JUDGMENT : An irrationality practiced is an injustice administered in disguise. 2. This dictum is conveyed as the facts and the impugned decision would be noticed hereinafter. What is prayed by the earthquake affected petitioner is to set aside order dated 08th May, 2006 passed by the Lokpal and Principal District Judge, Kutch-Bhuj rejecting the application of the petitioner and confirming the stand of the Area Development Authority that one person was not entitled to get compensation for the two properties destroyed in the earthquake. 3. When the devastating earthquake of 26th January, 2001 rocked the State of Gujarat and District of Kutch, the petitioner was staying with his family in his house identified as Kalpvruksh Apartment No.204 bearing City Survey No.2546/33 in the Town of Anjar. Disastrous as was the earthquake for all, for the petitioner and his family also, it was fateful. The said property bearing City Survey No.2546/33 owned by the petitioner was razed to the ground by the Nature. 3.1 The State Government and the respondent Area Development Authority announced relief packages for the earthquake affected class. The properties were classified in different categories depending upon the extent of damage they suffered in the quake. The property of the petitioner was completely demolished and came to be classified accordingly in G-5 category. A necessary card evidencing the certification as G-5 was issued. The properties which were completely destroyed and categorised as G-5 were considered in the relief package No.5 to be given compensation for the destroyed property. 3.2 Petitioner applied for such compensation on 20th March, 2002 by submitting the details of categorisation and other details. There was no dispute that the petitioner was residing in the property being 2546/33 which was destroyed. It appears that Anjar Taluka Grahak Suraksha Mandal-a voluntary body also addressed communications requesting the authorities to accord the relief of compensation to the petitioner amongst other earthquake sufferer persons. 3.3 The amount payable towards compensation was as per Resolution dated 24th April, 2001. It provided different amount to be paid as compensation depending upon the size of the property and on the basis of the category being G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-5. 3.3 The amount payable towards compensation was as per Resolution dated 24th April, 2001. It provided different amount to be paid as compensation depending upon the size of the property and on the basis of the category being G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-5. Copy of said Resolution forms part of the record of the petition and from uncontroverted contents thereof, the aforesaid position emerges and it is indicated that for G-5 category houses in the towns of Bhuj, Anjar, Bhachau and Rapar, the compensation of Rs.03,000/- per sq. mtrs. Subject to maximum limit of Rs.01,50,000/- would be payable as assistance for loss of property. The petitioner pointed out to the authorities that under the Scheme of Rehabilitation and under Resolution dated 24th April, 2001, the petitioner was entitled to receive the compensation for loss of property. 3.4 In the communication dated 17th February, 2005 addressed by the Deputy Collector (Earthquake), Anjar, the reason for denial the compensation for loss of property in question to the petitioner was pointed out. What was stated by the authority was that though the petitioner had applied for getting compensation in respect of the destroyed property bearing City Survey No.2546/33, Kalpvruksh Apartment, Flat No.204, Ward No.2 Anjar, the person in whose name the property was standing, had received compensation in respect of another property destroyed in the earthquake. It was stated that the property in question was in name of one Rasilaben and that the same person was owning another property bearing City Survey No.2151, at Ganga Bazar, Doshi Sheri, Anjar and in respect of that property going in G-5, the compensation was paid to the said owner. In other words, the stand taken by the authority concerned was that since in respect of another property the compensation was paid, the instant property would not be eligible for compensation. 3.5 The grievance was carried before the Lokpal and the Principal District Judge who was the designated authority for the earthquake relief grievances. The Lokpal in his reasoning travelled on the same lines to dismiss the application of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nalin K. Thakkar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent authorities. 5. There is no gainsaying that the compensation was payable under the Scheme in respect of a property destroyed. Every property destroyed and categorised in G-5 would be eligible to be paid compensation. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nalin K. Thakkar for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent authorities. 5. There is no gainsaying that the compensation was payable under the Scheme in respect of a property destroyed. Every property destroyed and categorised in G-5 would be eligible to be paid compensation. The compensation was qua the property and not qua the person. A clarificatory communication dated 23rd August, 2001 from the office of the Relief Commissioner (Earthquake), addressed to the office of Deputy Collector was relied on, in which it was clarified that whether two properties in G-5 category would be covered for compensation even though the owner thereof was one. The answer was obvious. It was the property destroyed, which was the criteria, and therefore if two properties of one owner are destroyed, both would be qualified for compensation separately, the commonality of ownership could be hardly relevant. 5.1 The property in respect of which the petitioner claimed compensation was distinct. They were physically two properties and were differently identified and registered in the record of the competent authority. Both got completely destroyed in the earthquake. It only stands to reason that when the earthquake relief package was for compensating the loss of residential property and the same was in respect of the property, even if two properties are owned by one owner, both have to be considered eligible to compensation. The owner would be entitled to the amount of compensation in respect of both the separate properties as part of relief. The object of relief was giving compensation per property. Any other view would stand perverse and antithetic to the object. 5.2 A thick skinned approach towards the petitioner-sufferer was adopted by the authorities. Their conduct was characterised by a total non-application of mind. The case of the petitioner representated an irrational and arbitrary approach on part of the respondents. 6. For the reasons stated above, the stand of the respondent is hereby disapproved and set at naught. The petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 08th May, 2006 by respondent No.2-Lokpal is hereby set aside. The case of the petitioner representated an irrational and arbitrary approach on part of the respondents. 6. For the reasons stated above, the stand of the respondent is hereby disapproved and set at naught. The petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 08th May, 2006 by respondent No.2-Lokpal is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for loss of property bearing City Survey No.2546/33, Kalpvruksh Apartment, Flat No.204, Ward No.2 Anjar, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and if the amount is not paid within the period specified above, it shall carry interest at the rate of 8% payable from the date of this order. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.