State Of Gujarat vs Aagakhan Sultankhan Pathan on 24 April, 2026

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/313/2011                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                   R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 of 2011


                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
                         ==========================================================
                                     Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                                                                                            No
                        ==========================================================
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                                            Versus
                                              AAGAKHAN SULTANKHAN PATHAN & ANR.
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        DELETED for the Appellant(s) No. 2
                        MR BHARAT VYAS AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        MR VISHAL B MEHTA(5319) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                          Date : 24/04/2026

                                                            JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code', for short) is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Special Civil Suit No.45 of 2006 whereby learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal was pleased to partly allow the suit of the plaintiff and granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the plaintiff.

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the resident of Halol, Dist.Panchmahal and was carrying on his business. On 27.02.2002, the communal riots which spread through out the Panchmahal and Gujarat, due to which the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/313/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

plaintiff along with his family had vacated residence as well as all the properties and moved to safer place to save their life. It is further stated that during the said period a mob had attacked his residence as well as his hotel named 'Tandoor' and robbed and destroyed all household, articles thereon in his house and hotel and thereby caused damage of Rs.12,00,000/- FIR of which has been registered being C.R.No.I- 64 of 2001 at Halol Police Station. Survey was carried out by Talati-cum-Mantri and other revenue officers. It is claimed by the plaintiff that Talati-cum-Mantri and other revenue officers have reported less than the actual loss caused to the plaintiff. In nutshell, he has come out with the case that he has not been paid sufficient amount of loss he had sustained due to outbreak of communal riot resulting him a damage to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/-.

2.2 The learned trial Court, permitting both the parties to lead evidence, granted decree in aforesaid terms.

2.3 Being aggrieved, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas and Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent - original plaintiff.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas would submit that the ex gratia compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- plus Rs.1,35,000/- has already been paid to the plaintiff. He would submit that, in the aforesaid

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/313/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

circumstances, the judgment passed by learned Civil Court is totally erroneous as the Civil Court cannot examine the plea of the plaintiff to grant any amount as compensation. He referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat through District Collector vs. Idgah, Himmatnagar rendered in Special Civil Application No.12981 of 2020 dated 13.06.2024 and submit to pass order to set aside the impugned judgment and award.

5. As against aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta for the plaintiff would submit that learned trial Court has rightly passed judgment and award in favour of plaintiff who has suffered a loss of more than Rs.12,00,000/- due to outbreak of communal riots. He would further submit that it is the duty of the State Government to maintain the peace and harmony and further to see that citizen of India would not loos life or his/her property due to such outbreak communal riots. Upon these submissions, learned advocate for the plaintiff would submit to dismiss this appeal.

6.1 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the issues framed by learned trial Court at Exh.17, which read thus:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, due to the negligence of the defendant No. 1, the communal riots had spread in Panchmahals after 27.02.2002 and the rioters had robbed the furniture and other articles from the plaintiff's hotel and residence and thereafter set his house and hotel on fire and thereby caused damages of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Talati-cum- Mantri and other Revenue Officials had reported much less loss than the actual loss caused to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/313/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

plaintiff, in their survey report?

3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, as per the certificates. record and evidence of the damages caused in communal riots, the compensatory relief has been paid to the plaintiff ?

4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the plaintiff's suit is barred by non-joinder of parties?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensatory amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the defendants ?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs as mentioned in the plaint ?

7. What order & decree ?"

6.2 Issue No.1 answered in partly affirmative along with Issue Nos.5 and 6. Issue No.2 answered in affirmative. Issue Nos.3 and 4 answered in negative.

6.3 Issue No.2 that whether plaintiff proves that the Talati- cum-Mantri and other revenue officers have reported much less loss than the actual loss caused to the plaintiffs and their survey report has been answered in affirmative by the learned trial Court assigning the following reasons.

"ISSUE No. 2: The plaintiff has admitted in his cross- examination of deposition of Ex.43 that the Mamlatdar has made report regarding the damages and shown that the plaintiff had suffered damages with Rs.5,500/-, but the same is not reliable because the Central Government has released relief to the affected persons in the riot, wherein the plaintiff has been grated wal compensation of Rs.30,000/-against the damages caused to him. Thus, & clearly shows that the Mamlatdar had made false report and the actual damages caused to the plaintiff had not been

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/313/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

shown, hence I answer the Issue No 2 as affirmative."

6.4 The learned Trial Court believed that the Talati-cum- Mantri and other revenue officers have reported less loss than the actual loss sustained by the plaintiff on the ground that the Central Government released the ex-gratia amount of Rs.30,000/- to the victim who suffered damage. Grant of ex gratia amount towards compensation cannot be equated to decide that the report prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri and other revenue officers is false. Perhaps learned Civil Court is confused by itself. Ex gratia is an amount generally decided by the State or Central Government to grant compensation to the persons who suffer due to some incident which, in the present case, is communal riot outbreak in area. It does not require to be granted on a specific and actual assessment of compensation. It is a case where Civil Court perhaps sit over the assessment of the Revenue Officers and granted the compensation. The findings of Issue No.1 mostly based on surmises, conjunctures and presumption. There is no evidence on record to assess the actual damaged caused to the plaintiff.

6.5 This Court, in State of Gujarat through District Collector vs. Idgah, Himmatnagar (supra), referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.3249 of 2016 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has accepted the scheme of ex gratia assistance and permitted the sufferers to approach the authority concerned within eight weeks was pleased to pass the order.

7. In the aforesaid premises, without proceeding further on merits, of the case, this Court finds that this is a fit case to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/313/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned trial Court remanding the matter to learned trial Court to decide afresh keeping in mind that the ex gratia amount has already been granted to the plaintiff. Necessary records of granting ex gratia amount to the plaintiff shall be placed by the State Government before the learned trial Court.

8. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Suit No.42 of 2006 is restored to the proceedings of the learned trial Court which shall be decided as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the receipt of this order. Registry is directed to send back the Records and Proceedings to the concerned trial Court forthwith.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MISHRA AMIT V.