^...^^&^ ^.:5i'?^-"' ^^^'<1/» \ .^^~ •^ '" ,^5^^\ b,^et" •vt' ,-,,....^w ~\^<.^^6' ,^^^" ^^s" ^^' ^^v ^'^•-" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^ %0 1 ^2010 Petitioner ^Amrik Chand Rajpal aged about 64 years, S/o Late Aayaram R/o Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, Raipur ^" ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.' The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry of Hoine Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2.' Union of Indian Through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi ^ 3. The Collecfor/ District Magistrate, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA fc^.. AP HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 2801 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Amrik Chand Rajpal. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate with Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No. 1 and3. Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. QRDER (ORAL) (Passed on 13th day of July, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P/5) whereby the petitioner has been denied the benefit ofthe circular dated 16 January, 2006, whereunder, the Union oflndia has provided that the ex'gratia payment for damage to the residential properties was increased 10 times to the amount originally paid, after deducting the amount already paid. 2. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 3777/2007, claiming for the same relief as sought for in this petition. This Court, having considered all the facts and submissions made by the parties, disposed of the petition vide order dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P/4) observing as under: "Accordmgly, this writ petition is disposed ofwith a direction that the con;cerned authorities of the State would dispose of the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Rehabilitation Package/ Policy/Circulars in this regard within a period of four months from the date ofpresentation ofthe certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of the paper book of this writ petition, treating the writ petition as the claim of the petitioner. Learned Govemment r < n^\ Advocate shall also be obllged to inform the same to the State authorities accordingly.55 Thus, the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of ex-gratia payment pursuant to the circular dated 16th January, 2006. Shri Kotecha further submits that indisputably, the petitioner was not granted any ex-gratia payment, though his property was seriously damaged on account ofriot on 02.11.1984. It is further submitted that despite the repeated requests, no amount of ex-gratia was paid to the petitioner. However, under the circular dated 16.01.20065 the petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia payment at the enhanced rate. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearmg for the respondent No. 1 and 3 and Shri Rajput, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, submit that the benefit of circular dated 16.01.2006 is granted to those persons who have already been paid some ex-gratia payment for damage to their residential property. The amount has been enhanced upto 10 times in case, where ex-gratia amount has already been paid, deducting the amount paid to the affected person earlier. Since the petitioner was not paid any amount as ex-gratia, ihus, the impugned order is just and proper and in accordance with the law. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not granted any ex-gratia payment for damage to his residential property. The circular dated 16.01.2006 under which the petitioner claims ^x-gr^^ payment at the enhanced rate, reads as under: "(iv) No new claims for grant of ex-gratia for death or injury would be entertained. Only those who received ex-gratia earlier should be eligible for the enhanced additional ex-gratia amount. However, if there are any pending or disputed cases which are awaiting decision for want of the necessary proof/evidence, such cases can be considered if they are finally accepted as genuine claims; (v) Ex-gratia for damaged residential properties would be paid @ 10 times the amount originally paid after deducting the amount already paid; " 6. Bare perusal ofthe above stated provisions, it is clear that enhanced ex- gratia payment would be granted to those who have been paid ex-gratia amount earlier as para (iv) starts with the word "no new claim for grant of ex-gratia for death or injury would be entertained". Further, in para (v), it is stated that Ex-gratia for damaged residential properties would be paid @ 10 times the amount originally paid after deducting the amount already paid. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that he was ever paid any ex-gratia payment for damage to his residential property, or his case is pending or disputed awaiting decision for want ofnecessary proof/evidence. 7. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he has made several applications for grant of ex-gratia payment, the petitioner has not taken recourse to any other forum, may be judicial forum for denial of the ex-gratia payment, if any, at the relevant time. The petitioner is seeking benefit of circular dated 16.01.2006 which is not applicable in the cases where no ex-gratia payment on account of damage to residential property has been made earlier. 8. In view ofthe foregomg, I am ofthe considered view that the impugned order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P/5) is just and proper, warrants no interference. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge