THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No.13391 of 2003 Between:
1. K. Venkata Swamy, and others.
PETITIONERS AND
1. The Collector and District Magistrate, Adilabad, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for GAD.
2. The petitioners pray for Mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to award compensation to the damages caused to their movable properties in the incident occurred on 9.07.1998 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.235, General Administration (SC-A) Department, dated 7.06.1997. Petitioners pray for setting aside the proceeding No.D3/169/2002, dated 26.10.2002, sanctioning ex-gratia of Rs.20,000/- to all the petitioners, as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 7.06.1997.
3. The admitted circumstances of the case are that in the incident that occurred on 9.07.1998, the petitioners are sufferers and have lost their movable and immovable properties. By issuing G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 7.06.1997, the Government provided for paying compensation in situations where citizens suffer loss to movable and immovable properties due to the extremist activities. The relevant portion of the G.O reads as follows:
(ii) (a) From Rs.1.50 lakhs to Rs.2.00 lakhs to the next of the kin of Sarpanches, M.P.T.C. Members, Chairpersons Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, Ward Members of the Municipal Crporations and Committees.
(b) From Rs.2.00 lakhs to Rs.3.00 lakhs to the next of the kin of Mandal Presidents, Z.P.T.C.Members, Chairpersons of Zilla Parishads, District Cooperative Central Banks/District Cooperative Marketing Societies, Municipal Corporations and Municipal Committees.
(iii) Relief towards damages to properties – actual amount of damages as assessed by the Evaluation Committee without any ceiling.
4. On 11.07.1998 a panchanama was conducted tentatively recording the loss suffered by the petitioners to movable as well as immovable properties. Upon the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were paid compensation for the damage caused to the immovable properties. The subject matter of the writ petition is against the grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/- only to movable properties instead of the amount claimed by the petitioners.
5. The case of the petitioners is that in so far as movable properties are concerned, there is no evaluation, and admittedly, the respondents by referring to Memo No.38/SC-A(A1)98-14, dated 24.10.1998, which has come into effect from 24.10.1998, have restricted the grant of compensation to Rs.5000/- to each one of the petitioners instead of actual compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioners. The grievance in this behalf is that the Memo dated 24.10.1998 cannot have retrospective application. Secondly the requirement under G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 7.06.1997 is consideration of loss by the Evaluation Committee and payment of compensation as per the report of the Committee. In the case on hand, there is no Committee report and payment of Rs.5000/- to each one of the petitioners, is unsustainable in fact and law.
6. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. By way of reply, it is stated that the earliest report in this behalf is panchanama dated 11.07.1998. After consideration of the panchanama, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial forwarded report dated 18.07.1998 to the District Collector. Finally according to the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, at the fist instance, the compensation amounting to a sum of Rs.8,16,398/- towards loss of immovable properties was paid and the case of the petitioners for grant of compensation towards loss of movable properties was considered. Through proceedings dated 7.08.2002 a decision was taken to pay Rs.5000/- to each one of the petitioners. It is stated that the compensation has been paid strictly in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 7.06.1997 and Review Memo dated 24.10.1998. When this amount was offered, the petitioners have declined to receive the ex-gratia. The petitioners have been pursuing the claim for grant of compensation towards loss of movable properties without merit.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have substantially reiterated the contentions urged in the pleadings.
8. The issue for consideration is whether the decision of the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards loss of movable property to each one of the petitioners is justifiable or that the petitioners are entitled for more compensation towards loss of movable properties in the incident occurred on 9.07.1998.
9. On receipt of information of the incident, the earliest document available was panchanama dated 11.07.1998. The panchanama refers to loss of immovable as well as movable properties. The loss tentatively arrived at in the panchanama was Rs.9,34,030/-. As against the said total estimated loss, admittedly a sum of Rs.8,16,398/- was paid towards loss of immovable properties. The loss of movable properties is covered by destruction of food grains, cereals, cement, electric motor etc. This was again a statement made before the officer at the time of recording the panchanama. Loss can be inferred if the petitioners are in a position to satisfactorily show the evidence of items in the house as on the date of 9.07.1998, its value and how the same is required to be fully compensated by the Government. The petitioners have received the compensation towards loss of immovable properties. The petitioners have also not given further details in support of their claim for grant of various sums now claimed through the writ petition. In a situation like this, the respondents will have to use experience and also have a look at the relevant circumstances and arrive at a figure. Had it been a case where the petitioners were in a position to establish the actual loss of movable properties amounting at Rs.16,00,000/- and odd, the respondents are certainly under obligation to subject the claim to Evaluation Committee and receive its report and take further decision in the matter.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the loss suffered by the petitioners both for movable and immovable properties has been fairly and properly dealt with, appropriate compensation has been paid. This Court is unable to examine the prayer of the petitioners, as they are unable to prima facie establish that the loss suffered by them is as claimed through their representations.
11. It is needless to observe that while this court is not granting relief to the petitioners, it is required to be noted that the petitioners are entitled to the amount determined by the 1st respondent. The petitioners are given liberty to approach the 1st respondent for receiving the amounts sanctioned towards loss of movable properties. Immediately on such representation being filed by the petitioners, the 1st respondent shall release the amount forthwith.
12. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
S.V. BHATT, J.
16th December, 2014 Js.