WP(C) 4172/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Deb Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S orem, learned State counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, by the present petition, have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the enhanced amount of compensation pursuant to the decision taken by the authority for payment of the compensation at Rs. 50 ,000/- per family under the scheme for rehabilitation of the families who claim to be the victims of the ethnic violence between the Bodo and the Adivasi people in the district of Kokrajhar. Mr. Deb Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pur suant to the earlier decision of the Govt. for payment of Rs. 10,000/- as rehabi litation and relief grant the said amount has been paid to the members of the pe titioners association pursuant to the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in WP(C) 299 1/2006. It is contended by the learned counsel that thereafter as the Govt. of A ssam has taken the decision for upward revision of such grant from Rs. 10,000/- to 50,000/-, the same is payable to the present petitioners who are still in the relief camp and to whom earlier compensation of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. Mr. Soren, learned State counsel for the respondents referring to the av erments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 has su bmitted that there was a proposal for enhancement of the amount of rehabilitatio n and relief grant from Rs. 10,000/- to 50,000/- but the Govt. has not accepted such proposal and presently also the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is only paid as comp ensation and not Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by the petitioners. In reply to such submission, Mr. Deb Nath referring to the information furnished by the Deputy Commission, Kokrajhar (Annexure 15 to the additional affidavit fi led by the petitioners on 12.10.2010) has submitted that the Govt. has already g ranted sanction for payment of ex-gratia grant at Rs. 50,000/ to the effected fa milies and as such the contention of the respondent No. 4 in his affidavit is no t correct. It appears from the aforesaid position that while the petitioners are cl aiming that the Govt. of Assam has decided to revise the grant payable from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-, the said position has been disputed by the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit-in-position filed. In the communication dated 29.7.2010 i ssued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar, which is annexed as Annexure 15 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, it has been mentioned that th e Govt. of Assam has sanctioned payment for rehabilitation grant of Rs. 50, 000/ - per family. The dispute is relating to - whether there is enhancement of the a mount of grant from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and whether the members of the petitioner’s association are entitled to the enhanced amount of the grant, if an y, which dispute in view of the stand taken by the respondent No. 4 and contradi cted by the Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar in the aforesaid communication dated 29.7.2010, cannot be resolved in this present proceeding unless it is first asce rtained relating to such enhancement and entitlement. In view of the above, I am of the view that instead of keeping the matte r pending before this Court, it would be appropriate to pass the order directing the respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue an d Disaster Management Department to verify as to whether the Govt. of Assam has enhanced the amount of grant payable to the effected families from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and whether the members of the petitioners society are entitled to the same. While doing so the claim of the petitioners that its members have b een paid Rs. 10,000/- as grant pursuant to the order dated 22.1.2007 passed in W P(C) 2991/2006 shall also be taken into consideration. The said exercise is dire cted to be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receip t of the certified copy of this order passed today by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department to be submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.