IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
L.P.A No. 481 OF 2008
Charanjit Singh
Vs.
1.State of Jharkhand
2.The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jharkhand
3.The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
4.Sub-Divisional Officer, Bokaro
5.Land Reforms of Deputy Collector-cum-Public Information Officer, Chas
6.The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro
7.The Union of India
8.The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
9.The State of Bihar
10.The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bihar
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Appellant Mr.R.K.Tiwary
For the Respondent-State JC to A.G
For the Respondent-Union of India Mr.Ashok Singh, CGC
---------
10/11.9.2009
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.11.2008
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (C) No.7024/2007, by which the writ
petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein was dismissed.
The petitioner-appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned
Single Judge claiming additional compensation for rehabilitation alleging damages
of commercial/industrial property on the ground that he was a riot affected victim
which broke out in the year 1984 after the death of the then Prime Minister, Smt.
Indira Gandhi. The petitioner-appellant however had never filed any claim before
any authority claiming ex-gratia payment/compensation from the year 1984 to
1992. But, in the year 1992, he suddenly filed a claim for compensation and the
matter was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, against the appellant
wherein it was held that he had failed to prove that he was a riot affected victim.
The appellant did not challenge this order before any authority and thus
acquiesced with the rejection of his claim. A circular was subsequently issued by
the Government of India in the year 2006 dated 16.1.2006, which envisaged that
the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Bihar,
Jharkhand, J & K, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Uttaranchal, Punjab
and NCT of Delhi would take immediate and necessary steps to grant ex-gratia
payment for the assistance to the victims of 1984 riots as per the guidelines
issued. The guidelines envisaged that in cases where claimants are supported by
proof of having received the amount of compensation paid by the State
Government earlier, that may be considered as adequate and no additional proof
may be required. It further indicated that it should be ensured that the claims are
not rejected on technical/flimsy grounds. From this circular, it was clear that the
additional payment towards compensation was to be made by the Central
Government to the riot victims and for making payment, a proof had to be given by
the victim claimant by furnishing an order passed in favour of the riot victim by the
State Government. To make the position explicitly clear, it may be further
explained that only those riot victims who had been granted ex-gratia payment
earlier, were held eligible to claim additional compensation in the year 2006 from
the Central Government as per the circular.
The petitioner-appellant admittedly had not been able to establish
before the State Government that he was a riot victim as his claim was rejected
way back in the year 1991-92, as indicated hereinbefore, by the order of the
Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, as contained in Annexure – 4 to this memo of
appeal. Thus, when the petitioner-appellant failed to establish even his basic claim
before the State Government and he did not even challenge the adverse order
passed by the State Government/Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, rejecting his
claim, obviously his claim against the Central Government for additional
compensation on the basis of the circular issued on 16.1.2006, could not confer
any right on him to claim additional compensation for rehabilitation. The circular of
2006 clearly indicated that the payment towards rehabilitation scheme were to be
granted to those victims only, who had a proof in their favour that their claim had
been entertained by the State Government, meaning thereby that when the State
Government certifies that the claimant is a victim of 1984 riot and had received
some payment from the State Government earlier on that count, the additional
claim of compensation for rehabilitation from the Central Government by virtue of
the circular of 2006 could be allowed to be raised by such victims. The appellant
obviously does not fall into that category as he is not possessing even a chit of
paper establishing the vital fact that he is a riot affected victim, as his claim on that
count was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, way back in the year
1991-92, which is already recorded hereinbefore. Absence of this vital evidence
indicates that the appellant is not a riot affected victim. If, in fact, the appellant was
a riot affected victim, obviously it was his duty to assail the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, Bokaro, rejecting his claim, which he has failed to do. But in the
interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it appropriate to observe that if the
appellant has still reasons and proof to his credit that he is a riot affected victim, he
would be at liberty to file a suit claiming damages under the Code of Civil
Procedure where onus will lie on him to prove that he, in fact, is a riot affected
victim. As far as the administrative order is concerned, the same is not in favour of
the appellant since his case has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bokaro, due to which he is not eligible to claim additional compensation for
rehabilitation as per the Central Government Circular.
The claim of the appellant, therefore, has rightly not been entertained
by the learned Single Judge. Consequently this appeal is dismissed.
(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J)
(D.K.Sinha,J)
dey