New Delhi: A Kashmiri family’s wait of more than three decades for ex-gratia relief for their property gutted in a “militancy-related incident” on the night of December 7-8, 1992, has reached the Central Information Commission, with the second generation now seeking answers on the fate of the compensation.
According to the appellant, Pran Nath, the property comprised a three-storey residential house, along with a multi-storey cowshed and a wooden granary, built on about 10 marlas of land in Verinag in south Kashmir’s Anantnag district, and it was destroyed in the incident.
In an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Nath has stated that the complex “was burnt on 7/8th December, 1992, due to subversive activities. No ex-gratia relief has been disbursed to the concerned till date as per my knowledge”.
Seeking clarity on the compensation, he has asked for the details of the person who has drawn the relief, the amount disbursed and the sanction orders, stating that authorities have informed him that payment has already been made.
Records placed on file show that “an amount of Rs 44,500 as admissible under rules/norms in vogue at that time has been sanctioned and forwarded to Relief Commissioner (M) Jammu for disbursement”.
However, a communication from the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner’s office said, “As per the available record, no such amount has been disbursed in favour of Sh. Shiv Ji Sharma S/o Damodar Sharma, Maharaj Krishen S/o Amarnath and Pushkar Nath S/o Shamboo Nath residence of Verinag, District Anantnag, regarding the damage caused to their immovable property gutted due to militancy incident on 07/08.12.1992.”
According to Nath, neither he nor other legal heirs has received any amount. He has sought the details of the person who has allegedly withdrawn the compensation.
The case reflects a generational pursuit, with Nath taking forward a claim originally pursued by his late father, Shiv Ji Sharma, one of the co-owners of the property. The family had earlier moved the high court through a writ petition seeking ex-gratia relief and the court had directed authorities to consider the case within a stipulated period.
With the passage of time and the death of the original claimants, the responsibility of pursuing the matter has shifted to the second generation, which continues to seek clarity on whether the sanctioned relief ever reached the rightful beneficiaries.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that key facts regarding the alleged disbursal could not be ascertained in the absence of the respondent official.
“Considering the facts of the case, it is imperative that the PIO, DC Anantnag, is heard before arriving at any conclusion,” he said.
Goyal further noted that the official “has neither attended the hearing, despite service of hearing notice in advance, nor sent any written submission/counter statement to present the relevant facts/arguments”.
