Megh Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2635 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+     W.P.(C) 12325/2006

                                       Date of decision: 15th July, 2009

      MEGH SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Advocate.

                    versus


      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                 ..... Respondents
                      Through Mr. Somdutt Kaushik & Ms. Payal
                      Srivastava, Advocates.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

      1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?
      2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?


                               O R D E R

%

1. The petitioner, Mr. Megh Singh, claims compensation for death of

his father Mr. Dayal Singh in 1984 riots. He had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.

13232/2004 , which was disposed of vide order dated 5 th October, 2004

directing that the Screening Committee set up by the respondent

authorities will examine the case and decide the claim within four weeks.

The Screening Committee has passed order dated 9th December, 2004

rejecting his claim, recording following reasons:-

W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006                                              Page 1
              "      The case was considered by Committee
             and observed that the case for giving of

enhanced compensation is deficient in respect of following points:

i) Initial compensation of Rs.20,000/- was not received by the claimant.

ii) Name of the deceased is not figured in the Ahuja Committee Report.

iii) Death could not be confirmed by D.C.P. (Riot Cell). Moreover the intimation of death given by the claimant on 28.11.84 at P.S. Mangolpuri could not be established.

iv) Death Certificate was obtained on 26.12.84 and that was applied by one Shri Ram Singh who is not related to the applicant.

Sh. Megh Singh claimant appeared before the Committee and was heard. He could not give suitable/reasonable explanation about not receiving/applying for initial compensation given in 1984 and 1986 and not appeared before Ahuja Committee for inclusion of the name of the deceased in its report. The claimant also showed his inability about the place of death of the deceased and further informed the Committee that the deceased was his father and on the day of riots he had gone to Karol Bagh. But as per Police record no unclaimed body was found in the area of P.S. Karol Bagh.

The claimant at the time of riots was running a Coal Depot on the basis of License given by Food and Civil Supplies Deptt., Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and can not be assumed that he was not aware of the relief provided by Govt. to 1984 riot victims from 1984 onwards. The claimant approached this deptt. only in 1996 by way of the present claim. He did not W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006 Page 2 appeared(sic) before Jain Commission or Ahuja Committed (sic) to tender his witness for the death of his father in the 1984 riots.

Under the above stated circumstances the Committee is of the opinion that case of the claimant is not fit to be recommended. Hence the claim is rejected."

2. The said reasons have been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed

by the respondents. At the time of hearing of this matter, the respondents

were directed to produce original records. I have examined the original

records.

3. The averment/statement that late Mr. Dayal Singh's name did not

figure in the Ahuja Committee report is factually incorrect. The file notings

show that the name of the deceased Dayal Singh is mentioned in Ahuja

Committee's report at serial No. 1445. This is clear from the note dated

3rd February, 2000 as well as subsequent notes, though earlier file notings

indicate that the respondents were of the opinion that the name of the

deceased was not mentioned in the Ahuja Committee report. It is

apparent that the Screening Committee has proceeded on the basis of an

incorrect assumption.

4. Regarding filing of FIR, the file notings indicate that the matter was

examined in depth by sending a copy of hand written complaint dated 28th

November, 1984 made by the petitioner to police station Mangolpuri for

verification from the said police station. SHO, Police Station Mangolpuri

did not deny or dispute the stamp of the said police station affixed on the W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006 Page 3 complaint dated 24th November, 1984. It was stated that the place of

occurrence was within the area of Police Station Karol Bagh and, therefore,

the query should be asked from the said police station. It was also stated

that the daily register relating to the period 1984 was destroyed in 1999.

In several notes it has been recorded that in almost all cases no specific

FIR was lodged with police and only intimation of death of a person was

given. The Screening Committee has incorrectly recorded that intimation

of death made by the petitioner on 28th November, 1984 at Police Station

Mangolpuri is an unestablished fact. The petitioner had made the said

claim and even submitted photocopy of the complaint with the stamp of

the police station Mangolpuri. The SHO of the Police Station Mangolpuri

could not deny the said stamp but their records had been weeded out and

he could not furnish further details.

5. The petitioner had also produced death certificate of Mr. Dayal

Singh. The said death certificate was issued by MCD office, Narela on 26 th

December, 1984. Letter dated 2nd November, 1999 was addressed to the

Registrar, Births and Deaths, MCD Narela zone by the SDM to verify the

said certificate. In his hand written note dated 30th November, 1999, the

Registrar has confirmed that the said death certificate is genuine. It is

stated that information was given by one Mr. Ram Singh that Mr. Dayal

Singh, who was permanent resident of village Bhorgarh had expired and

"his death has taken place in the said village". The petitioner in the writ

W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006 Page 4 petition has explained that Mr. Ram Singh has expired and was a co-

worker, who used to work along with his father Mr. Dayal Singh . It is

stated that there is no discrepancy, therefore, between the stand of the

petitioner that Mr. Dayal Singh had gone to Karol Bagh for work and did

not return and the hand written note of the Registrar. It is further stated

that the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the Screening

Committee but have been ignored and not mentioned.

6. The petitioner, who is present in person, is illiterate. It is possible

that he may not be fully aware and conscious of his rights and entitlement

to compensation. This to some extent explains the delay on his part in

approaching the respondents. The case requires sympathetic

consideration keeping in mind the human angle but at the same time

caution and care has to be taken that the claim is genuine. I have pointed

out two factual inaccuracies in the reasoning given by the Screening

Committee in their report dated 9th December, 2004. With regard to hand

written note of the Registrar, the matter requires further investigation and

verification. In these circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the

Screening Committee to re-consider and re-examine the case of the

petitioner. If required, the Screening Committee will be re-constituted of

different members. The Secretary (Revenue)/ Divisional Commissioner will

re-constitute a committee and an appropriate decision will be taken within

a period of four months from today. The petitioner will be given personal

W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006 Page 5 hearing. If required, he may appear along with an authorized

representative.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

DASTI.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      JULY 15, 2009
      VKR




W.P. (C) No. 12325/2006                                           Page 6