Delhi High Court
Ganny Kaur vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 8 March, 2018
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment decided on: 08.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 6364/2016
GANNY KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gurbansh Singh and Mr. Rahul
Sarkar, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Kumar Advocates for R-1
& R-2.
Mr. Amit Swami, Advocate for R-3 to
6 with Smt. Gurbaehan Kaur wife of
R-3 and Mr. Sewa Singh I.e. R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition by which the petitioner seeks release of
compensation in her favour as per the dicta enunciated in the
judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.10254/2006, dated 04.07.2007, titled:
Smt Ganny Kaur vs The State (NCT) & Others. This judgment was
delivered by a Single Judge of this Court.
2. The operative part of the directions contained in the judgment
dated 04.07.2007 reads as follows:-
"When this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is
called upon to determine the apportionment of the
compensation between the petitioner on the one hand
and Kishan Singh (respondent No.3) on the other, it
cannot but act equitably. As already pointed out above,
there is no difference whatsoever between the position of
the petitioner and that of Kishan Singh insofar as the
death Of Ishwari Kaur, Laxman Singh, Sajan Singh and
Laxmi are concerned.
The only manner in which the compensation, to my mind,
would serve the ends of justice, would be by directing
that the compensation be awarded not according to
personal laws, but equitably to the next of kin. The only
two claimants are the petitioner and the respondent No.3
and, therefore, I direct that the ex gratia amount of Rs 14
lakhs which is to be awarded now in respect of the
deaths of Ishwari Kaur, Laxman Singh, Sajan Singh and
Laxmi be paid to the petitioner and Kishan Singh
(respondent No.3) in equal equal measure. A sum of Rs 7
lakhs be paid to the petitioner and a sum of Rs 7 lakhs be
paid to the respondent No.3. These directions be
complied with by the respondents 1 and 2 within four
weeks"
3. It is not disputed that qua the aforementioned judgment, an
appeal was preferred which was numbered as: LPA No.1132/2007
titled: Kishan Singh v. Ganny Kaur and Ors.
3.1 The appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court
vide judgment dated 11.02.2008 as rectified by order dated
21.02.2008. As per the Division Bench judgment, the petitioner's
share of compensation was scaled down to Rs.3,00,000/- (Three
Lakh). It is not disputed before me by the counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner did receive a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as reflected in
the judgment of the Division Bench. The balance amount, naturally
went to the appellant before the Division Bench i.e., Mr. Kishan
Singh.
4. In this writ petition, once again, the petitioner seeks to claim
enhanced compensation; a claim which has accrued on account of
Government of India (GoI) order dated 15.12.2014. A perusal of the
said order would show that victims of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots were
required to be paid enhanced compensation in the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- per deceased person.
4.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner lost her daughter, son-in-
law, and two grandchildren in the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots.
5. Like in the first round, this time around also, the claimant and
the counter-claimant, that is, the petitioner and the legal heirs of the
father-in-law of her daughter late Ms. Ishwari Kaur had staked claim
to the enhanced compensation.
6. I am informed by Mr. Amit Swami, who appears for
respondents no.3 to 6, that the said respondents have been paid a sum
of Rs.15,00,000/- out of a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- which accrued
to them on account of GoI order dated 15.12.2014.
7. Counsel for petitioner and respondents no.3 to 6 affirm that a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- remains deposited with the SDM.
7.1 Counsel for respondents no.3 to 6 says that he has instructions
to convey to the Court that the said respondents would have no
objection, if the amount, presently, lying with SDM/ respondent no.2
is released to the petitioner.
8. Mr. Gurbansh Singh, who appears for the petitioner, says that
the petitioner will be satisfied, if the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is released
to her.
9. Having regard to the foregoing, respondent no.2 is directed to
release the sum of Rs.5,00,000-/ in favour of the petitioner.
10. Let the needful be done at the earliest, though, not later than
three weeks from today.
11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER
(JUDGE)
MARCH 08, 2018
c/cks
