V.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner before this Court claims to be a victim of the riots which took place in Delhi in October/November, 1984. According to the petitioner at the time the said riots took place, he was residing with his family members, including his parents in DDA Flat No. 1646, Janta Flats, Nand Nagri, Shahdara. On 09.11.1984, the petitioner submitted a complaint to SHO, Police Station Seema Puri, alleging therein that in the communal riots on 02.11.1984 his Taxi bearing No DLT 2169 had been burnt down and the household articles detailed in the complaint were also looted away.
(2.) THE following were the household articles mentioned in the said complaint:- 1. Two tape records. 2. Two sewing machines 3. Two table fans 4. Two wrist watches 5. Two double beddings (Dunlop) 6. One Mixie 7. One wall clock 8. Two bangles, One Kada, Two rings (all of gold) 9. Two silver sets 10. All utensils of house 11. One dinner set 12. Ten sarees 13. Twelve ladies suits 14. One gas stove 15. Four rajaies 16. Five woolen suits 17. Three gents sweaters 18. Two ladies sweaters 19. Some glass (crystal) utensils 20. Two boxes (iron) 21. One big wooden tray 22. One pressure cooker 23. One press 24. Dress table broken down 25. Five woollen saals 26. Rs. 5000/- cash On 24.12.1987, the petitioner submitted an application to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi seeking compensation for the damage caused to his property during riots and he claims to have received an acknowledgement from the said office on 31.12.1987. The application form with Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari was filled up on 06.01.1998. Vide communication dated 16.01.2006, the Government of India, Ministry of Affairs decided to sanction ex-gratia amount and other assistance to the victims of 1984 riots subject, inter alia, to the following terms:- "iv. No new claims for grant of ex-gratia for death or injury would be entertained. Only those who received ex- gratia earlier should be eligible for the enhanced additional ex-gratia amount. However, if there are any pending or disputed cases which are awaiting decision for want of the necessary proof/evidence, such cases can be considered if they are finally accepted as genuine claims; v. Ex-gratia for damaged residential properties would be paid @ 10 times the amount originally paid after deducting the amount already paid"
(3.) SINCE no ex gratia payment was made to the petitioner on account damage, alleged to have been caused to his property, W.P.(C) No. 2062 of 2007 was filed by him before this Court seeking ex-gratia payment. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that since the name of the petitioner was not included in the initial list, he was not entitled to enhanced compensation. The writ petition was disposed of with the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to various documents from 1987 onwards, enclosed with the Writ Petition, making prayer for payment of ex-gratia compensation on account of damage to the residential property. The documents placed on record show that the respondent themselves have acted on the said representations and the same were forwarded to the concerned Department, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Tis Hazari, Delhi and Claims Settlement Officer, Tis Hazari. It is the case of the petitioner that his claim for payment of ex gratia compensation has never been examined or gone into and he was never called for any hearing or was asked to substantiate his claim till 6th February, 2007. After the hearing also, no order has been passed accepting or rejecting his case. Respondent-GNCTD will appoint the Screening Committee within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and intimate the petitioner the date of his personal hearing. The petitioner will appear before the said Screening Committee and substantiate his claim for payment of ex gratia compensation under the schemes floated by GNCTD/UOI. The said Screening Committee will examine the documents produced by the petitioner and if the case is found to be genuine and covered by the policy, his claim may be considered. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim relating to damage suffered during 1984 riots." ;