IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1061 of 2003 Between: M.Sugunamma, w/o. late M.Raji Reddy, R/o. Rachapali(V), Dharmaram(M), Karimnagar Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. Home Department , rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The dist. collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist 3 Superintendt of Police , Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to To issue an order direction or writ particularly one in th enature of writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents in not making the Ex-gratia and compensation payments to the petitioner in prusuance of the damage suffered by the petitioner due to petitioner's husband's death and loss of property in accordance with the GOs issued from time to time more particularly GO Ms.No.469 date 8-11-1996 as being illegal , arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequentlly direct the respondents to extend the Ex- gratia relief, compensation and benefits as were accorded to persons under GO MsNo. 469 dt.8.11.1996 or any other appropriate or subsequent GO and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SATYANARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{NS} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO.1061 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased M.Raji Reddy, seeks to issue a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation amount towards the damages for the loss of property suffered by her apart from the death of her husband as illegal and arbitrary. The un-disputed facts are that the husband of the petitioner Mr.M.Raji Reddy was the Sarpanch of Rachapally village of Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District. While so, the extremists of Peoples War Group (PWG) have killed the husband of the petitioner with fire arms on 21-10-1988 and the house of said Raji Reddy was also set on fire on the allegation that he gave evidence in a criminal case against the accused belonging to PWG extremists, who were convicted in a murder case and sentenced for life imprisonment. With regard to the said incident, a case in Crime No.89 of 1988 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 396 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 (i)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act was registered on the file of Ramagundam Police Station and re-registered the same as Crime No.75 of 1989 of Dharmaram Police Station. An exgratia amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.323 General Administration (SC- A) Department, dated 29-4-1991. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 30-11-1998 to the second respondent for grant of compensation/exgratia towards damages for the loss caused to the property by the extremists. It is also not in dispute that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 8-11-1996 making a provision for appointment of the dependent of the deceased to any suitable post in Government service. It is stated that the petitioner has no issues and she is not suitable to work as a Government servant, therefore, she requested to pay the compensation for the loss caused to her property. As there was no action pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 30-11- 1998, the petitioner made another representation on 27-1-1999 requesting for sanction of compensation amount. The District Collector, Karimnagar called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar in turn referred the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli and Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharmaram to conduct a detailed enquiry and submit a report regarding the damage caused to the property of the petitioner in the extremists violence. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dharmaram after conducting an enquiry and after getting the value of the damages estimated by the Assistant Engineer (R&B), Special Division, Karimnagar, submitted a report vide his letter No.B/330/99, dated 28-4-1999, stating that the extremists have killed the husband of the petitioner Sri Raji Reddy and set on fire to the residential house along with the house-hold articles and the damage caused by the extremists was estimated by the authorities to a tune of rupees two lakhs. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the amount of the damages caused to the property of the petitioner to a tune of rupees two lakhs as per the enquiry conducted by the authorities, but it is the contention of the respondents that the exgratia amount for the death of the deceased as per the orders of the Government, which is existing as on the date of the incident i.e., on 21-10-1988 was only Rs.10,000/- and the said amount was already paid towards exgratia and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the damages for the loss caused to the property by the extremists. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that though the claim of the petitioner with regard to the damages caused by the extremists was estimated at rupees two lakhs, but the same cannot be considered as there is no policy enunciated by the Government to pay the said amount. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Baddam Satyanarayana Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and others[1] in respect of the same case in Sessions Case No.149 of 1982 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was tried by the I-Additional Session Judge, Karimnagar against the extremists. The petitioner’s husband M.Raji Reddy and Baddam Satyanarayana Reddy were cited as eye witnesses and they deposed against the extremists, therefore, the extremists caused damage to the property of Baddam Satyanarayana Reddy also. As no compensation was paid to him, he filed W.P.No.10032 of 1997 and the learned Single Judge of this Court extracted the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa[2], and the Apex Court at Para 10 of the said judgment observed that: “The liability of the State in the present case to pay the compensation cannot be doubted and was rightly not disputed by the learned Additional Solicitor General. It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings.” and the learned Single Judge at para 10 of the said order (1st supra) held as follows:- “As can be seen from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the damage caused to the property and the continuous harassment of the extremist groups virtually preventing the petitioner from cultivating the lands appear to be the main grievance. It is no doubt true that to give individual protection in such cases there may be certain practical difficulties on the part of the State. It is also no doubt true that as far as the right to property is concerned in view of Article 330-A of the Constitution of India, it is just a Constitutional right. However, there cannot be any controversy that the right to have peaceful living and peaceful enjoyment of the property also would be inclusive of right to live falling under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State is bound to offer reasonable and appropriate protection for every citizen to make a peaceful living. This is a case where an unfortunate citizen had figured as a witness in a Sessions Case where some persons belonging to an extremist group figured as accused and that is the reason why the petitioner was made the target and he is being continuously harassed by the said group. In such cases it is the bounden duty of the State to afford necessary protection inasmuch as it is the duty and obligation on the part of the State to maintain law and order and also to afford necessary protection to the individual citizens.” The facts and the law laid down by this Court based on the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional provisions equally apply to the facts of the present case and in the instant case, as there is no dispute with regard to the damage caused to the property by the extremists on account of speaking truth as a prosecution witness and as the State has failed to protect the property of the petitioner and her husband, I am of the opinion that the State is liable to pay the compensation of rupees two lakhs as estimated by the authorities of the Government, which has been accepted in the counter filed by the District Collector. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards damages for the loss caused to her property by the extremists. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Date: 9-07-2008. Shr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 State of A.P. Home Department , rep.by it's Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The dist. collector, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist 3 Superintendt of Police , Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist 4.2CCs to 5.2CD copies [1] 2005(1) ALD 859 [2] 1993 (2) SCC 746