This court disposed of a writ petition by rejecting a claim for additional rehabilitation compensation under the 1984 Riots Scheme. The court held that the scheme closed on 30.06.2012, and the petitioner's delayed application in 2013, despite receiving initial relief in 2006, was inadmissible.
Writ Petition disposed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1)
1-wp-2039-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 WRIT PETITION NO. 2039 OF 2014
SURESH KISHANLAL KHANNA ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER..RESPONDENTS
Mr. S. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sanjeev B. Deshpande, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED : 06th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
PER COURT:-
1.Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner in the year
1984 was staying in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In
the year 1984 in Anti Sikh Riots the petitioner's
business sustained loss and the petitioner had to
migrate to the State of Maharashtra. The
petitioner got the knowledge of the Scheme
introduced by the Central Government of India of
giving compensation to the migrated persons. The
Scheme was introduced on 16.01.2006 under the
subject 'Rehabilitation Package' to provide relief
to victims of 1984 Riots. The petitioner applied
under the said Scheme, initially, on 06.01.2006 so
also applications were given in the year 2005. The
(2) 1-wp-2039-2014
petitioner is paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as
compensation by State of Madhya Pradesh on account
of loss in business. However, the State Government
has not considered the application of the
petitioner positively for compensation on account
of the petitioner being required to migrate from
the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Maharashtra
wherein provision is made for providing
Rs.2,00,000/- per family as rehabilitation grant.
According to the learned counsel, respondents
cannot deny the benefit of the said scheme to the
petitioner who is 1984 riots affected. The
respondents are taking a very hyper technical
approach in negativing the claim of the petitioner.
The entire proof has been submitted about the
petitioner being migrated.
2.The learned Additional Government Pleader
submits that the scheme for rehabilitation package
to provide relief to the victims of 1984 riots has
been closed down with effect from 30.06.2012 under
letter dated 05.12.2012 issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs and the unsettled claims were required
to be closed finally by 31.12.2012.
3.We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
4.The Scheme introduced on 16.01.2006 under
the subject 'Rehabilitation Package' to provide
(3) 1-wp-2039-2014
relief to victims of 1984 Riots has been closed
down with effect from 30.06.2012 and the pending
applications as on the said date were directed to
be finally closed by 31.12.2012.
5.The petitioner it appears had given
applications in the year 2005 and January 2006. One
application dated 06.01.2006 is shown to have been
received in the office of Collector on 18.04.2006.
The Scheme had come into effect from 16.01.2006.
The petitioner pursuant to the said Scheme received
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the State of
Madhya Pradesh on 14.07.2006. After receipt of the
compensation amount on 14.07.2006, the petitioner
for the first time made a grievance for grant of
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for having required
to be migrated from State of Madhya Pradesh to
State of Maharashtra on 17.09.2013. The Scheme was
already closed down with effect from 30.06.2012. In
view of that, the application made in the year 2013
would be of now avail and the applications made
earlier stood fructified on account of the
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- being paid to the
petitioner on 14.07.2006. Naturally, after the
Scheme has been closed down, the application of the
petitioner would have no efficacy.
6.After the last application dated
06.01.2006 said to have been received by the office
of the Collector on 18.04.2006, no application was
made by the petitioner till 17.09.2013. No
(4) 1-wp-2039-2014
explanation is coming forth for not making any
application for such a long period after receipt of
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in July 2006.
7.Considering all the aforesaid conspectus
of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner
cannot be considered.
8.Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No
costs.
Devendra/September-18
Devendra Nandkumar Kale
Digitally signed by Devendra Nandkumar Kale Date: 2018.09.12 10:33:12 +0530
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim additional compensation under the Scheme for Rehabilitation Package to victims of 1984 Riots, which was closed on 30.06.2012.
Whether the petitioner's application for Rs. 2,00,000/- filed in 2013 is valid given the scheme closure and prior receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/-.a
Whether the delay of over seven years in filing a grievance after receipt of initial compensation warrants denial of the claim.
Suresh Kishanlal Khanna
The Union of India
Another
S. V. Gangapurwala
S. M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court