Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Khursheed Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9435 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHD. RIZWAN KHAN S/O ISHAQ KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O MAIN MARKET
NARSINGHGARH DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHAZAD GAURI S/O ABDUL SATTAR GAURI R/O
MAIN MARKET NARSINGHGARH DISTRICT
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMESH SURYAWANSHI S/O MANGILAL
SURYAWANSHI R/O SANJAY NAGAR
NARSINGHPGARH DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI IMTIAZ HUSAIN - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MOHD. SAJID
KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN,
MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK,
PARLIAMENT HOUSE NEW DELHI
3. THE COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE NARSINGHGARH
DISTRICT RAJGRH (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/16/2023
1:29:38 PM
2
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISRTRICT
RAJGRH (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER [POLICE]
NARSINGHGARH DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
WRIT PETITION No. 232 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
1. ABDUL KHURSHEED KHAN S/O SHRI ABDUL
RASHEED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 47
SHAHEED COLONY, BIORA DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KALLU KHAN S/O SHRI CHHANNU KHAN R/O
KHATI MOHALLA BIORA DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASHIQ MANSOORI S/O SHRI SHABBIR KHAN
MANSOORI R/O JAI PRAKASH MARG WARD NO.7
BIORA DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ALEEM KHAN S/O SHRI SHAMEEM KHAN R/O
SUTHOLIYA ROAD OPPOSITE BUNYADI SCHOOL,
BIORA, DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI IMTIAZ HUSAIN - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MOHD. SAJID
KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN,
MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK
PARLIAMENT HOUSE NEW DELHI
3. THE COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
RAJGARH DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/16/2023
1:29:38 PM
3
4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BIORA
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAJGARH
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER [POLICE] BIORA
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SETH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Since the facts and question of law that arise for consideration in both the cases are common, they are taken up for consideration together. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P.No.9435 of 2008 are taken into consideration.
2. This petition is filed in public interest. The plea of the petitioners is that in the city of Narsinghgarh riots took place in the year 2007, causing various losses of limb and property. There was no payment made by the State. In spite of making repeated requests, compensation or any other form of assistance was not made. Therefore, the instant petition was filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"a. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records from the respondents;
b. That case diaries of all the cases registered as a result of the 2.4.2007 riots of Narsinghgarh be summoned so as to assess the efforts and pains taken by the police administration to detect the criminals concerned;
c. That the preliminary report of the Revenue Officers referred to in Annexure P-1 be summoned and also other details of loss of property suffered by the riot-victims from the Revenue and police authorities.
d. That LIB and CID reports on the Hindu Sammellans held in December 2006 and January 2007 in the District Rajgarh be summoned for perusal of this Hon'ble Court;Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 2/16/2023 1:29:38 PM 4
e. That an independent CBI Enquiry be directed into the role of the Police and Revenue Officer before, during and after the riots and in case any of them is found guilty of latches and negligence in duty, they be directed to be prosecuted and also punished departmentally;
f. That the respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to pay compensation jointly and severally to the riot victims, whether they belong to any community, at par with the actual damage suffered by each of them; g. That the next of kin of the killed in the riot be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs and also employment in State service;
h. Costs of the petition be awarded; and i. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded."
3. In response whereof, the State have filed their return dated 22.05.2009 wherein they have stated in paras 5, 10 and 11 as follows:-
"5 . As to para 3: That the contents of this para are denied and disputed. It is not a genuine public interest litigation but it appears that it has been filed with some ulterior motive. The petitioners have used word compensation. Infact the State Government did not award compensation but the State Government has awarded ex- gratia payment as per the Government Policy in the case of damages caused in a communal riot.
It is admitted that there was a riot on 2/4/2007 but it is not accepted that damages to the movable and immovable property were to the tune of Rs.160,28,000/-. The petitioners have not filed any material or documents to prove this fact. Annex. P-1 has been issued by the S.D.O., Narsinghgarh, who is respondent No.3. The payment of Rs.26,75,000/- shown by the petitioner is also not acceptable. It is submitted that there is a circular by the Home Department under which ex-gratia payment is made in the case of damages in communal riot. Copy of the circular dated 26/07/2003 is filed herewith as Annexure R-1. The survey team was constituted and on the basis of report of survey team ex-gratia payment was made. Copy of survey report is filed herewith as Annexure R-2.
10. As to para 5.10 : That the contents of this para are denied. It has already been submitted that as per the Government Circular, a survey was done by the revenue officer and as per the survey report, Rs.26,75,000/- were sanctioned for ex-gratia for 110 riot affected persons. The statement of the petitioners that in the preliminary report, the assessment of damages to property in the Signature Not Verified riot was Rs.1,60,28,000/- is not correct. The petitioner has not filed Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 2/16/2023 1:29:38 PM 5 any document in support of his statement. It is also denied that the range of comepnsation was from Rs.5000-35000/-. It is submitted that no compensation is to be paid but it is ex-gratia which was paid as per the Government circular dated 26/7/2003 from Rs.500 to Rs.1 Lakh.
11. As to para 5.11 : That the contents of this para are denied. The list submitted by the petitioner Annex.P-14 is not based on any actual enquiry. The survey team has already submitted its report and the ex-gratia payment has been disbursed as per the report of the survey team. It is correct that the person indicated in Annex.P- 15 A had died in the Communal riot and, therefore, their family members have been paid ex-gratia to the tune of Rs.1 Lakh as per Government circular. The documents filed by the petitioners are not authentic and therefore they are denied. The ex-gratia has been paid to the persons who were found eligible as per survey report of survey team. On the basis of survey report, the Collector has passed the order granting sanction for payment. Copy of the orders passed by the Collector is filed herewith as Annexure R-3."
4. An additional return has also been filed on 11.01.2011 wherein they have stated in para 4 as follows :-
"4. That the answering respondents respectfully submit that there were total 67 cases were registered. Out of total 67 cases in 33 cases police had sent final report and in 34 cases the police has filed charge-sheet in the competent criminal courts. It is submitted that out of 34 cases, 29 cases have already been decided by the Courts and 5 cases are pending in the Courts. These facts are clear from a chart which is filed herewith as Annexure AR-1."
5. Therefore, the learned Deputy Advocate General submits that not only payment has been made to the affected persons but also 67 cases have been registered and out of 67 cases, 34 cases have been booked against people who are responsible for the riots. Charge sheets have been filed. 29 cases have already been decided by the Courts and 5 cases are pending in the Courts. Therefore, it is pleaded that plea of the petitioners has since been answered.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the order dated 24.01.2006 passed by this Court in Misc. Petition No.1045 of 1992, wherein various reliefs were granted to similarly placed persons who were victims in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 2/16/2023 1:29:38 PM 6 1984 riots. Therefore, he pleads that appropriate compensation or otherwise, be paid to the affected persons.
7. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for.
8. Even in the said order referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is stated therein that in case any person claims that he has suffered loss of property or otherwise, he can always make a prayer before the concerned Collector who will thereafter make assessment of the loss and award the compensation, in accordance with law. Therefore, we are of view that in case any one makes such a claim, the Collector would consider the same in accordance with law. So far as other reliefs are concerned, the amounts have already been released by the State to the affected persons. Criminal cases have been lodged against those persons who are responsible for such riots. Therefore, we are of the view that the plea of the petitioners has since been answered. In case, there is any other individual who is entitled to make the claim, he shall make the same before the concerned Collector who shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law.
9. Both these writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Signing time: 2/16/2023
1:29:38 PM