Sh. Jagbhushan Lal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1607 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The controversy which arises in the present writ petition is the category in which the petitioner would fall under the Gadgli Assurance Scheme which was inacted by the Parliament to rehabitate the displaced persons/migrants from Pakistan after partition.

2. In terms of the revolution dated 16.10.1970 three categories were formulated which are as under :

"1. Category 'A'- Persons who have their continuously residential occupation prior to 15th August, 1950.

2. Category 'B'-- Persons who have their residential occupation after 15th August, 1950 but before 30th September 1960.

3. Category 'C'-- Persons after squatting 1960 to 1980 will be covered under slum and JJ scheme."

3. The contention of the petitioner is that he falls in 'A' category though the respondent had made an allotment under 'B' category.

submitted that there was a requirement of certain essential documents for eligibility in category 'A' which are as under :

Essential Documents for eligibility in Category 'A'

1. Refuse Registration Certificate.

2. Ration Card of 1950.

3. Receipt of payment of damages assessed by the authorities on the basis of the rate levied for the first time in 1952.

4. Voter's list of June 1951.

5. Census slip of 1960.

6. Present ration card to prove continuous occupation.

7. Electric/water/telephone bill if any dating back to 1950.

8. Any other letter addressed to the squatter at his place of occupation prior to 1950."

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner fulfills all the other requirements except the requirement of voter's list of June 1951. It may be relevant to note that under the scheme only item No. 1 was specified as essential requirement. Item No. 3 was the requirement to consider the application of a claimant and item No. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 were documents which were to be also examined wherever furnished so that no wrong person would secure benefit.

6. The aforesaid is apparent from the reading of para 3 of the said Gadgil Assurance Scheme which is as under:

"3. The committee, therefore, examined all these applications and also gave the applicant personal hearing as most of them had not furnished proper documents along with their original applications. The basis on which the committee had examined the applications is broadly given below:--

1. Refugee Registration Certificate (Essential).

2. Receipts regarding payment of damages assessed by the Authority on the basis of the rates levied for the first time, 1952.

The following documents were also examined wherever furnished so that no wrong persons would secure benefit:--

a. Ration card of 1950

b. Electric/Water/Telephone bills date back to 1950.

c. Census slips of 1960.

d. Voter's list of June, 1951 and

3. any other letter addressed to the squatter at his place of occupation prior to 15th August, 1950."

7. I am thus of the considered view that the case of the petitioner for entitlement under category 'A' should not have been rejected merely on account of fact that the voter's list of June 1951 was not produced. A reading of the scheme makes it apparent that the refugees registration certificate is the essential requirement before a person can be considered under the scheme. The person has to also make payment of damages assessed by the authorities so that his application can be considered. The documents enlisted in para 3 of the scheme are meant to verify and confirm so that a person who is not entitled should not secure any benefit. Once the entitlement can be confirmed from some of the documents, the further requirement of production of documents of same nature to verify the same aspect cannot be treated as an essential requirement. If a person has produced ration card, electricity/water/telephone bills which date beck to 1950, coupled with other letters addresses at the place of occupation, the factum of occupation of the petitioner prior to 15th August, 1950 can be verified. These are matters to be examined on the basis of the documents submitted by a person and the case should not merely be rejected because of non-production of one of the documents, which is only to examine the validity of the case of a person, when such verification can take place from the other documents produced.

8. Since the only reason for non grant of category 'A' entitlement to the petitioner was the non production of voter's list of June 1951 while undisputedly, as admitted by learned counsel for respondent, other verifications have taken place in respect of case the petitioner on the basis of other documents produced, I am of the considered view that the petitioner would be entitled to category 'A' entitlement.

9. A writ of mandamus is thus issued directing that respondent No. 2 should make the allotment to the petitioner in category 'A' entitlement. The petitioner will be accordingly allotted the plot. The petitioner who is present in Court undertakes to vacate the present premises within a period of four weeks from today. An undertaking be filed in Court within one week.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that an allotment letter has been issued to the petitioner under category 'B'. The said allotment shall be treated as cancelled and a fresh allotment letter under category 'A' shall be issued within eight weeks from today.

11. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Interim order stands vacated.