# State of U.P. & Ors v. U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1093
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23926 of 2017
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-u-p-human-rights-commission-lucknow-anr-44984
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sri R.P. Singh Parihar

A.
Human
Rights
-
U.P.
Victim
Compensation Scheme - 2014 - Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 18
Petitioner sustained injuries in riots during
procession of Makar Sankranti- on the head
and the right eye-lost sight of one eye
completely-Human
right
commission
directed
the
District
Magistrate/
Superintendent
of
Police
to
make
compensation to victim-order not bad.

Held, Sub-clause (a) of Section 18 deals with
the fact that where the enquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights or
abatement thereof by a public servant, he may
recommend to the concern government or
authority to make payment of compensation or
damages to the complainant or to the victim.
From perusal of the same, it is clear that the
Commission has full power to recommend
regarding
payment
of
compensation
or
damages to the complainant, if he finds on
enquiry that there is a violation of human rights
or negligence in the presumption of violation of
human rights. (Para 21)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. State of U.P. Vs. The A.D.J. Sonbhadra & Ors.
1093
Act was already in force and Section 2
thereof applied. It also becomes apposite
to note that U.P. Act 14 of 1987 was not
reserved for the assent of the President.
More importantly, Parliament by virtue of
Act No. 69 of 1988 introduced clause (iii)
in Section 2 of the 1980 Act restraining
State Governments from assigning forest
land to persons by way of lease or
otherwise. Of equal import is the order
dated 8 February 1989 passed in Banwasi
Sewa Ashram which clarified that land
covered in a notification under Section 4
of the 1927 Act would also be subject to
the rigours imposed by Section 2 of the
1980 Act. If Section 131A were to be
conferred the interpretation as suggested
by the respondents it would clearly breach
the provisions of Section 2 of the 1980
Act.

The Court also bears in mind the
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in
Godavarman
which
explained
the
expression forest to be understood not just
as defined in dictionaries but also to any
land which answered the description of
forest as generally understood as also land
recorded
as
forest
irrespective
of
ownership.
The
rights
consequently
claimed by virtue of Section 131A cannot
be recognised as flowing unhindered by
the restrictions imposed in that decision.

Viewed from the angle of the
provisions engrafted in the 1927 Act, the
Court notes that once the notification
under Section 4 of the 1927 Act came to
be issued on 4 July 1970, the statutory
restraint comprised in Section 5 of that Act
also applied. Section 5, it becomes
important
to
recall,
prohibits
the
acquisition of rights in or over land
comprised in a Section 4 notification
except by way of succession, grant, or
contract
in
writing
made
by
the
Government. Section 131A as is evident
does not override or eclipse the prohibition
put in place by Section 5 of the 1927 Act. In
order, therefore, to accord a harmonious
construction upon Section 131A of the 1950
Act bearing in mind Section 5 of the 1927
Act, it must be interpreted to extend at best
to land held in cultivatory possession from
prior to the issuance of the notification under
Section 4. The assertion of a right under
Section 131A and a recognition thereof in
law would also have to be tested on the anvil
of Section 2 of the 1980 and the orders of the
Supreme Court referred to above. The extent
of protection which can be recognised
cannot be viewed in the abstract and in any
case cannot be adjudged without bearing in
mind the provisions made in the 1927 and
the 1980 Acts."

25. From the exposition of the law
with respect to the applicability of Section
131-A, it is clear and manifest that no
relief was liable to be granted to the
private respondent de hors a consideration
of the aforesaid factors.

26. Accordingly and for the reasons
aforementioned, the instant writ petition is
allowed. The orders dated 8 May 1997 and
12 March 1999 are quashed. Since the
principal orders have been quashed, the
subsequent orders dated 29 February 2000
and 11 April 2001 shall also resultantly
stand set aside.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1093

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ C No. 23926 of 2017
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, Sri Suresh Singh
(C.S.C.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.P. Singh Parihar

A.
Human
Rights
-
U.P.
Victim
Compensation Scheme - 2014 - Protection
of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Section 18
Petitioner sustained injuries in riots during
procession of Makar Sankranti- on the head
and the right eye-lost sight of one eye
completely-Human
right
commission
directed
the
District
Magistrate/
Superintendent
of
Police
to
make
compensation to victim-order not bad.

Held, Sub-clause (a) of Section 18 deals with
the fact that where the enquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights or
abatement thereof by a public servant, he may
recommend to the concern government or
authority to make payment of compensation or
damages to the complainant or to the victim.
From perusal of the same, it is clear that the
Commission has full power to recommend
regarding
payment
of
compensation
or
damages to the complainant, if he finds on
enquiry that there is a violation of human rights
or negligence in the presumption of violation of
human rights. (Para 21)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. H. S. Sharma Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital
and another reported in 2007 (4) AWC 4.175 (NC)

2. State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. N.H.R.C. and
3 others, Writ C No.15570 of 2016

3. State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. National Human
Rights Commission, Writ C No.7890 of 2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned
Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners
and Sri R. P. Singh Parihar, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. The petitioners have preferred the
present writ petition for quashing of the
order dated 7.11.2016 passed by U.P.
Human Rights Commission, Lucknow in
Case No.1757(71)/2016-17 by which the
District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur/Superintendent
of
Police,
Fatehpur were directed to pay Rs. 1 lac to
the Ansarul Haq/respondent no.2 and to
inform the Commission.

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that the respondent
no.2 namely Ansarul Haq sustained
injuries on the head and in the right eye
due to the riots which occurred on
14.1.2016 during the procession on the
occasion of Makar Sankranti at Jahanabad,
District Fatehpur. After the aforesaid
incident the respondent no.2 moved an
application dated 10.5.2016 to the Chief
Minister, Govt. of U.P., claiming for the
compensation. In this regard a certificate
was also issued in favour of the respondent
no.2 on 14.6.2016 by the Chief Medical
Officer, Fatehpur, stating therein that the
right eye of the complainant/respondent
no.2 is 100% blind and left eye is normal
and as such the opinion was recorded to
the effect that the disability suffered by the
respondent no.2 is 30%. A scheme was
introduced by the State Government
namely
"U.P.
Victim
Compensation
Scheme-2014" in which it is provided that
a victim shall be eligible for the grant of
compensation if he is found eligible under
the provisions of para 4 of the Victim
Compensation Scheme-2014, which was
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow & Anr.
1095
amended vide amendment scheme dated
7.6.2016.

4. Paragraph 4 of the U.P. Victim
Compensation Scheme-2014 as has been
published in the official gazette on
09.4.2014 is reproduced below :-

"4. A victim shall be eligible for
the grant of compensation if:

(a) the offender is not traced or
identified, but the victim is identified and
where no trial takes place; such victim
may also apply for grant of compensation
under sub section (4) of section 357-A of
the Act;

(b) the victim/claimant reports
the crime to the officer-in-charge of the
police station within 48 hours of the
occurrence or any senior police officer or
Executive
Magistrate
or
Judicial
Magistrate of the area provided that the
District Legal Services Authority, if
satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in
writing, may condone the delay in
reporting;

(c)
the
victim/claimant
cooperates with the police and the
prosecution during the investigation and
trial of the case."

5. It is contended that as per the
aforesaid scheme of 2014 a person is
entitled
for
compensation
when
he
sustained disability ranging from 40 to
80%. It is further argued that the
respondent no.2 sustained injuries causing
disability
only
upto
30%.
On
the
application submitted by the respondent
no.2 before the Chief Minister an order
was passed on 2.8.2016 under the
signatures of the Secretary (Account)
Govt. of U.P., Lucknow by which an order
was passed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to
the respondent no.2 under the U.P. Relief
Fund Scheme. In compliance of the
aforesaid
order
the
amount
of
Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) was duly paid to
the respondent no.2 by the District
Magistrate, Fatehpur vide cheque dated
31.8.2016. Being not satisfied with the
aforesaid amount of compensation, the
respondent no.2 made an application
before
the
Chairman/Secretary,
State
Human Rights Commission, Lucknow,
which was registered as Case No.1757
(71)/2016-17. On the aforesaid application
the State Human Rights Commission,
Lucknow wrote a letter dated 18.5.2016 to
the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur for
conducting the enquiry and to submit its
report
in
respect
of
the
aforesaid
complaint. Pursuant to the same, an
enquiry was got conducted and the report
dated 27.7.2016 was submitted by the
Circle
Officer,
Bindki,
to
the
Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, on
27.7.2016, copy of which is appended as
annexure 11 to the writ petition.

6. The aforesaid report was duly
forwarded by the Superintendent of Police,
Fatehpur, to the Secretary, Human Rights
Commission, Lucknow vide its letter dated
30.7.2016. Thereafter, the U.P. Human
Rights Commission, Lucknow/respondent
no.1 without considering the materials
available on the record and without
considering the provisions of law specially
the provisions of Section 18 of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
passed the order dated 07.11.2016 by
which the compensation of Rs.1 lac was
awarded to the complainant/respondent
no.2.
The
District
Magistrate/Superintendent
of
Police,
Fatehpur, were directed to pay the
aforesaid
amount
to
the
complainant/respondent
no.2.
Further
directions were given to the District
Magistrate, Fatehpur/Superintendent of
1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police to make the aforesaid compensation
to the complainant/respondent no.2 and
inform the commission, copy of the order
dated 7.11.2016 passed by the respondent
no.1 is appended as annexure 1 to the writ
petition. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
decision taken by the respondent no.1
petitioners have preferred the present writ
petition.

7. It is argued by Sri Suresh Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel that the
order impugned passed by the respondent
no.1 is perverse and without jurisdiction
and have been passed without application
of judicial mind and as such the same is
liable to be quashed. It is further argued
that Section 18 provides that where the
inquiry discloses the commission of
violation of human rights or negligence in
the prevention of violation of human rights
or abetment thereof by a public servant, it
may
recommend
to
the
concerned
Government
or
authority
to
make
payment of compensation or damages to
the complainant or to the victim or the
members
of
his
family
as
the
Commission may consider necessary.

8. It is further argued that in so far as
the present case is concerned, no finding
whatsoever has been recorded in the order
impugned that there is any violation of
human rights or there is any negligence in
the prevention of violation of human rights
or abetment thereof by a public servant. It
is further provided that commission may
recommend to the concerned Government
or
authority
to
make
payment
of
compensation
or
damages
to
the
complainant or to the victim or to the
members of the family but by the
impugned order the respondent no.1
directed
the
District
Magistrate/Superintendent of Police to
make the payment of compensation as
such the order impugned passed by the
respondent no.1 is without jurisdiction. It
is further argued that the complaint moved
by
the
respondent
no.2
was
not
maintainable since there is no allegation
regarding the commission of violation of
human rights or negligence in prevention
of violation of human rights or abetement
thereof by public servant. It is further
argued that the respondent no.2 sustained
injuries in one eye due to which disability
sustained by him is 30% and as such the
respondent no.2 was not eligible for
compensation/damages under the U.P.
Victim Compensation Scheme-2014 as
amended in the year 2016. Inspite of the
same, an order was passed to make the
payment of Rs.20,000/- in favour of
respondent no.2 under the scheme of
Relief Fund scheme of the Chief Minister
but without considering the aforesaid
aspect of the matter impugned order has
been passed.

9. In the counter affidavit it is stated
by the learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 that the order passed by the
respondent no.1, which is impugned in the
present writ petition is absolutely perfect
and valid and does not call for any
interference by this Court specially under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

11. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
being disposed of finally at the admission
stage itself.

12. The challenge before the Court,
which is addressed during the course of
submissions,
is
that
the
power
of
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow & Anr.
1097
Commission under Section 18 (a) (1) of
the Act, 1993. It is argued that the
Commission under the aforesaid provision
can only "recommend" to the concerned
Government Authority to make payment
of compensation or damages to the
complainant or to the victim or members
of his family.

13. In view of the aforesaid it is
submitted
that
the
power
of
the
Commission being re-commendatory in
nature
and
direction
given
by
the
Commission to the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur/Superintendent
of
Police,
Fatehpur, to furnish proof of compliance
of payment of compensation to the extent
of Rs.100,000/- (one lac) to the respondent
no.2 is contrary in law and is liable to be
set aside.

14. The National Human Rights
Commission has been constituted, together
with
the
State
Human
Rights
Commissions, "for better protection of
human rights" and for related ancillary
matters. The Commission is a high
powered body whose Chairperson is a
person who has been the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. Among its members is
a person who is, or has been a Judge of the
Supreme Court; and another who is, or has
been the Chief Justice of a High Court.
Two other members are to be appointed
from amongst persons having knowledge
of, or practical experience in, matters
relating to human rights. The appointment
of the Chairperson and Members is by a
Committee chaired by the Prime Minister
and which includes among other persons,
the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Union
Minister of Home Affairs, the leaders of
the opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha and the Deputy Chairperson of the
Rajya Sabha. The presence of these high
dignitaries on the selection committee is
indicative
of
the
importance
which
Parliament has ascribed to the functions of
the Commission.

15. The functions of the Commission
under Section 12 include among other
things, the power to inquire suo motu or
on a petition presented to it by a victim or
any person on his behalf or on a direction
of a court, into a complaint of the violation
of human rights or abetment thereof or
negligence in the prevention of such a
violation, by a public servant.

16. Section 12 which defines the
functions of the Commission is in the
following terms:

"12.
Functions
of
the
Commission.--The
Commission
shall
perform all or any of the following
functions, namely:--

(a) inquire, suo-motu or on a
petition presented to it by a victim or any
person on his behalf [or on a direction or
order of any court], into complaint of--

(i) violation of human rights or
abetment thereof; or

(ii) negligence in the prevention
of such violation, by a public servant;

(b) intervene in any proceeding
involving any allegation of violation of
human rights pending before a court with
the approval of such court;

(c)
visit,
notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, any jail or other
institution under the control of the State
Government, where persons are detained
or lodged for purposes of treatment,
reformation or protection, for the study of
the living conditions of the inmates thereof
and make recommendations thereon to the
Government;
1098 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d)
review
the
safeguards
provided by or under the Constitution or
any law for the time being in force for the
protection
of
human
rights
and
recommend measures for their effective
implementation;

(e) review the factors, including
acts
of
terrorism,
that
inhibit
the
enjoyment
of
human
rights
and
recommend
appropriate
remedial
measures;

(f) study treaties and other
international instruments on human rights
and make recommendations for their
effective implementation;

(g)
undertake
and
promote
research in the field of human rights;

(h) spread human rights literacy
among various sections of society and
promote awareness of the safeguards
available for the protection of these rights
through publications, the media, seminars
and other available means;

(i) encourage the efforts of nongovernmental organisation and institutions
working in the field of human rights;

(j) such other functions as it may
consider necessary for the promotion of
human rights."

17. When it makes inquiries, the
Commission under Section 13 has all the
powers of a civil court while trying a suit
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
and, in particular, in respect of the matters
enumerated therein. The Commission for
the
purposes
of
investigation
is
empowered under Section 14, to utilise the
services of any officer or investigation
agency of the Central Government or any
State Government with the concurrence of
the Central Government or the State
Government. The procedure before the
Commission is governed by Chapter IV of
which Section 17 provides an enquiry into
a complaint of a violation of human rights.
The Commission is empowered to call for
information or a report from the Central
Government or State Government or any
other authority or organization subordinate
to them. Section 18 deals with the steps to
be taken during and after the enquiry and
is in the following terms:

"18. Steps during and after
inquiry.--The Commission may take any
of the following steps during or upon the
completion of an inquiry held under this
Act, namely:--

(a) where the inquiry discloses
the commission of violation of human
rights or negligence in the prevention of
violation of human rights or abetment
thereof by a public servant, it may
recommend to the concerned Government
or authority--

(i)
to
make
payment
of
compensation
or
damages
to
the
complainant or to the victim or the
members of his family as the Commission
may consider necessary;

(ii) to initiate proceedings for
prosecution or such other suitable action as
the Commission may deem fit against the
concerned person or persons;

(iii) to take such further action as
it may think fit.

(b) approach the Supreme Court
or the High Court concerned for such
directions, orders or writs as that Court
may deem necessary;

(c) recommend to the concerned
Government or authority at any stage of
the inquiry for the grant of such immediate
interim relief to the victim or the members
of his family as the Commission may
consider necessary;

(d) subject to the provisions of
clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow & Anr.
1099
report
to
the
petitioner
or
his
representative;

(e) the Commission shall send a
copy of its inquiry report together with its
recommendations
to
the
concerned
Government
or
authority
and
the
concerned Government or authority shall,
within a period of one month, or such
further time as the Commission may
allow, forward its comments on the report,
including the action taken or proposed to
be taken thereon, to the Commission;

(f) the Commission shall publish
its inquiry report together with the
comments of the concerned Government
or authority, if any, and the action taken or
proposed to be taken by the concerned
Government
or
authority
on
the
recommendations of the Commission."

18. Section 18 vests wide powers in
the Commission. Under clause (a), it is
empowered to recommend the payment of
compensation or damages to the concerned
government or authority where the enquiry
has disclosed the commission of a
violation of human rights or negligence in
the prevention of a violation of human
rights or abetment thereof. The provisions
of Section 18 (a) correspond to the
functions of the Commission specified in
Section 12 (a). The Commission is entitled
to approach the Supreme Court or the
High Court for such directions, orders or
writs as that Court may deem necessary.
The Commission under clause (c) of
Section 18 can recommend to the
concerned government or authority at any
stage of the enquiry to grant interim relief
to the victim or the members of his family.
Under clause (e), the Commission has to
send a copy of its inquiry report together
with its recommendations to the concerned
Government or authority which shall,
within a period of one month or such
further time as may be allowed, forward its
comments on the report, including the
action taken or proposed to be taken
thereon to the Commission.

19. These provisions emphasize three
aspects. First, the enactment of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is
an intrinsic part of the enforcement of the
fundamental right to life and personal
liberty
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution. Equally, by enacting the
legislation, Parliament has evinced an
intention to enact legislation in compliance
with
India's
obligations
under
the
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights adopted by the General
Assembly
of
the
United
Nations.
Secondly, the Commission is a high
powered body which has been vested with
exhaustive
powers
to
order
an
investigation, conduct enquiries and for
which it is vested with all the powers of a
civil court. Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18
are
not
evidently
an
exhaustive
enumeration
of
the
powers
of
the
Commission
since
the
use
of
the
expression "and in particular" would
indicate that the powers which are
enumerated are illustrative in nature. The
Commission follows a procedure which is
governed by Section 17 for the purpose of
making inquiries upon which it has to take
steps in conformity with Section 18.

20. The aforesaid aspect of the
matter dealt with in great detailed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C
No.15570 of 2016 (State of U.P. and 2
others Vs. N.H.R.C. and 3 others). In the
aforesaid case a judgement was delivered
by
Dr.
Dhananjaya
Yeshwant
Chandrachud the then Chief Justice that
the Commission is entitled to direct for the
1100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payment of compensation to the victim
where it finds either a violation of human
rights or a negligence in the prevention of
a violation of human rights. The operative
portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
below :-

"The basic question is whether
the use of the expression "recommend" in
Section 18 (a) can be treated by the State
Government or by an authority as merely
an opinion or a suggestion which can be
ignored with impunity. In our view, to
place
such
a
construction
on
the
expression "recommend" would dilute the
efficacy of the Commission and defeat the
statutory object underlying the constitution
of such a body. An authority or a
government which is aggrieved by the
order of the Commission is entitled to
challenge the order. Since no appeal is
provided by the Act against an order of the
Commission, the power of judicial review
is available when an order of the
Commission is questioned. Having regard
to the importance of the rule of law which
is but a manifestation of the guarantee of
fair treatment under Article 14 and of the
basic principles of equality, it would not
be possible to accept the construction that
the State Government can ignore the
recommendations
of
the
Commission
under Section 18 at its discretion or in its
wisdom. That the Commission is not
merely a body which is to render opinions
which will have no sanctity or efficacy in
enforcement, cannot be accepted. This is
evident from the provisions of clause (b) of
Section 18 under which the Commission is
entitled to approach the Supreme Court or
the High Court for such directions, orders
or writs as the Court may deem fit and
necessary. Governed as we are by the rule
of law and by the fundamental norms of
the protection of life and liberty and
human dignity under a constitutional
order, it will not be open to the State
Government to disregard the view of the
Commission.
The
Commission
has
directed the State Government to report
compliance. The State Government is at
liberty to challenge the order of the
Commission on merits since no appeal is
provided by the Act. But it cannot in the
absence of the order being set aside,
modified or reviewed disregard the order
at its own discretion. While a challenge to
the order of the Commission is available
in exercise of the power of judicial review,
the State Government subject to this right,
is duty bound to comply with the order.
Otherwise the purpose of enacting the
legislation
would
be
defeated.
The
provisions of the Act which have been
made
to
enforce
the
constitutional
protection of life and liberty by enabling
the Commission to grant compensation for
violations of human rights would be
rendered nugatory. A construction which
will produce that result cannot be adopted
and must be rejected.

The order which has been
passed by the Commission has been
passed on a careful appreciation of
materials which were placed on the
record. The deceased was an under trial
prisoner who was lodged in the district jail
in Muzaffarnagar. The treatment record
indicated that he was provided treatment
only from 15 May 2012 and he died on 21
May 2012. Though he had been admitted
to jail on 9 September 2011, until 15 May
2012, no medical check up was carried out
to control or treat his lung disease. He
was not sent to a competent medical
facility
until
his
condition
had
deteriorated. Consequently, finding a case
of negligence on the part of jail officials in
providing
medical
treatment,
the
Commission has ordered the grant of
1 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission, Lucknow & Anr.
1101
compensation. The Commission is entitled
to do so where it finds either a violation of
human rights or a negligence in the
prevention of a violation of human rights.

For these reasons, we find no
substance in the petition. The writ petition
is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to
costs. "

21. Even from perusal of Section 18
of the Act, 1993 it is clear that the
Commission has empowered to take any of
the steps as contained under Section 18 of
the Act, 1993. As many as six steps were
mentioned under Section 18 of the Act.
Sub-clause (a) of Section 18 deals with the
fact that where the enquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights
or abatement thereof by a public servant
he may recommend to the concern
government or authority to make payment
of compensation or damages to the
complainant or to the victim. From perusal
of the same, it is clear that the
Commission has full power to recommend
regarding payment of compensation or
damages to the complainant, if he finds on
enquiry that there is a violation of human
rights or negligence in the presumption of
violation
of
human
rights.
Another
Division Bench of this Court in Writ C
No.7890 of 2014 (State of U.P. and 2
others
Vs.
National
Human
Rights
Commission) decided on 1.2.2019 has
taken the same view.

22. From perusal of the report placed
before the respondent no.1 it reveals that
during procession on the occasion of
Makar Sankranti at Jahanabad, District
Fatehpur on 14.1.2016 due to riots the
complainant/respondent
no.2
sustained
injuries on the head and in the right eye.
The complainant/respondent no.2 was
referred by the local doctor for treatment
at Kanpur Nagar from where he was
referred to the AIIMS, New Delhi where he
was diagnosed but the complainant/respondent
no.2 has lost the eye sight of one of his eyes.
The commission also gone through the report
of the Circle Officer, Bindki, Fatehpur. From
perusal of which it reveals that in the mishappening on 14.1.2016 the complainant
sustained injuries on the head and the right eye
due to which he lost the eye sight of one of his
eyes. The respondent Commission also taken
into consideration the judgement delivered by
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in the case of H. S. Sharma Vs.
Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and another
reported in 2007 (4) AWC 4.175 (NC) where
the Commission has awarded a compensation
of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) to a victim, who
lost his eye sight due to negligence. Further
findings were recorded by the Commission in
the order impugned that in the matter in
question it is evident from the report of the
Circle Officer that the complainant has lost his
sight of one of his eye during the riots, which is
inevitable incident. The Chief Medical Officer
has also certified that the right eye of the
complainant is 100% blind. The Commission
after considering the entire material on record
passed the order to award compensation in
favour of the petitioner and directions were
given
to
the
District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur/Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur to
make payment of compensation to the extent
of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac only) to the
complainant Ansarul Haq and informed the
Commission.

23. In so far as the argument raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that since the respondent no.2 has
sustained injuries causing disability only
upto 30% and the compensation could
only be awarded when the disability
ranging from 40% to 80% is suffered, the
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid provision has been made in the
U.P. Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.
The provisions of the aforesaid scheme
will not apply in so far as the application
submitted by the respondent no.2 before
the respondent no.1 is concerned.

24. In view of the same, the aforesaid
objections raised by the petitioners is no
force.

25. On the basis of the aforesaid
facts, the Commission has ordered for the
grant of compensation.

26. In view of the facts as narrated
above as well as from perusal of the
judgement of two different Division
Benches of this Court passed in Writ C
No.15570 of 2016, State of U.P. and 2
others Vs. N.H.R.C. and 3 others,
(supra) and Writ C No.7890 of 2014,
State of U.P. and 2 others Vs. National
Human Rights Commission (supra) it is
clear that the respondent no.1 has full
power and authority to direct the
District Magistrate/Superintendent of
Police to make the compensation to the
victim as has been done in the present
case.

27. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, Commission is entitled to do so
where it finds either a violation of human
rights or negligence in the prevention of
violation of human rights.

28. The order dated 7.11.2016 passed
by respondent no.1/U.P. Human Rights
Commission, Lucknow does not want any
interference specially under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

29. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and accordingly dismissed. No
order as to cost.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1102

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 25103 of 2013

Chhidda & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 - Order
cancelling the lease- beyond limitationproceeding initiated after 16 years -and
without observing principles of natural
justice-impugned order quashed.

Held, In the present case there is specific
argument and document on record to establish
that the consolidation of holdings proceedings
pertaining to the land in question were never
finalized and were dropped mid away and thus,
it cannot be held that any bar as provided
under Section 132 of the Act was triggered
relating to the land in question. I am also not
impressed with the arguments that in the cases
which are covered by Section 132 of the Act,
no limitation would apply. (Para 15)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and
another Vs. D. Narsing Rao and others, 2015 3
SCC 695