The case relates to one Mohammad Hanif Chhipa's cycle shop near Anjali cinema in Vasna, which suffered damage during 2002 communal riots in the city.
Justice RR Tripathi of Gujarat High Court (GHC) has directed the City Deputy Collector (CDC) to decide afresh whether or not to compensate a victim who had suffered property loss in the riots, before March 16.
The case relates to one Mohammad Hanif Chhipa's cycle shop near Anjali cinema in Vasna, which suffered damage during 2002 communal riots in the city. On July 20, 2002, Chhipa had made a claim before the CDC demanding compensation as he had suffered loss of around Rs1.60 lakh as the shop was allegedly ransacked by rioters.
Chhipa also put copy of the police complaint and documents gathered by the police during the probe.
However, the CDC rejected Chhipa's claim on the grounds that he failed to make his claim before the stipulated time of
June, 2002. Later, the central government announced
new policy for the riot victims and Chhipa once again filed petition before the high court. Chhipa's counsel, Amit Panchal submitted that Chhipa is entitled for compensation as per the government policy and he has all details regarding the damage caused to his property.
When the case came up for hearing, the office of CDC was not able to produce documents supporting their claim for the time limit to decide loss of property. After hearing the parties, justice Tripathi ordered CDC to decide the issue within March 16 and inform the court.
Khaitan identifies Gulbarg accused
After getting high court's clearance, Ashish Khaitan appeared before the special court for identification of the voices of the riot accused on Friday. Khaitan identified the voices and faces of Mangilal Jain, Madan Dhanraj and Prahlad Raju, all alleged to have played a part in the massacre.
Khaitan, a reporter had conducted sting operation on the Gulbarg society massacre accused including politicians who had played an active role in the riot. Khaitan's sting operation CD was used as evidence by the SIT for investigation. However, they had some difficulty in identifying voices from the CD for which SIT had asked the trial court to recall Khaitan for a detailed identification.
The trial court had rejected the application followed which SIT had moved the HC. The court after hearing the argument allowed SIT's petition and ordered to recall Khaitan as witness.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}