W.P. (C) No. 6313/2007 Page 1 8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6313/2007 Date of decision: 4th August, 2009 MANJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Rina Sarkar, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sanjay Katyal & Mr. Ram Gupta, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate for respondent-GNCTD. Ms. Usha Saxena, Advocate for Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for respondent No. 4-Slum and JJ Department, MCD. 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. Manjeet Singh, claims that he is a 1984 riot victim and is entitled to compensation of Rs.60,000/- on account of damage caused to his accommodation and household articles in the village Johripur. 2. Government of NCT of Delhi in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioner had made an application for allotment of accommodation as a 1984 riot victim in the year 2004. The said W.P. (C) No. 6313/2007 Page 2 application was considered but was rejected as scheme for allotment of alternative accommodation was not in operation at that belated stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a complaint to the police on 12th November, 1984 and had obtained a letter from the village Pradhan dated 31st May, 1986. She further states that one Mr. Dula Singh, who was residing in the same property was allotted a house in Madipur in 1994. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that Mr. Dula Singh is the father of the petitioner and he was allotted a house as a 1984 riot victim in 1994. The petitioner apparently had not taken any steps from 1984 till 2004, when he made a request for accommodation and compensation. The time gap between 1984 till 2004 is 20 years. It is not possible to verify the facts and the allegation that the petitioner had suffered loss/damage in 1984. The father of the petitioner admittedly received compensation and was also given an alternative accommodation in 1994 and the petitioner was aware of the said fact. It is not understandable why the petitioner did not, at least in 1994, stake his claim and had kept quiet till 2004. The petitioner is certainly entitled to compensation if he is a 1984 riot victim but the question in the present case is whether he was a 1984 victim or not and whether the said claim is genuine. I may note here that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that Mr. Dula Singh is his father in the writ petition. The petitioner claims W.P. (C) No. 6313/2007 Page 3 that he was a tenant in the same building but in a separate portion where his father was residing as a tenant in 1984. No document or proof independent tenancy has been filed. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not think any relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage in view of the time gap and delay of 20 years. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 04, 2009 VKR