IMPORTANT POINT
It is open to Court to evolve principle of liability, punitive in nature, on account of vandalism and rioting leading to damages/destruction of property public and private.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, CJI.

The present appeal, by special leave, assails the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 3023 of 2003 with Civil Application No. 6115 of 2004.

2. The essential facts that need to be stated are that the High Court was moved by way of a public interest litigation seeking direction/order directing the State and its functionaries to make detailed survey of the mosques, dargahs, graveyards, khankahs and other religious places and institutions desecrated, damaged and/or destroyed during the period of communal riot in the State in the year 2002 under the supervision and guidance of the Court and to immediately repair and restore the same within specified time limit and further command the State Government to suitably and adequately compensate the trusts and institutions owning the said religious places. Various assertions were made before the High Court. A counter affidavit in oppugnation was filed by the State.

3. The High Court dwelling upon certain aspects eventually issued number of directions. The relevant part of the High Court order reads as follows:

“We, accordingly, pass direction upon the State Government to give compensation in favour of the persons in charge of all the religious places including those of worship, which were damaged during the communal riot of the year 2002 for restoration to the original position, as those existed on the date of destruction.

We find that during the long pendency of this litigation, many of those places of worship have been repaired. Nevertheless, the persons in charge of those places would be entitled to get reimbursement of the amount spent for restoration of those places by production of evidence of expenditure incurred by them for the above purpose, as there is no waiver of fundamental right. We, however, make it clear that if at the time of repair, further additional construction has been made in excess of the one existed at the time of damage, for such additional construction, no amount should be payable by the State Government.”

4. After so stating, the High Court has appointed all the Principal District Judges of the various districts in the State and in the area under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court as the Special Officers for deciding the amount of compensation for the restoration of those religious and places of worship situated within the territorial limit of their respective court. After so directing, the High Court further proceeded to state that the aggrieved persons should lodge their respective claim with those Special Officers within two months from the date of judgment supported by the documentary evidence they propose to rely in support of their claim of damages; and that apart, they will be entitled to adduce oral evidence to prove the exact position of the structure as it stood at the time of causing damages. After so stating, the High Court directed as under:

“The State Government will also be entitled to give written statement and oral and documentary evidence in support of its defence. Such written statement must be filed within one month from the service of the claim-application. The learned Special Officers on consideration of the entire materials on record will decide the matters and fix the amount of disbursement, if proved to have been incurred by them. In the cases, where the religious places including those of worship are still lying in un-repaired condition or partly repaired condition, the learned Special Officer will pass not only the order of payment of the amount already spent by them for such repair, but also pass necessary order for repair or the balance amount of repair, as the case may be, to be made by the State Government.”

And again:-

“The final order should be passed by the learned Special Officers within six months of lodging of the claim and such decision should be sent to this Court for confirmati