2022 (11) TMI 1473 - HC - Indian Laws

Accomodation for evacuatee from Pakistan - Gadgil Assurance Scheme - prove of refugee status - whether Late Shri Madan Lal was in occupation of the site before August 1950 as per the criteria under Category-A of the Scheme - HELD THAT - In the facts of this case since the Respondents herein have not been able to conclusively prove the refugee status of Late Shri Madan Lal and the factum of squatting at the said site they cannot claim to have a right under the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has in fact cast a reverse burden on the DDA to show how the Respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Scheme while the burden is on the Respondents to demonstrate that they are entitled to the benefit that has been given to the persons falling in Category A. Furthermore the DDA was benevolent enough to give a plot to the father-in-law of the Respondent No. 1 i.e Late Shri Ram Dass under Category-A of the Scheme previously as well - there exists nothing on record to indicate conclusively that Madan Lal had been residing on the site prior to 1950. The suggestion that Madan Lal ought to be granted the benefit under Category-B does not establish any right to claim benefit under Category-A as suggested by the Ld. Single Judge and is simply a benevolent act of the DDA. In any event DDA in terms of the materials available before it which are uncontroverted documents has given the benefit of the Scheme to Madan Lal under Category B. The principle of preponderance of probabilities cannot be evoked in this case enabling the ancestors of Ram Dass to a plot under Category A. By applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities the learned Single Judge has actually reversed the burden of proof on the DDA to establish that Madan Lal was not entitled to the benefit of Category A. It is evident that the questions before the Ld. Single Judge were hotly disputed questions of fact best adjudged before a civil forum. Furthermore the Respondents do not have a right to be given the benefit under category A as the Scheme is a largesse of our welfare State. Hence the Impugned Judgment ought not to conclusively decide the rights of the Respondents. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme.
2. Evaluation of documentary evidence.
3. Appropriateness of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Burden of proof regarding eligibility for benefits under the Scheme.
5. Discrepancies in hutment numbers and their impact on eligibility.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme:

The Gadgil Assurance Scheme was designed to rehabilitate displaced persons by providing them with alternate houses or plots in the same area where they had been squatting. The Scheme categorized beneficiaries based on their occupation date of the land:
- Category A: Occupied before 15th August 1950.
- Category B: Occupied between 1950 and 1960.
- Category C: Occupied between 1960 and 1980.

The Respondent No. 1's husband, Late Shri Madan Lal, applied for a plot under Category A, claiming occupation before 1950. However, the DDA placed him in Category B, citing insufficient proof of pre-1950 occupation.

2. Evaluation of Documentary Evidence:

The documents required to benefit from the Scheme included a refugee registration certificate, old ration card of 1950, voter list of 1951, and other proofs of residence. The Director (Lands) of the DDA rejected the claim due to:
- Illegibility and discrepancy in ration card numbers.
- Absence of the respondent's husband's name in the relevant voter list.
- Lack of conclusive proof of pre-1950 occupation.
- Previous benefit already granted to the respondent's father-in-law, Late Shri Ram Dass.

The Ld. Single Judge found the ration card issued in 1950 to be legible and reliable, and ruled that discrepancies in hutment numbers did not affect the respondent's claim. The Judge also noted that Late Shri Madan Lal had been paying damages since 1952, indicating occupation.

3. Appropriateness of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The court observed that the Ld. Single Judge adjudicated on disputed questions of fact, which should have been resolved in a civil suit. The Supreme Court has held that High Courts should not convert their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 into that of a civil court, especially when alternative remedies exist.

4. Burden of Proof Regarding Eligibility for Benefits under the Scheme:

The court noted that the burden of proof was on the respondent to demonstrate eligibility under Category A. The Ld. Single Judge, however, applied the standard of 'preponderance of probabilities,' which effectively shifted the burden to the DDA to disprove the respondent's claim. This was deemed inappropriate by the appellate court.

5. Discrepancies in Hutment Numbers and Their Impact on Eligibility:

The discrepancy in hutment numbers (T-5335 vs. T-5335/2) was critical in determining whether Late Shri Madan Lal had an independent claim. The appellate court found that this discrepancy was determinative in establishing the factum of Madan Lal's independent occupation and his separate claim under the Scheme. The court held that the Ld. Single Judge should have remanded the matter back for detailed evidence to be presented in a civil suit.

Conclusion:

The appellate court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the issues involved were hotly disputed questions of fact, best adjudicated before a civil forum. The court held that the respondents did not have a right to the benefit under Category A of the Scheme, as it was a state largesse with specific criteria. The judgment of the Ld. Single Judge was set aside, and the matter was directed to be resolved through appropriate civil proceedings.