GURUCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court, a riot victim of 1984 riots has filed this present writ petition and prayed for issuance of approprite writ or order or direction directing the respondents for grant of compensation as per the scheme framed earlier by the State Government as well as the Central Government. THE petitioner has also prayed for quashing the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector, Gwalior dated 2nd September, 2008 by which his request for grant of compensation has been turned down. THE contention of the petitioner is that he belongs to a Sikh community and prior to 1984 was engaged in the business of selling liquor and was owner of a wine shop situated at Phool Bagh, Gwalior. THE petitioner has stated before this Court that a riot took place in the year 1984 and he has suffered a loss of Rs. 4,08,525/-. THE petitioner has also stated that the loss suffered by him at the relevant point of time was estimated by the Excise Department, State of Madhya Pradesh. THE petitioner has further stated that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was offered to him as compensation, however, he has refused to accept the same as the loss suffered by him was much more than the sum offered to him by way of compensation by the respondents/authorities. THE petitioner has also stated that a certificate was issued by the Collector, District Gwalior on 25th May, 1987 wherein it was certified by the Collector that the petitioner is a riot victim. THE aforesaid certificate has been enclosed as Annexure P/3 dated 25th May, 1987. THE petitioner has further stated that the matter relating to payment of compensation to riot victim was considered by this Court in W.P.No. 2134 of 2001 (S.S.Ahulwalia v. Union of India and others) and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24th January, 2006 has directed the State Government to assess the loss suffered by the riot victim and to pay the compensation commensurate with the loss suffered by the petitioners therein/riot victims. THE petitioner has further stated that a representation was preferred by him on 01st August, 2008, however, by an order dated 2nd September, 2008 (Annexure P/1), the same has been turned down by the respondents on the ground that earlier the petitioner has not received the compensation awarded by the State Government and, therefore, in the light of the subsequent executive instructions issued by the Government of India, only those persons who have earlier received the compensation are entitled for the enhanced compensation and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the enhanced compensation. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the petitioner has suffered loss in the riots of 1984 and the compensation has not been assessed by the respondents at any point of time and,therefore, the respondents be directed to pay the compensation after calculating the compensation in accordance with law.

(2.) A reply has been filed by the respondents/State Government and it has been stated in the return that after 1984 riots, a list was prepared by the District Collector, Gwalior in respect of the riots vicitm and the list does not include the name of petitioner. The respondents have further stated that the list includes those persons who have received the compensation and the name of the petitioners does not find place in the aforesaid list. The respondents have further stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and he was offered a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, however, he has refused to accept the same. The respondents have further stated that the Central Government has framed a policy for grant ofbenefit to the riot victims of 1984 and the policy provides that no new claim shall be accepted and only in those cases of persons who have received the compensation earlier shall be considered for enhancement of compensation. The respondents have also stated that as the petitioner has not received the compensation earlier and, therefore, he is certainly not entitled for the enhancement of the compensation, keeping in view the policy of the Government of India dated 16th January, 2006. The respondents have further stated that the impugned order has been rightly passed by them keeping in view the policy of the Government of India dated 16th January, 2006 as well as the policy of the State Government dated 16th February, 2006.

(3.) THE petitioner has already been offered a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by the District Administration and the same has been categorically admitted by the respondents in the return. THE contention of the respondents is that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the list prepared by them as contained in Annexure R/1 which is a list of the riot victims who have received the compensation at some point of time. THE list as contained in Annexure R/1 certainly does not include the name of the petitioner as he has refused to receive the meager compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and, therefore, it does not mean that merely because petitioner has earlier refused the compensation, he is not a riot victim as per the policy issued by the Central Government dated 16th January, 2006 read with the policy framed by the State Government dated 16th February, 2006, which provides for compensation. Clause (v) of the policy dated 16th January, 2006 issued by the Central Government, provides for grant of compensation in respect of loss of property and clause (iv) thereof provides that fresh names shall not be considered for enhancement of compensation and cases of those who have earlier received the compensation from the Government shall be re-considered by the authorities. Clauses (iv) of the policy issued by the Central Government dated 16th January, 2006 reads as under : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_61_MPWN2_2010Image1.jpg</IMG>