IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2228 of 2010 Between: Borkar Mallaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P.No.2228 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner’s son was arrested in connection with Crime No.17 of 1988 registered for an offence under Section 392 IPC of Kalamadugu Police Station of Adilabad District. Though the petitioner was released on bail by competent Criminal Court, the police officials encountered him on 25-06-1988. In the light of the encounter, a case in Crime No.55 of 1996 was registered by P.S., C.I.D. Zone, Adilabad, against the police officials and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.159 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The trial Court, after conducting trial, found the accused therein guilty of the offence and were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, but, however, the accused therein were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. As against the said conviction and acquittal, appeals are filed and the same are pending in this Court. According to the petitioner, his age is 82 years and when his son was alive, he was looking after him, now he has become totally helpless and there was no assistance to him. Further, he is a very poor man having land in an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.229 of 29 situated at Dontapur village, Dharmapuri Mandal, Karimnagar District, but he is not in a position to cultivate the said land as he does not have any assistance. In that context, he approached the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Karimnagar District, and gave a representation on 07-12-2007 narrating the facts and requested him to pay compensation so that he can live peacefully till his death. However, as no action has been initiated, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. 3. May be it is true that the accused in the Session Case were acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, but they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC i.e. kidnap. Apparently, the petitioner’s son died in an encounter. The said fact is clear from the conviction imposed by the trial Court. However, as it is the grievance of the petitioner is that he is aged, helpless and not in a position to eak out his livelihood, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner sympathetically and provided him compensation. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Karimnagar District, to consider the petitioner’s representation 07-12-2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 5th February 2010 KVR