Gauhati High Court
Relief Families Welfare Service ... vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 16 July, 2015
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 5324 of 2012
1. Relief Families Welfare Service Society,
Office at Village Kachugaon,
P.O- & P.S-Kachugaon,
District- Kokrajahr, (BTC), Assam.
2. Rajendra Basumatary,
(President of the Society),
Son of late Pujaru Basumatary,
R/O Alokjhar, PO & PS-Gossaigaon,
District- Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam.
3. Nabiram Basumatary,
(Secretary of the Society),
Son of late Sawn Basumatary,
Village-Raikunbari, PO- Kachugaon,
PS- Kachugaon, District- Kokrajhar,
BTC, Assam.
....Petitioners
-vs-
1. The State of Assam, represented by Principal
Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Revenue & Disaster Management
Department (Relief & Rehabilitation Branch),
Dispur, Guwahati-6
2. The Joint Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management
Department, (Relief & Rehabilitation Brnach),
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar,
BTC, District- Kokrajhar, Assam.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)
Gossaigaon Gossaigaon Sub-Division,
District- Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam.
5. The Circle Officer,
Gossaigaon Revenue Circle,
District- Kokrajhar, BTC, Assam.
6. The Divisional Forest Officer,
Kachugaon Forest Division,
Gossaigaon, District- Kokrajhar,Assam.
7. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt.
of Assam, Finance Department ,
Dispur, Guwahati-6.
8. The Bodoland Territorial Council,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
BTC, Kokrajhar, Assam.
....Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
For the petitioners : Mr. M. Sarania. Advocate
Mr. S.U. Ahmed, Advocate.
Ms. R. Devi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. M. Khataniar, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Advocate
Date of hearing : 26.5.2015
Judgement Date : 16/07/2015
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Khataniar,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC,
appearing for respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8.
1. The Relief Families Welfare Service Society i.e. the Petitioner herein represents 6725 nos. of
families who are victims of ethnic violence resulting from clash between the trouble-shooting
factions of Bodos and Adibasis at Gossaigaon Sub-Division in the District of Kokrajhar, occurring in
the year 1998. The said violence was a fall-out of the mass movement spearheaded by the All Bodo
Students' Union for creation of a separate State of Bodoland, to be curved out from Assam, within
the framework of the Constitution of India. It is contended that violence occurred at the instigation
of certain persons with vested interests.
2. The year 1993 witnessed the first wave of ethnic violence, which spread like wild-fire,
followed by a second wave in the year 1996 and again in 1998. Families of the Petitioner Society
were the victims of the 1998 ethnic violence between Bodos and Adibasis, which rendered them
homeless with no food and shelter. They were taken in at different Relief and Rehabilitation Camps.
3. In the wake of the violence in the year 1996, the Government of Assam, as an immediate
measure, had announced Rehabilitation Grant @ Rs.10,000/- to each affected family but the same
only remained at the assurance stage. W.P.(C) 2991/2006 came to be filed by some members of the
Petitioner Society claiming payment of rehabilitation grant in respect of the affected families under
Gossaigaon Sub-division. Pursuant to direction of the Court for causing enquiry and doing the
needful, the Government of Assam in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department sanctioned
and paid Rehabilitation Grant @ Rs.10,000/- to each of the 7044 riot-affected families of 1996 and
1998, including the families of the Petitioner Society.
4. Meantime, steps were initiated to ascertain the actual loss suffered by the families on
account of damage of homestead, granary, animal etc. by the Revenue and Forest officials. As per
the Damage Assessment Reports, the loss was estimated between the range of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.
2,00,000/- per family.
5. By Notification dated 2.4.2007, the Government of Assam had constituted an Eight-Member
Committee with the Departmental Minister as the Chairperson to examine and recommend in the
matter of finding a permanent solution for the rehabilitation of the families affected during the
ethnic violence of 1993, 1996 and 1998. The said Committee recommended payment of Rs. 50,000/-
to each of the families dwelling in the Relief Camps and such recommendation was translated into
action by the Government of Assam with the sanction of necessary fund to cover 7951 families. In
pursuance thereof, money was paid to the inmates of two Camps i.e. Joypur Relief Camp and
Anthaibari Relief Camp within Kokrajhar District.
6. Although the affected families of the Petitioner Society had moved out of the Relief Camps
prior to receipt of the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10,000/-, fresh claims were made for the balance
amount of Rs.40,000/- in the wake of the enhanced Rehabilitation Grant. Representations not
having evoked any positive response, W.P(C) 4172/2010 was instituted by 6727 families through the
Petitioner Society. The said writ petition was closed on 7.1.2011 with direction to the concerned
State Respondent to ascertain whether Rehabilitation Grant had been enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.50,000/- and whether the members of the Petitioner Society are entitled to the same. The
exercise so indicated was directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of
the order.
7. The requisite exercise in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) 4172/2010 was undertaken,
culminating in the order dated 31.3.2011, which is assailed in the present proceedings. The relevant
part of the order dated 31.3.2011, issued under the hand of the Principal Secretary, Revenue &
Disaster Management Department, denying the claim of the Petitioner Society is extracted
hereunder:
"GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
RELIEF & REHABILITATION BRANCH
DISPUR::GUWAHATI
ORDER
Dated Dispur, the 31st March, 2011 ................................................................................
..............................................................
Phase-IV: Families who either had no patta land or were not resident of the recognized forest villages were included in this phase. These families required arrangement of land for rehabilitation.
However, suitable land for rehabilitating these families include in the 4th phase could not be arranged for which such families continued to live in different relief camps of erstwhile Kokrajhar District. Moreover, a few thousand families affected in 1993 ethnic violence who had no land to go back also continued to reside in relief camps of erstwhile Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon Districts. They have become recurrent liability of the Government of Assam since Gratuitous Relief in the form of food stuff, blankets, mosquito nets etc. are provided to them regularly besides providing basic camp amenities at the cost of public exchequer.
The petitioners at para-9 of the Writ Petition have contended that they left relief camps after "normalcy of situation" and as such obviously they were not eligible for inclusion in any of the phases since they were not residents of relief camps when the action plan was drawn. Some families who left camps on return of normalcy situation and whose names were not included in the action plan approached Hon'ble High Court in through 2 nos. of Writ petitions (1) W.P.(C)No.8786/ 2005, Anthai Brahma &7376 ors. -vs- the state of Assam (2) W.P.(C)No.2991/2006, Rajendra Basumatary & 7044 ors. -vs- the state of Assam etc., the petitioners in the present case.
The Hon'ble High Court in both the cases directed the Government of Assam to pay rehabilitation grant to the petitioners' families at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per family. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Government provided Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioner.
It is not a fact that the Government of Assam has taken any decision to enhance the rate of rehabilitation grant form Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per family. In spite of the best of efforts on the part of the State Government to rehabilitate the camp dwellers, suitable land could not be arranged for which the relief camps had been continued. The hard fact of continuation of the relief camps for 12 to 17 years has turned out to be a sore thumb for the Government of Assam. Apart from the recurrent financial involvement, the matter of continuation of the relief camps has become an issue in the domain of human rights. Different organizations approached National Human Rights Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. So, the Government had taken up a special scheme for rehabilitation of the families still living in relief camps in the form of payment of an one time "once for all" rehabilitation grant so that they are able to purchase land at any place of their choice. The amount fixed per family was Rs.50,000/-. The eligibility criterion as laid were to include (1) only those ethnic violence affected families who have been living in recognized relief camps in Kokrajhar, Chirang and Bongaigaon districts and (2) families who have been receiving G.R. as per admissible rates every month. The conditions precedent and subsequent to payment were (1) the recipients' families would execute an agreement and affidavit to vacate the campsite and not to stake any claim for relief in future(2) execute an indemnity Bond to indemnify Government (3) vacate the campsite forthwith.
The petitioners have been living in their own villages and have been leading normal lives. They do not stand on the same board as that of the camp dwellers who are leading a non-natural living for 12 to 17 years. The scheme applicable to relief camp inmates is not applicable to the families living in their own villages.
Under the circumstances, the claim of the petitioners claiming enhancement of R.G. from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,0000/- can not be accepted.
Sd/ (V. K. Pipersenia) Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Memo No. RR.95/2010/198-A, Dated Dispur, the 31st March/2011 "
As against the said order dated 31.3.2011, the Petitioner Society had appealed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Assam and Hon'ble Prime Minister of India by letter dated 30.11.2011 and 1.12.2011 respectively.
8. Challenge to the said order dated 31.3.2011 has been made on very many grounds. Firstly, although the Rehabilitation Grant of Rs.50,000/- was extended only to the affected families of Phase-IV Action Plan, i.e. those who had no patta land or were not residents of the recognized forest villages, however, such grant was also made available to persons having patta land and who were staying in the Relief Camps. As such, discrimination was alleged. Also, the members of the petitioner society having been more affected and having suffered considerable loss of property which has stood irreparable, are more entitled to the Rehabilitation Grant of Rs.50,000/-, less what they have already received. It is also argued that the ethnic violence that erupted was man made and due to failure of the State machinery to maintain law and order and to secure the life and property of the affected families. As such, it is contended that duty and obligation is cast upon the State Respondents to make good the loss on account of the economic loss suffered by the members of the Petitioner Society. The further ground of challenge is with regard to the vice of single-class classification, in that, persons similarly situated like the beneficiaries, as in the case of the members of the Petitioner Society, have been deprived of the enhanced Rehabilitation Grant of Rs.50,000/- just because they had left the Relief Camps by 2010.
9. On the basic grounds above, prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 31.3.2011 with direction to the State Respondents to provide/pay the balance enhanced rehabilitation grant amount of Rs.40,000/- to the 6725 riot- affected families of the Petitioner Society on the basis of the Loss and Damage Assessment Reports prepared by the Revenue and Forest officials.
10. In respect of the reliefs prayed for, Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following Apex Court judgments delineating the power of the Court under Article 226 to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus in the exercise of its jurisdiction in matters of policy decision and in respect of the concept of valid classification :
(i) (1986) 2 SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another -vs- K. S. Jagannathan and another)
(ii) (2012) 6 SCC 502 (Brij Mohan Lal -vs- Union of India and others )
(iii) (2013) 2 SCC 772 (Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu & ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu)
(iv) (2014) 5 SCC 252 (Mohd. Haroon and others -vs- Union of I India and another).
11. With regard to the provisions under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter alluded to as 2005 Act), Mr. Sarania refers to the definition of "disaster" under Section 2(d) to say that it means a catastrophe or grave occurrence in any area etc. arising from natural or man made causes which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage and destruction of properties. For ready reference Section 2(d) is extracted hereunder:
"2.Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a) *** *** *** (b) *** *** *** (c) *** *** *** (d) "disaster" means a catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising
from natural or man made causes, or by accident or negligence which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering or damage to, and destruction of, property, or damage to, or degradation of, environment, and is of such a nature or magnitude as to be beyond the coping capacity of the community of the affected area;"
12. Referring to Section 12 and clause (iii) thereof, it is urged that guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster requires recommendation of the National Disaster Management Authority established under Section 3(1) of the 2005 Act, which includes ex-gratia assistance for loss of life and damage to houses for restoration of means of livelihood. In so far as State Disaster Management Authority is concerned, so established under Section 14 (1) of the 2005 Act, it is urged that the State Authority is as well under the statutory obligation to lay down detailed guidelines for providing standards of relief of persons affected by disaster in the State, which on no count is to be less than the standards laid down by the National Authority. In so far as the fund required to provide relief to persons affected by disaster is concerned, Mr. Sarania, refers to Section 48 of the 2005 Act to say that various funds, namely, State Disaster Responsive Fund, District Disaster Responsive Fund, State Disaster Mitigation Fund and the District Disaster Mitigation Fund are available with the respective authorities.
13. In sum and substance, Mr. Sarania submits that families registered under the Petitioner Society, being persons who had suffered substantial loss and damage/destruction of their property on account of man made causes resulting from the ethnic violence of 1998, are legitimately entitled to compensation as per the Assessment Reports of loss carried out by the State officials.
14. Two affidavits filed by the State Respondents are in place. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition so filed, submits that a society called the " Society for Rehabilitation of Violence Affected Families Residing in the Relief Camps of Bongaigaon and erstwhile Kokrajhar Districts" was formed, which had prepared a 4- Phase Action Plan. Under it, the Government had decided to grant Rs.50,000/- per family to those who had no land of their own. The said amount was paid to each of the 6546 numbers of families residing in the Relief Camps, pursuant to which all the Relief Camps were closed in November, 2010. In so far as the families under the Petitioner Society is concerned, it is contended that they had been leading normal life and residing in their own home after normalcy prevailed and, as such, they are not entitled to the same benefits as extended to the camp dwellers who had no patta land of their own and were also not residents of recognised Forest Villages. Regarding the power of Court to issue Mandamus, in the fact and circumstances of this case, reliance is placed in the case of Census Commissioner and ors. -vs- R. Krishnamurthy, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 796.
15. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, relies upon the affidavit-in-opposition so filed. Mr. Bhuyan contends that indeed the families represented by the Petitioner Society are affected members of the ethnic violence of 1998 and accordingly they were paid Rs.10,000/- per family as Rehabilitation Grant. However, they cannot be said to have qualified for the enhanced amount of Rs.50,000/- per family since the said sanction was made only in respect of the affected families who continued to dwell in the Relief Camps. According to Mr. Bhuyan, payments were made solely on the basis of the government sanction by adhering to the government instructions issued from time to time. By making reference to paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in- opposition, Mr. Bhuyan submits that the enhancement of Rehabilitation Grant is a matter of Government policy and that no interference is called for in respect of the policy decision taken by the Government for extending the benefits of the enhanced Rehabilitation Grant in respect of persons falling under Phase-IV of the Action Plan.
16. Having noticed the facts and rival submissions above, let us first ascertain the status of the members of the petitioner-society. Without any dispute, they are the victims of the 1998 ethnic clash occurring in Gossaigaon Sub-Division and who are also recipients of the immediate grant of Rs.10,000/- each. They were the inmates of various relief camps under Gossaigaon Sub-Division, particularly, those opened at Saraibil, Habrubil M.E.School, Bairali, Dhowlabari, Sartyapur, Jaraguri, Juleswari, Bashbari, Gossaigaon Collegiate H. E. School, Failaguri, Mokrambil, Gurufela, Jaymagaon, Statfed Go-down, Gossaigaon H.S.School, Padmapukhuri, Mahendrapur and Padmabil respectively. In October, 1999 an assessment to damage to houses, cattle etc was carried out by the forest officials along with Sub-Divisional Officer, Gossaigaon indicating the loss well above Rs. 50,000/- per family. Even as per the detailed statement showing the camp-wise requirement of fund at Rs.50,000/- per family affected during the 1996 and 1998 ethnic violence under Gossaigaon Sub- Division, the above Relief Camps found mentioned in the Statement dated 9.7.2007 prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Gossaigaon. It thus appear that a comprehensive assessment of loss suffered by the affected families was made, including the families who took shelter in the aforesaid Relief Camps and who returned to their original villages prior to receiving the Rehabilitation Grant of Rs.10,000/- each.
17. Indeed, the members of the petitioner society received Rs.10,000/- each by way of Rehabilitation Grant pursuant to order of this Court in W.P.(C)2991/2006. Whether the said ex-gratia payment of Rs.10,000/- vis-à-vis the loss as assessed by the Govt. functionaries is in due compliance of the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster is an issue which calls for attention and adjudication.
18. Turning first to the order under challenge dated 31.3.2011, the same indicates that the Govt. of Assam had drawn up a 4-Phase Action Plan towards rehabilitation of 38,364 numbers of families who could not go back to their respective villages and stayed back in the Relief Camps at the relevant time. For each of the said family, a proposal was made to the Govt. of India for release of fund by way of Rehabilitation Grant @ Rs.10,000/- per family. The 4-Phase Action Plan was composed as:
"Phase-I: Families owning patta land or previously residing in the recognized forest villages who could go back without additional security arrangement were included in this phase.
Phase-II: Families owning patta land or previously residing in the recognized forest villages who could go back with some additional security arrangement were included in this phase.
Phase-III: Families owning patta land or previously residing in the recognized forest villages who could go back with additional separate security arrangement in each village or in cluster of 2/3 villages were included in this phase.
Phase-IV: Families who either had no patta land or were not resident of the recognized forest villages were included in this phase. These families required arrangement of land for rehabilitation."
19. The grant and eventual payment @Rs.50,000/- per family was restricted to those families falling under Phase-IV as a special scheme for rehabilitation. In the opinion of the Government, these are the families who turned out to be a recurrent liability of the Government requiring a special scheme to end the stalemate in order to close down the camp-sites once and for all. The sole purpose for grant of Rs.50,000/- per family, as apparent from the order under challenge dated 31.3.2011, was to enable such families to purchase land at any place of their choice. To reiterate, these are the families under Phase-IV who neither had any patta land nor were residents of recognized forest villages. In other words, these families did not have a village to go back to.
20. Steps for a permanent solution towards rehabilitation of camp dwellers after abatement of violence and/or after the risk, impact and effects of the disaster had considerably reduced, is a laudable effort if taken within the four corners of law. However, grant of money in the name of a special scheme for Phase-IV families to purchase land is a concept not provided under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The guidelines for minimum standards of relief under the said Act do not encompass special grant of relief to landless persons to purchase land. Reliefs can be had only to cover requirements relating to shelter, food, drinking water, medical, sanitation as well as for ex- gratia assistance on account of loss of life, damage to houses, restoration of means of livelihood and such other reliefs as may be necessary. The statute certainly does not cover relief and/or rehabilitation in the form of special grant for purchase of land. This action of the State Respondents do not find support of the law on disaster management.
21. Be that as it may, in the absence of any challenge posed, this Court is not inclined to interfere or question the action of the State Government in extending special benefits to the families falling under Phase-IV. The present petition is primarily on allegation of discrimination on the premises that the members of the petitioner-society have been denied equal treatment despite having suffered more setback than the beneficiaries in terms of damage to their houses, cattle, granary etc, as evidenced by the damage assessment Reports of the Government functionaries. The basic prayer is for a direction for rehabilitation grant to the petitioners at the enhanced rate on the basis of the loss and damage assessment report prepared and submitted by the Revenue and Forest officials. To that end, prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 31.3.2011.
22. Whether a writ in the nature of Mandamus can be issued in respect of the prayer made for enhanced Rehabilitation Grant in the facts and circumstances of the case ?
23. In Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another -vs- K. S. Jagannathan and another (supra) , the Apex Court have in no uncertain terms laid down as follows:
"There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."
24. With regard to matters of policy vis-à-vis the power of judicial review, the Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal -vs- Union of India and others (supra) held that in keeping with the constitutional duty of the State , the constitutional rights of citizens and having regard to the facts of the given case, the Court may be duty bound to amplify and extend the arm of justice. To extract paragraph 189 thereof, the Apex Court have laid down as follows:
"189. Keeping in view its constitutional duty, the constitutional rights of citizens of this country at large and with reference to the facts of a given case, this Court may be duty -bound to amplify and extend the arm of justice in accordance with the principle est boni judicis ampliare justiciam non- jurisdictionem. The argument that matters of policy are, as a rule, beyond the power of judicial review has to be dispelled in light of the consistent view of this Court. This Court would be required to take unto itself the task of issuing appropriate directions to ensure that the rule of law prevails and the constitutional goals are not defeated by inaction either when the law requires action or when the policy in question is so arbitrary that it defeats the larger public interest."
25. In the case of Khudiram Das -vs-State of West Bengal, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81, the Apex Court have unambiguously laid down that there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability. Judicial control is essential in order that power in the acts of an individual officer or authority is not misused or abuse or exercised arbitrarily or without any justifiable reason.
26. The Constitution of India permits a valid classification, however, with the caveat that such valid classification has to be based on a just objective and choice of differentiating one set of person from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.
27. Last but not the least, is the case of Mohd. Haroon and others -vs- Union of India and another (supra), which deals with the various rehabilitative and preventive measures adopted by the State Government in respect of Muzaffarnagar Riots of 2013. In the said case one of the rehabilitative measures adopted by the Central Government and the State Government, as noticed by the Apex Court, was with regard to one-time financial assistance made to the families not returning to their villages. In this connection it would be worthwhile to indicate that unlike the Phase-IV families, who neither had any patta land nor were residents of recognized villages nor had any village to go back to, the families indicated in the reported case who were granted one-time financial assistance were the families who refused to return to their native village even after confidence-building measures and serious persuasion. These families were granted lum-sum amount towards resettlement and rehabilitation. It is not a case that such families who were displaced due to the Muzaffarnagar Riots had been granted lum-sum amount to purchase land at any place of their choice. In the said case of Mohd. Haroon and others -vs- Union of India and another, the Apex Court have also held that since the State has failed in protecting such serious violation of fundamental rights, the State is bound to provide compensation towards rehabilitation. Direction was also made to make compensation for the damage caused to movable /immovable properties of the persons concerned due to violence.
28. In the instant case and as indicated above, due assessment with regard to loss and damage suffered by the members of the petitioner-society had been made by both the forest and revenue officials. The said assessments were made on account of damage to houses, cattle, etc. quantified well above Rs.50,000/- per family. The loss suffered on account of destruction of property and/or damage to house etc. arising from man made causes has to be duly compensated, which is recognized under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. In that view of the matter the order under challenge dated 31.3.2011, rejecting the claim of the petitioner society solely on the ground that the members of the petitioner-society had returned to their own villages and have been leading normal lives, do not find the support of law. The members of the petitioner-society are legitimately entitled to be compensated on account of damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood on the basis of the loss and damage assessment reports.
29. The order under challenge dated 31.3.2011 stands interfered with to the extent as indicated above, in that, deprivation of relief towards damage caused to movable /immovable properties of the members of the petitioner-society is an arbitrary action on the part of the State Respondents.
30. The writ petition stands allowed with direction to the State Respondents to make compensation for the damage caused to movable /immovable properties of the members of the petitioner society on the basis of the Assessment Reports prepared by the Forest and Revenue Officials. While ascertaining the quantum of compensation payable, it would be at the discretion of the State Respondents to limit the amount to a maximum of Rs.50,000/- per family less the amount already received by way of immediate grant. Necessary action for taking effective steps towards compliance of the direction above be taken by the State Respondents within a period of 4 (four) months from today.
31. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed and the parties are made to bear their own costs.