SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Del) 1297

High Court Of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
GANNY KAUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT) - Respondents
WP (C) 10254 Of 2006
Decided On : 07/04/2007

Advocates Appeared:
GURBAKSH SINGH, O.P.Arya, R.P.Sharma

The main legal principle established in the judgment is that compensation for the 1984 Riot victims should be determined based on the secular laws of the State and not governed by personal laws, ensuring equitable distribution of compensation to the next of kin.

Headnote:

COMPENSATION - 1984 Riot Victims - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15, Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition raised the question of compensating 1984 Riot victims based on their entitlement to inherit property from the deceased as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner, Smt Ganny Kaur, sought compensation for the death of her daughter and two grandchildren in the 1984 Riots, which was initially claimed by Kishan Singh (Respondent No. 3). The court was tasked with determining the equitable distribution of compensation between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compensation awarded for the 1984 Riot victims should not be governed by personal laws but by the secular laws of the State, as it is provided under the Constitution of India and Article 21. The court concluded that the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 were equally entitled to compensation, and directed that the ex gratia amount of Rs 14 lakhs be paid to both parties in equal measure.

Issues: The issues involved the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in determining the entitlement to compensation for the 1984 Riot victims, and the equitable distribution of compensation between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation for the 1984 Riot victims should not be equated with the estate of an intestate and should not be governed by personal laws. It emphasized that the State is blind to the religion of the parties and operates under the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. The court also referred to relevant statutory provisions, including the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to support its decision.

Final Decision: The court directed that the ex gratia amount of Rs 14 lakhs be equally paid to the petitioner and Respondent No. 3, with Rs 7 lakhs to each party, within four weeks.


BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises the interesting question as to whether compensation granted by the State for the 1984 Riot victims should be given to persons in accordance with their entitlement to inherit property from the deceased persons as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or that the State is not governed by the personal laws and is required to award compensation equitably to the next of kin "

( 2 ) THE petitioner (Smt Ganny Kaur) was married to Late Ladha Singh. They had a daughter (Ishwari Kaur) who was married to one Laxman Singh. Laxman Singh is the son of Kishan Singh (Respondent No. 3) herein. Ishwari Kaur and Laxman singh had two children, Sajan Singh and Laxm. In the unfortunate events which took place in 1984 and which go under the name 'the 1984 Riots', Ishwari Kaur, laxman Singh and their two children were burnt to death by the rioters. The entire family of four perished at the hands of the murdering marauders. At that point of time, Sajan Singh was four years old and Laxmi was two years old.

( 3 ) AFTER the 1984 Riots, the Government of NCT of Delhi (Respondent No. 1) sanctioned an ex gratia payment of Rs 10,000/- to the surviving family members of each riot victim. This amount was subsequently enhanced to Rs 20,000/ -. It is stated by the petitioner that she had been living in a distant village. Therefore, all the compensation amount was claimed by Kishan Singh (Respondent No. 3) and the same was paid to him. After Bhajan Kaur's case, this court had directed the Government to pay a sum of Rs 3. 5 lakhs to the family members of the victims of the 1984 Riots. On the basis of the said judgment, a further compensation was to be awarded. The petitioner filed the claim with the respondent No. 2, but as the respondent No. 2 was not inclined to pay compensation to the petitioner with respect to the death of her daughter and two grand children. The petitioner, finding no alternative, filed a writ petition before this court being CW 3123/1998. By virtue of an order dated 24. 08. 1998, a learned single Judge of this court directed that in case compensation had not been handed over to the respondent No. 3 (Kishan Singh), a sum of Rs 3. 3 lakhs shall not be disbursed to him. However, after the passing of the said order, the respondent No. 3 approached the petitioner for settlement and the matter was compromised. As a consequence thereof, the writ petition being CW 3123/1998 was withdrawn on 22. 07. 1999.

( 4 ) ON 16. 01. 2006, the Government of India through the Ministry of Home affairs informed, inter alia, the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi that in pursuance of the assurances given by the Prime Minister and the Home minister during discussion on the Report of Justice Nanawati Commission of inquiry into the 1984 Riots in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the matter had been considered by the Government and it had been decided to sanction, inter alia, the payment of an ex-gratia amount of Rs 3. 5 lakh in each case of death during the riots. The said ex-gratia amounts were to be in addition to the amounts already paid by the respective State Governments. The entire expenditure was to be borne by the Central Government, though routed through the state Government. The said communication dated 16. 01. 2006 also stipulated that:-

" (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. "

( 5 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that applications had been invited from the family members of the riot victims for the grant of additional ex gratia relief. The additional relief that is to be given in respect of the deaths of Ishwari Kaur, Laxman Singh,















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top