- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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 and 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.
(3.) THE claim of the appellant, therefore, has rightly not been entertained by the learned Single Judge. Consequently this appeal is dismissed.;