Ex Gratia Assistance Not Determinative of Actual Loss or Falsity of Revenue Survey Reports

The plaintiff, a resident of Halol, fled his home during the 2002 communal riots. His residence and hotel, "Tandoor," were looted and set on fire by a mob, causing alleged damages of ₹12,00,000.

An FIR was registered, and a survey was conducted by revenue officers (Talati-cum-Mantri), who assessed the damage significantly lower than the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff received ex-gratia compensation of ₹15,000 and ₹1,35,000.

The trial court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal) partly allowed the plaintiff’s suit, awarding ₹4,00,000 with 9% interest, primarily on the grounds that the revenue report was unreliable because the Central Government had released additional relief.

The State appealed this judgment under Section 96 of the CPC.

1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the revenue official's survey report was false based solely on the disbursement of ex-gratia relief.

2. Whether there was sufficient legal evidence on record to assess the actual damages caused to the plaintiff.

3. Whether the judgment and decree granting ₹4,00,000 in compensation warrant interference by the High Court.

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding appeals from original decrees.

It relied on the principle that "ex-gratia" payments are discretionary relief provided by the State or Central Government and do not constitute a specific, actual assessment of legal damages.

The Court followed the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3249 of 2016 (and State of Gujarat v. Idgah, Himmatnagar), which accepted government schemes for ex-gratia assistance for riot victims and established the procedural framework for sufferers to approach concerned authorities.

The High Court observed that the trial court’s finding—that the revenue report was "false" because higher ex-gratia amounts were paid—was logically flawed.

The Court reasoned that ex-gratia payments are general relief measures and cannot be equated with a judicial or technical assessment of actual loss.

The Court found that the trial court's decision was based on "surmises, conjunctures and presumption" rather than concrete evidence quantifying the actual damage.

It held that the Civil Court essentially overstepped by sitting in judgment over the administrative assessments of Revenue Officers without a base of robust evidence to prove the ₹12,00,000 claim.

The Court held that the trial court failed to properly distinguish between ex-gratia relief and determined compensation. The matter was remanded to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahal, for a fresh decision to be rendered within nine months. The State was directed to place records of the ex-gratia payments already made before the trial court for consideration during the fresh proceedings.