Surjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

Ritu Bahri, J.—Petitioner Surjit Kaur is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and other benefits which has not been paid till date.

On 01.03.1992, militants killed four persons namely Joga Singh, Surinder Kaur, Teja Singh and Barkha Ram. Teja Singh was husband of the petitioner. An information regarding killing of above said persons was given by Kuldeep Chand to Darshan Singh ASI, Police Post, Chintawala. FIR No. 8 dated 01.07.1992 u/s 302 read with Section 341 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of TADA Act was registered at P.S. Sadar, Nabha (P-1) and post mortem was conducted in the hospital. During investigation of the case, accused Baldev Sigh and Balwant Singh were apprehended. However, they were acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence, vide judgment dated 05.04.1997 (P-3). The death certificate of the petitioner issued by the Registrar is Annexure P-4. The petitioner submitted an application dated 23.06.1997 that her husband was murdered by terrorist on the morning of 01.03.1992 along with other three persons and she submitted that Government has granted compensation to other persons but the petitioner has not been provided any financial help by the Government. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various reminders regarding grant of compensation to the petitioner on account of death of her husband but no action has been taken. Petitioner has made reference to the judgment of Delhi High court passed in CWP No. 1429 of 1996, decided on 05.07.1996 whereby it was directed that widows and families of the victims who lost their lives in 1984 riot, be paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation. This High Court in CWP No. 6129 of 1996, decided on 06.04.1998 followed the judgment of Delhi High Court and awarded an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the families of the riot victims who lost their lives in 1984.

On notice, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating therein that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as per letter dated 18.09.1992 in which it has been submitted that Teja Singh (husband of the petitioner) had a land dispute with Sewa Singh. Kulwant Singh settled the matter of killing of Teja Singh with Baldev Singh to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The other victims of the incident namely Barkha Ram, Jora Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur were killed to hid the killing of Teja Singh (R-2). DSP CID Patiala vide letter dated 04.11.1992 again conveyed that Teja Singh and Sewa Singh had a land dispute. Sewa Singh''s son Kulwant Singh made the deal with terrorists to kill Teja Singh for Rs. 50,000/-. During investigation, Kulwant Singh was arrested and he confessed the crime (R-3). S.S.P. Patiala vide letter dated 24.03.1993 has reported the reason of killing of Teja Singh that there was a land dispute between the two brothers as a result of which Kulwant Singh s/o Sewa Singh and brother of Teja singh hired a terrorists group who killed Teja Singh (R-4). Vide Annexure R-5 Director cum Addl. Secy. Punjab Govt. Relief and Resettlement Punjab Chandigarh clarified that this is not a terrorist incident and this incident was occurred due to personal enmity. Financial help cannot be given to the petitioner and under the Punjab Government letter dated 24.4.1986, only terrorist effected person are eligible for financial help.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed replication to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and has referred to order dated 07.12.1992 (P-10) awarding the compensation to the family members of other three persons who were killed by the terrorist along with the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner had been deprived on account on the fact that the three persons who were killed had no concern with the terrorist. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no documentary proof to suggest that Teja Singh had any dispute pending with Sewa Singh and once compensation has been given to other three persons who were killed with the husband of the petitioner, treating it to be case of terrorist violations, the petitioner is also eligible for compensation. Further wife of Joga Singh and Barkha Ram were given subsistence allowance of Rs. 1500 per month w.e.f. December 1992 as per Government instructions dated 30.09.1992 (P-11).

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record the identity card (A-1) of the petitioner which shows that she is 71 years of age as on 01.01.2006.

Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit dated 11/16.10.2012 and placed on record instructions dated 26.05.1992 and 30.09.1992 as A-1 and A-2 and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the clause "victim of terrorist" as her husband was murdered due to personal enmity.

Another affidavit dated 03.01.2013 has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and placed on record letter dated 08.08.1997 as A-4 whereby the case of the petitioner was held to be not covered by the instructions of the Punjab Government and her application was ordered to be filed.

The case of the respondents is that once the information had been given to the petitioner on 08.08.1997 that her case was not covered by the instructions of the Punjab Government and further the writ petition filed on the same purpose in the year 2002 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as it has been filed after a gap of 15 years.

In the present case, the factual position has not been disputed that on 01.03.1992, 4 persons were killed by a group of terrorists. With regard to three persons, compensation has been granted vide Government instructions dated 26.09.1992.

The case of the petitioner has to be examined that whether on a confessional statement made by one of the terrorist, the claim of the petitioner can be rejected on the ground that there was a land dispute between the two brothers and thus the husband of the petitioner had been murdered on account of personal enmity.

The stand of the petitioner is that there is no documentary proof with the respondents to show that there was any land dispute between the two brothers which was so strong that compelled Sewa Singh to hire terrorist to kill his brother. The incident took place when there was terrorist violations going on in the State of Punjab. The present incident had been duly reported in various newspapers as terrorist violation case. By treating it to be case of terrorist violence, the State has given compensation to three persons and left the petitioner on the ground that he was murdered due to personal enmity. The State has to accept that all the 4 persons had been murdered by terrorist. Once the State has treated these persons as terrorist, it is presumed that they were spreading violence in the State of Punjab. By segregating the case of the petitioner''s husband being a case of personal enmity even though the killers were terrorist would not be accurate interpretation of the government instructions dated 09.02.1987 (P-8) and dated 26.05.1992 and 30.09.1992 as A-1 and A-2 The reading of Annexure R-1 to R-5 shows that consistent stand of the respondents is that Teja Singh had been murdered due to personal enmity as there was land dispute between the brothers. His nephew got him murdered by paying the ransom amount to terrorist. However, the stand of the respondents is liable to be rejected as the ransom amount has been given to kill the husband of the petitioner only but the terrorist had killed three persons more and the Government treating this incident to be terrorist violence, had given compensation to the family members of other three persons. Further the terrorist had been acquitted by the Court below due to insufficiency of evidence. Thus the confessional statement made by one of the terrorist is not to be believed.

The petitioner is 71 years of age as on 01.01.2006 and now she must be 80 years of age. This Court is of the view that instead of giving her compensation per month, one time payment can be given to her compensate her for waiting for almost 21 years.

Keeping in view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted Rs. 10 lac compensation as full and final settlement, along with interest w.e.f. date of filing of this petition till the payment is made.