MP High Court Sets Aside Rs 7.23 Lakh Recovery From 1984 Riot Victim Widow, Imposes Rs 50,000 Costs On State

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed a recovery certificate that sought to claw back Rs 7,23,800 from a widow who lost property in the 1984 riots, holding that ex gratia relief cannot bar compensation and that the Collector, Sehore, dealt with a sensitive matter in a "cursory manner".

Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Gurucharan Kaur and directed the State to pay her Rs 50,000 as costs for mental harassment caused by "unwarranted coercive administrative action".

The petitioner's husband had suffered loss of property during the 1984 riots. Relying on a 2006 Division Bench order in M.P. No.1045/1992 (Sardar Kuldeep Singh & Others vs. Union of India & Others), which allowed riot victims to seek assessment of their loss from the Collector along with lump-sum interest of 40% on unpaid amounts, she applied to the Collector, Sehore, on May 9, 2013.

In that application, she stated that she had received Rs 5,000 as interim relief in 1984 and Rs 45,000 as ex gratia under a Government of India communication following the Nanawati Commission report. The Rs 50,000 was deducted from her claim. The Collector approved Rs 7,23,800, the State allotted the funds in December 2013, and the amount was paid.

On September 1, 2014, the Collector issued a notice on a complaint by Manjeet Singh Saluja, alleging that she had concealed the earlier payment. Despite her reply, the Additional Collector, Sehore, issued a recovery certificate on September 18, 2014. The Tehsildar began recovery proceedings, and the Collector also proposed departmental action against the officials who processed the payment.

Advocate Sitaram Garg, appearing for the petitioner, argued that nothing was concealed and that the recovery order was illegal. Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar, appearing for the State, countered that she had already received compensation through the Special Task Force and should not have made a fresh claim.

The High Court rejected the State's position. It observed that ex gratia is "an act of gratis" with no connection to the State's liability in law, and that the Government of India's January 2006 communication carried no condition that the payment would be a full and final settlement. Nor did the Division Bench order bar a compensation claim from someone who had received ex gratia.

"Ex gratia is a grace while compensation is an obligation," the Court said, adding that accepting ex gratia does not by itself bar a later claim for full compensation, "unless the victim has signed an explicit waiver". At most, it said, the earlier payment could be treated as a prior payment against subsequently quantified liability.

On the allegation of concealment, the Court found the assertion "factually incorrect". Paragraphs 2 and 3 of her claim application, it noted, transparently disclosed both the interim relief and the ex gratia amount. Her reply to the notice had said the same, yet the Additional Collector issued the recovery certificate "without verifying these facts".

The Court was sharply critical of the administration. "It is unfortunate that the Collector, Sehore has dealt with such a sensitive matter pertaining to victim of riot in cursory manner," it said, adding that ordering recovery from a 1984 riot victim and widow "demonstrates a glaring lack of due diligence, empathy and proper application of mind".

By treating ex gratia relief as a bar to statutory compensation and starting coercive recovery through the Tehsildar without examining her disclosures, the authority had exercised jurisdiction improperly, the Court held, calling the proceedings "patently erroneous, improper and illegal". It found it just and equitable to compensate her for the expenses, mental agony, distress and harassment.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the recovery certificate dated September 18, 2014, along with all consequential proceedings. It directed the State to pay Rs 50,000 to the petitioner within six weeks, failing which the amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until realisation.

Case Title: Smt. Gurucharan Kaur vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar