(1.) The writ petitioner, Baddam Satyanarayana Reddy, filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to contain the naxalite problem by taking positive socio-economic steps, to create conditions which would be conducive to the persons like the petitioner to go back to the villages and take up agricultural activities, to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.4.50 lakhs to the petitioner being the damage caused to him by naxalites, to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- per year for the loss of agricultural income to the petitioner till such time the respondents create conditions conducive to go back to the villages or acquire the lands of the petitioner by paying market value, to provide Government employment to any one of the sons of the petitioner and not to collect land revenue for the lands which are kept fallow from the year 1994 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist by profession owning about 8 acres of land and it is his source of livelihood. On 24-6-1982 his associate by name Ramalingam was murdered by nine militants of CPI (ML) PWG group by dragging him out of the bus and axed him to death. The petitioner and one Musuku Raji Reddy were eye-witnesses to the said incident. The said SC.No. 149/82 under Section 302 IPC was tried by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and they deposed against the radicals on the assurance given by the police with a view to fulfil their duties as citizens. The accused therein were convicted imposing sentence of life imprisonment and since then they became the target of the said radical group. The petitioner also had specifically averred the instances at Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner had referred to Cr.No.21/84/ SC.No.112/85 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli and also Cr.No.89/ 88. Because of the harassment it is stated that the petitioner left the village and had been taking shelter here and there under the surveillance of police and his wife and mother are looking after agriculture. It is also stated that in the year 1994 members of Devanna Dalam belonging to CPI (ML) PWG had extorted an amount of Rs.30,000/ - from the petitioner and he was forced to give up agriculture as per the wishes of the said radical group and he was forced to migrate and take shelter at Karimnagar without any source of income. It is further stated in the affidavit that added to the above sufferings, in the year 1996 on 10.1.1996 Nagarju Dalam of PWG burnt the house of the petitioner by pouring diesel and kerosene to ashes causing a damage of Rs.6,00,000/-. As per police mediation a report taken during the course of investigation valued the same at Rs.5,75,000/-. Several instances had been narrated and it was clearly averred that because of the grievance aforesaid the radicals have not been allowing him either to do agriculture or to sell away his properties and there is no protection to the life of the petitioner and also his family members and equally there is no protection to his properties. The petitioner also made a representation to Human Rights Commission and the same was referred to High Court and the High Court was pleased to admit and it was taken up as WP No.7375/96 which was disposed of on 21-8-1996 by the Division Bench directing the Collector to consider his application for payment of damage caused to him within two months.
(3.) It is stated that the petitioner made3 fresh representation to the Collector, Karimnagar on 30-8-1996 but the Collector failed to appreciate the same and granted only Rs.23,000/- towards ex gratia by G.O. Rt. No.5698, General Administration (SC.A) Department dated 14-11-1996 and gave a memo dated 29-9-1996 and stated that he had been paid Rs.1,29,417/- from Insurance Company and therefore, no more compensation need be paid to him. The petitioner also had averred that the petitioner filed a protest letter before the 4th respondent pleading that the 4th respondent should have paid compensation in terms of G.O. Ms. No.70, dated 26-2-1996 which provides for 75% of compensation for the damage caused to the victims. In the said circumstances narrating all the events in detail, the writ petitioner had prayed for the reliefs specified supra.