Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 288 (JK)

Kamal Goria v. Union Of India

2002-09-06

S.K.GUPTA, T.S.DOABIA

body2002
1. The Union of India as also the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been reminded that the plight of those who are suffering at the hands of militants in the districts of Poonch, Rajouri, Doda, Udhampuror Jammu province requires to be dealt with by the same parameters as are being applied to other persons who have been described as migrants from Kashmir Valley. This is the sum and substance of the plea put across in this Public Interest Litigation. The difficulties, the hardship and the resultant consequences to which a person is exposed when he happens to fall prey to the inhuman activities of the mercenaries and terrorists are the same. Those who are left behind to fend for themselves, when properties are looted, men, women and children are molested, then the damage which is caused is the same irrespective of a region to which a particular person belongs. 2. In para 3 of the petition, it is submitted that the persons living in the remote areas of Rajouri, Poonch and Doda District have been forced to leave their home and hearth from villages such as Tusi Bana, Prankote, Dhakikot, Chamma Kakeri, Niroler, Balmatkot, Marmat Kote, Gotta, Chassana, Sungri, Dharmartha, Dharmari, Pattian, Therakote, Matha, Budal, Mora, Dheraj, Ladhkoti, Kotranka, Khausa, Badia, Udhan, KhourBani, Kote Charwal, Mian Patti, Sakeri, Naria, Bambir, Multa, Sawari, Peeri Kha Jammolla, Tata Pani, Bro, Chowdhrinar, Kalakote, Patrade, Gammir and Peedi. It is submitted that about 100 families have migrated from Surankote and about 500 families have migrated from Doda District. It is submitted that these families were residing at places which were not easily accessible and they were falling prey to the acts of terrorism. According to them, they are required to be treated at par with the migrants of Kashmir Valley. Such is the plea urged in para 5 of the petition. It is submitted that they have been approaching the district administration but to no effect. It is submitted that some of these families are staying in school buildings. Para 8 of the petition makes mention of this fact. 3. On 31st July 2000, the State as well as the Union of India was represented. A last opportunity was given to prefer objections. As a matter of fact, for almost three years, none of the respondents have taken any step with a view to file any counter affidavit. 4. Para 8 of the petition makes mention of this fact. 3. On 31st July 2000, the State as well as the Union of India was represented. A last opportunity was given to prefer objections. As a matter of fact, for almost three years, none of the respondents have taken any step with a view to file any counter affidavit. 4. As noticed above, the only issue which we are called upon to deliberate in this Public Interest Litigation is as to whether those who have migrated from the areas which have been adversely affected by the militancy in the district of Rajouri, Poonch, Doda, Udhampur and from remote areas of Jammu Province are to be treated as par with other migrants. 5. The human pain and sufferings remain the same, when a bullet hits, the consequences are the same irrespective of the fact from where a particular person hails. The consequences which ensue and the sufferings which are to be faced by the families of those who die in militant related violence are also same, Normally newspaper reports are not taken note of by the Courts. However, the fact remains that the worst affected areas on account of militancy are the remote areas of the district of Poonch, Rajouri, Udhampur and Doda. Some of these areas in these districts not accessible by road. Militancy related violence is sometimes reported on the next day. By that time, the perpetuators of crime disappear and go beyond the reach of law. It is these factors which have forced these persons to migrate, They as indicated above, have been forced to leave their home and hearth. The means adopted by certain militant outfits to sniffle the life out of the human system are those which were adopted in that part of the history which was known for extreme atrocities. It is not the purpose of this judgement to go into the details, suffice is to say that there is absolutely no distinction between a person who has migrated from the above said areas and the persons who have migrated from the Valley or any other area. It is not the purpose of this judgement to go into the details, suffice is to say that there is absolutely no distinction between a person who has migrated from the above said areas and the persons who have migrated from the Valley or any other area. We accordingly direct the State of Jammu and Kashmir and also the Union of India to extend the benefit of the policy meant for the migrants from Kashmir Valley to all the migrants who have migrated from the places referred to in this petition or from any remote areas of Jammu Province. It would wholly be unreasonable to frame a scheme for the persons who have migrated from a particular area and not for the migrants of other areas, who as indicated above have also been made to suffer on account of the terrorists acts. The benefits which have been conferred upon the migrants from Kashmir Valley would also be conferred upon the migrants from other areas of the State who have also been forced to leave their home and hearth. The grievances of the displaced persons who came from Pak occupied Kashmir have been dealt with by this Court in PIL 684/2001 decided on 2nd August 2002. There appears to be no difference between the displaced persons who came from Pak Occupied Kashmir and those who have migrated from the valley or from other militancy affected areas. So far as migrants are concerned, they can at least visit their place of birth and have a hope to go back. So far as displaced persons from Pak occupied Kashmir are concerned, they have absolutely no chance to go back to their places of birth. The only difference between the two categories is that the displaced persons from Pak occupied Kashmir migrated in 1947 and they have no hope to go back whereas in the case of migrants from the Valley, they were forced by the circumstances to leave their place of birth 40 years later. The only difference between the two categories is that the displaced persons from Pak occupied Kashmir migrated in 1947 and they have no hope to go back whereas in the case of migrants from the Valley, they were forced by the circumstances to leave their place of birth 40 years later. Otherwise, as indicated above, there is no material difference between the two categories, and therefore, in the matter of giving compensation or other facilities, a uniform policy should be applied to all the categories just as the Provisions of Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act of 1954 was made applicable to all displaced persons whether they settled in Punjab or in the erstwhile State of Bombay, which included Gujarat also and also in some cases in Rajasthan. So far as present litigation is concerned, we are definitely of the view that the migrants from all the militancy affected areas are entitled to the same benefits as have been given to the migrants from Kashmir Valley. The Policy which has been framed by the Union of India for these migrants would be made applicable to all the migrants irrespective of the region from where they have migrated. Let the benefits be released in favour of these migrants within a period of one month from the date, a copy of this order is made available to the concerned authorities by the petitioners. The registry would also sent a copy of this order to the respondents, 7. Disposed of accordingly.