JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned decision dated 3rd January, 2003 appearing at page 30 of the paper book, by which claim of the petitioner for compensation as an 1984 Riots Victim was rejected on the ground that his father’s named id not match as recorded in the police station.The petitioner’s case is that his property and assets were damaged and burnt in the riots of 1984 on 2nd November, 1984. Petitioner is claiming compensation for the same:
2. This case has a chequered history. The SDM of the respondent vide P-4 appearing at page 20-A of the paper book informed the petitioner that his case was considered sympathetically, but has been rejected by the Competent Authority. Another communication from the respondents was sent i.e. P-5 at page 21, by the SDM to the OSD of the Chief Minister to whom the petitioner had made a representation stating that “the claim for ex gratia assistance has been made after 15 years. The petitioner had failed to give any particulars of his claim. No FIR has been lodged. Neither the survey report nor any record was available”. It appears that thereafter the same was reiterated vide internal memo dated 21st October, 1999 (P-V Colly.), written by the ADM to the PS of the Finance Minister to whom the representation appears to have been made by the petitioner.
3. Curiously, vide a communication dated 10th February, 2000, the Deputy Commissioner of Police in a communication to the SDM stated that on scrutiny of the records available, it was found that the house of petitioner-Nirmal Singh was burnt and the house articles were also looted by the rioters. The IO had prepared a site plan of the said house and the statement of Nirmal Singh had also been recorded. In the statement under Section 161, CrPC, the name of petitioner’s father had been recorded as Avtar Singh and not Amir Singh. In the list of witnesses, it is also recorded as Avtar Singh. Thus on the basis of the doubt on the identity of the petitioner on account of the difference in the name of his late father i.e. Avtar Singh or Amir Singh, the claim, it appears was not processed further. The SHO was required to do the verification.
4. The petitioner thereupon furnished documents showing the name of his father as Amir Singh. In my view, the mere recording of name of the petitioner’s late father as Avtar Singh in the statement under Section 161, CrPC the FIR would not have disentitled the petitioner to compensation specially when his identity stood established otherwise and documents had been shown. Moreover, the respondents had earlier rejected the claim on the ground of it being made after a gap of 15 years belatedly. Thereafter it was sought to be rejected on the ground that there was no record of the said incident or the FIR available. There was a volte face thereafter and the rejection was now sought to be made on the ground that the name of the father as recorded in the statement under Section 161, CrPC did not match with the name given by petitioner. The petitioner is also guilty of laches in as much as it appears from the record that the claim for compensation was preferred only some time in 1999. Learned Counsel for respondent, states that no application seeking compensation by the petitioner is available in the records of the SDM. It was only when directions for reporting on representations made to the Office of the Chief Minister, were made that the claim was processed.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion and facts as noted above, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be compensated with interest from the date, the respondent had rejected the claim for compensation, may be on a misconceived ground and that happened on 27th May, 1999. Petitioner’s claim for burning of his house and effects has been accepted and verified by respondents from record. However, no evidence with regard to damage is available.
6. Mr. Kailash Gambhir points out that under the Scheme, petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- Accordingly, I direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with interest from 1st June, 1999 @ 12% within a month from today.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.