Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1473 - DELHI HIGH COURTAccomodation 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.
|