MP High Court slams collector, quashes Rs 7.2 lakh recovery from 1984 riots victim widow

The court, however, said the woman had disclosed the Rs 5,000 interim relief and Rs 40,000 ex gratia payment received earlier.

“The conduct of the Collector, Sehore in ordering the recovery of compensation from the petitioner, a 1984 riot victim and a widow, demonstrates a glaring lack of due diligence, empathy and proper application of mind. The petitioner had explicitly disclosed her prior receipt of interim relief and ex-gratia payments in her claim application, leaving no basis for the accusation of concealment or illegal receipt of funds,” the September 10 order read.

“By treating ex gratia relief, a voluntary grant of immediate assistance, as a bar to statutory compensation and by initiating coercive recovery proceedings through the Tehsildar without investigating the petitioner’s candid disclosures, the Authority exercised jurisdiction improperly, subjecting the petitioner to unwarranted legal distress,” it added.

Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar said ex gratia was a voluntary grant to provide immediate relief, while compensation represented an obligation based on the loss assessed.

The case arose from the compensation process for property loss during the 1984 riots. The petitioner’s husband had suffered loss of property during the violence. On May 9, 2013, she approached the collector seeking compensation. Her application specifically disclosed the earlier amounts she had received. The collector later approved a compensation of Rs 7,23,800. The state government allotted the amount in December 2013.

‘Disclosed earlier payments’

A key issue before the high court was whether the woman had concealed the earlier relief when she applied for compensation in 2013. It recorded that her application specifically stated receiving Rs 5,000 as interim relief from the Madhya Pradesh government and Rs 40,000 as compensation under a January 16, 2006, communication of the Government of India. The order said she deducted the Rs 50,000 already received while calculating the amount claimed and added 40 per cent interest.

The collector’s office also recorded that she had received Rs 5,000 as interim relief and Rs 45,000 from the Centre, and that the amount already received had been deducted from the claim. The state government then allotted Rs 7,23,800 through a letter dated December 7, 2013, and the compensation was paid to her.

The issue resurfaced in 2014. On September 1 that year, the collector issued a notice alleging that the woman had concealed receiving the compensation while submitting her May 9, 2013, claim. She replied to the notice and pointed out that the earlier payment had already been disclosed.

However, the additional collector issued the recovery certificate on September 18, 2014. The tehsildar then initiated recovery proceedings. The collector also sent a reference to the principal secretary, Department of Home, proposing recovery against the woman and departmental action against officials.

Distinction between relief, compensation

The high court examined the nature of the earlier payment made to the woman under the rehabilitation package for the 1984 riot victims. It noted that the Centre had issued directions on January 16, 2006, for ex gratia and other assistance to the victims. The directions covered assistance for damaged residential properties as well as uninsured commercial and industrial properties. The claims were to be verified and scrutinised by the local administration.

The court also referred to an earlier direction that people who had suffered loss of movable or immovable property during the riots could approach the collector who would assess the loss and award compensation.

Justice Kalgaonkar held that the earlier ex gratia payment did not automatically bar such a claim. The court said ex gratia assistance was a voluntary grant to provide immediate relief, while compensation represented an obligation based on the loss assessed. It noted that the January 16, 2006 communication did not say that the ex gratia payment would amount to full and final settlement or prevent victims from seeking further compensation.

The court, hence, held that accepting an ex gratia payment did not, by itself, prevent a victim from later seeking compensation for quantified property loss.

It said that the allegation of concealment was not supported by the records and was “factually incorrect”, and added that the recovery certificate had been issued without verifying the facts.

The judge said the authorities dealt with the sensitive matter in a cursory manner and found the proceedings erroneous, improper and illegal. It quashed the September 18, 2014, recovery certificate and all consequential proceedings.

“Considering the patently erroneous, arbitrary and illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Collector, Sehore, which subjected the petitioner, a widow and a victim of the 1984 riots, to prolonged, unwarranted litigation, this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, finds it just and equitable to grant monetary compensation for the expenses, mental agony, distress and harassment caused to her,” it said.

The high court directed the state to pay the woman Rs 50,000 as costs and compensation for the mental agony, distress and harassment caused by the administrative action.