Judgment BINOD KUMAR ROY, C.J. 1. The soli tary question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the Government could deny payment of compensation in relation to parents who were killed during 1984 riots to their married daughter? 2. The portrayal of relevant facts are in narrow compass : Kartar Singh and Dhani Bai, the parents of the petitioner, were killed in November, 1984 riots. The Government of Haryana took a policy decision to pay ex-gratia compensation to the heirs of those who were killed in November, 1984 riots. The petitioners own brother Balwant Singh has been given 50 per cent, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- for each of the deceased-parents, but the payment of the balance 50 per cent, compensation to the petitioner has been illegally denied on the ground that she is a married daughter. Succession certificate was furnished by her as well as her brother, which showed her as an heir of the deceased parents. 3. In the written statement, it has been asserted, inter alia, that the denial is on two counts : Firstly, she was admittedly married with Rajinder Singh of Village Bawal, District Rewari, before November, 1984 riots and, secondly, she did not furnish any Succession Certificate along with her application, as required. The submissions : 4. Mr. R. S. Sihota, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the refusal to grant 50 per cent compensation to the petitioner is arbitrary inasmuch as under Ss. 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) she being a Class I heir as mentioned in the Schedule attached to S. 8 and also an heir as mentioned under S. 15(l)(a) of the Act, ought to have been granted the desired compensation amount; and that she along with the application filed for grant of compensation had attached copy of the order granting Succession Certificate (Annexure P-2) and her brother Balwant Singh too had furnished Succession Certificate showing her to be an heir and there was no justification for its refiling by the petitioner separately. 5. ****** 6. Mr. 5. ****** 6. Mr. Randhir Singh, learned senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, representing respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contended as follows : The rejection was on two counts (i) despite opportunity being granted, the succession certificate was not filed by her; and (ii) she was not given compensation as she was already married before November, 1984 riots, which are valid. Our findings 7. The fact stated by the petitioner that succession certificate filed by her brother does show her as one of the legal heirs had not been disputed. Thus, there cannot be any legal impediment to grant 50 per cent, compensation amount to her on the ground of non-furnishing of the succession certifi- cate by her. 8. Coming to the next question, we find that in S. 8 of the Act, the Parliament has not made any distinction between an un- married daughter and a married daughter. Thus, we hold that a married daughter is also a Class I heir entitled to succeed to the property of her deceased-Father who had died intestate in terms of S. 8 of the Act. Section 15(l)(a) of the Act also categorically shows that property of a female Hindu dy- ing intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband. Thus the petitioner, though a married daughter, is entitled to succeed to the property of her deceased-mother. 9. It has not been disputed that the com- pensation stands covered within the mean- ing of the word "property" as mentioned in Ss. Sand 15 of the Act. 10. In the backdrop aforementioned, we hold that the withholding of the compensa- tion amount in question was an arbitrary act of respondent No. 2 which must be nul- lified by this Court. 11. In the result, we allow this writ peti- tion and command the respondent No. 2 to pay 50 per cent, unpaid compensation to the petitioner within one month from today failing which the said respondent will have to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum which the Government charges from any defaulting party, from the date her re- quest for grant of compensation was de- clined. 12. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Randhir Singh within a week for its intimation to and follow up action. Petition allowed.