( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner one of the allottees of Akshay Apartment situate at Ward No. 2, Gandhidham, whose flat has been collapsed in Earthquake occurred on 26th January 2001 and there was complete destruction of the petitioners flat, has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Earthquake), Gandhidham, dated 30th May 2002 by which the Deputy Collector (Earthquake), Gandhidham has rejected the application of the petitioner for getting necessary compensation due to collapse or destruction of his flat in Akshay Apartment.

( 2 ) MS. PP Laheri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had produced all the necessary documents to prove his ownership and/or possession of the flat in question as on 26. 1. 2001 and/or prior thereto and inspite of that the Deputy Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner for compensation mainly on the grounds that ; (1) The petitioner has not produced any evidence with regard to occupation of the flat in question; (2) It is not established that the petitioner was the legal owner/in possession of the flat in question; and (3) There is no evidence with regard to having GEB light connection of the flat in question. Relying on various documents, such as Government Resolutions dated 23rd February 2001, 30th August 2001, and also 23rd August 2001 Ms. Laheri has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector (Earthquake) is even contrary to the said Government Resolutions. It is submitted that it is not necessary that even if a person is owner and/or in occupation of a flat in question for the purpose of getting possession he must be in occupation of a flat at the time of collapse of a flat. It is submitted that, that is not the prerequisite condition and/or requirement for getting the compensation. It is also further submitted that even for the purpose of getting compensation due to collapse/destruction of a flat, there is no prerequisite that there must be a GEB light connection. It is submitted that there might be number of reasons for remaining not in occupation of a flat in question at the relevant time and/or there might be so many reasons for not having the GEB connection. It is submitted, that what is required for the purpose of getting compensation is that there should have been damage caused to the property and nothing more than that. It is also further submitted that as such the building in question was categorised as G-5 category and therefore the petitioner is entitled to compensation due to collapse and/or destruction of the flat in question. She has further submitted that in fact number of documents have been produced which tally with the certificate issued by the Nagarpalika/municipality and the same tallies with the certificates and documents issued by other authorities. Therefore, it is denied by her that the petitioner has failed to produce any document with regard to ownership/possession of the flat in question.

( 3 ) SHRI AD Oza, learned Government Pleader appears on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that as the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his ownership/possession prior to January 26, 2001 the petitioner is not entitled to compensation and therefore the impugned order is rightly passed. It is also further submitted by him that in fact the petitioner has an alternative remedy available by way of either approaching the Ombudsman/lokpal, i. e. , District Judge, Kuchchh-Bhuj and/or the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority which is the highest authority to decide such types of disputes.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Considering the Government Circulars dated 23rd February 2001, 30th August 2001 and 23rd August 2001 and the policy of the State Government, the intention of the State Government is to award compensati