and care.
10.
Natural calamity means an event
that brings terrible loss, lasting distress, or
severe affliction; a disaster. The natural
calamities may strike at any person, at any
time and keeping this in mind, the
Government has created a fund with the sole
object to provide immediate relief to those
victims who died due to natural calamity.
"Thunder" or "Sky lightening" is a
natural happening and is termed as an
"Act of God" When the thunder strikes a
person, death is a natural consequence.
11.
Further, the word 'ex-gratia
payment'
means
payment
which
is
voluntarily and charitable in nature and
therefore, hyper-technicalities should be
ignored and equitable consideration should
be kept in mind while deciding the matter.
Such claim s are paid to mitigate hardship to
the claimants by way of equitable relief.
12. It is the duty of the Government to
safeguard the life and liberty of the people as
guaranteed
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India. If death occurs to a
citizen due to a natural calamity, the
Government whether it is State or Central
Government, is expected to come forward to
'CONSOLE- COMFORT-COMPENSATE"
the members of family of the victim and the
Government should
avoid shirking its
responsibility
based
on
arbitrary
and
imaginary reasons.
13. In the instant case, the stand of
the opposite parties is contrary to the
Government Order dated 24.1.2005. A
perusal of the Government Order dated
24.1.2005 would indicate that there is no
mandatory requirement for furnishing
post-mortem report to get ex-gratia
payment, which can be granted on the
basis of inquiry conducted by the
Revenue
Authorities
and
the
Area
Lekhpal. It would be relevant to point out
that the opposite parties have failed to
establish that the Government Order dated
24.1.2005 has been rescinded/annulled or
superseded by the State Government.
14. Furthermore, no material has
been
brought
on
record
by
the
respondents to show that the cause of
death of the petitioner's husband was not
due to lightening but due to any other
reason. Therefore, it is clear that the
impugned order has been passed without
application of mind and considering all
aspects of matter. Even otherwise, for
grant of relief provisions should be
interpreted very liberally to cover every
victim of natural disaster.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 12.8.2011 is hereby
quashed. Taking the holistic view of the
matter, we direct the District Magistrate,
Shrawasti, to pass fresh order for grant of
ex-gratia payment in light of the aforesaid
observation and the Government Order
dated 24.1.2005 within a maximum
period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. Subject to the aforesaid
observations and directions, this writ
2 All] Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
517
petition is disposed of finally in above
terms.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ-C No. 6543 of 2015
Chandra Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Secretary Industrial Development & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Tarun Agarwal, Ravi Kant
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.K. Dubey
(A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section
4(1), 6(1)-Declaration under 6(i)-period
of one year-counted-from date of last
mode of publication of notification under
section 4(1)-admittedly last date is
07.11.2013 when munadi made-notice
served
upon
village
Pradhan-duly
patched on Panchayat Bhawan as well as
on Vidyalay Bhawan-declaration under
6(1) on 30.10.14-held- well within timeno illegality found.
Held: Para-17
The next question which immediately
arises for consideration is staring point
of limitation of one year prescribed by
clause (ii) of proviso to Section 6.
Section 4(1) of the Act has already been
quoted above. It prescribes three modes
of publication of the intent of the
Government viz. (i) official gazette, (ii) two
daily newspapers having circulation in the
locality, one of which should be in regional
language;
(iii)
public
notice
of
the
substance of such notification at convenient
place in locality. By Amending Act No. 68 of
1984 it was provided that last of the dates
of the publication and public notice shall be
referred to as the date of publication of the
notification. Thus the Statute has itself
prescribed that out of the three prescribed
modes of publication the last of the dates of
such publication and the giving of public
notice shall be taken as the date of
publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Act.
(B)Land Acquisition Act 1894, Section 5A-Acquisition-questioned-on
non
compliance of Section 5-A all petitioner
were present-objections properly dealtrecommendation
made
after
due
application of mind-held-full compliance
of Section 5.
Held: Para-34
In such view of the matter, the report on the
objections
along
with
recommendation
satisfies the test. All the petitioners were
present in person on the date of hearing. A
perusal of the report goes to show that
objections of the petitioners were properly
dealt with, heard and the report along with
the recommendation was made after due
application of mind. We are satisfied that the
report dated 10.12.2013 was made in full
compliance of mandatory directions of
Section 5-A of the Act. Thus the second
submission advanced on behalf of the
petitioners also does not merit consideration.
Case Law discussed:
2002 (1) SCC 689; (1997) 8 SCC 47; (2003) 9
SCCC 662; [2010 (8) ADJ 498 (DB)]; (1973) 2
SCC 337; (1980) 2 SCC 471; (2012) 1 SCC
792.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1. By means of this petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have challenged the notification
dated 19-10-2013 issued under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short
the 'Act') as well as notification dated 30-102014 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. A
further writ of mandamus has also been