JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against Writ Court judgment dated 14th February 2007, whereby appellant's writ petition being OWP No. 1294/1996, titled Mohammad Amin Sofi v. State and others has been dismissed. First an over view of background of facts. Appellant was on 23.06.1994 arrested by Commandant 30th Bn. Border Security Force (BSF) at Neelam Chowk, Srinagar and handed over to Police Control Room on 24th June 1994 and was let off. He on his release complained that he was tortured by Commandant 30th Bn. B.S.F-respondent No. 3 in writ petition after he was picked up on 23rd June 1994, resulting in fracture of his hipbone and right leg, leaving him disabled for rest of life. He lodged a report with Police Station Shaheedgunj, leading to registration of case FIR No. 107 of 1994, under Section 325, 342 RPC. The investigation appears to have been concluded as proved against Commandant Sh. Sharma and Sh. K.B. Dev Choudhary, Inspector 30th Bn. BSF and charge sheet laid before the competent court. 2. Be that as it may, petitioner on 28th Oct 1996, approached this Court with a writ petition being OWP No. 1294 of 1996, seeking following relief: "(i) A writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs to appellant as compensation and also provide him proper medical care. (ii) A writ of mandamus to arrange necessary facilities to shift the appellant to All India Medical Institute for treatment." 3. The writ petition was opposed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that appellant was not subjected to any torture while in custody at Investigation Centre Papa-II. It was however, admitted that appellant was picked-up for questioning on 23rd June 1994, at about 700 hours during Cat-operation, conducted by paramilitary forces. The respondent No. 3, insisted that appellant was brought to Papa-II (Joint Investigation Centre) on 24th June 1994 and released through police control room on the same date on the directions of the then District Magistrate, Srinagar. It was denied that appellant, suffered fracture of hip joint during interrogation at Papa-II. It was pleaded that appellant met an accident in 1980, resulting in fracture of hip joint and he remained under treatment at SMHS Hospital, Srinagar for about 9 months. 4. It was denied that appellant, suffered fracture of hip joint during interrogation at Papa-II. It was pleaded that appellant met an accident in 1980, resulting in fracture of hip joint and he remained under treatment at SMHS Hospital, Srinagar for about 9 months. 4. The respondents 1 & 2 in their reply questioned maintainability of writ petition on the ground that appellant had an equally efficacious remedy available under civil law and could not invoke writ jurisdiction. It was however, admitted that on a complaint, filed by appellant, alleging therein that he was arrested by 30th Bn. BSF and subjected to torture resulting in fracture of his right leg, case FIR No. 107 of 1994, under Section 325, 342 RPC was registered at Police Station Shaheedgunj and on conclusion of investigation charge sheet presented against Sh. Sharma, Commandant BSF and Shri K.R. Choudhary, Inspector before the competent court on 29.04.1997. The respondents 1 & 2 insisted that as they were not alleged to have involved in wrongful confinement and grievous injury to the appellant, they were not liable to pay compensation and that any claim for compensation was to be raised against respondent No. 3. 5. The Writ Court on perusal of pleadings and available record and on hearing, learned counsel of parties took the view that petition raised disputed questions of fact and law - not to be decided by the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. It further, held that documents relied upon by appellant were at variance and therefore grant of relief sought was not warranted. The learned Single Judge observed that appellant's claim as regards fracture of hip joint because of torture to which he was allegedly subjected while in custody was disputed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that fracture was attributable to a vehicular accident that took place in 1980 and issue reflecting controversy was to be determined after parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence. Such an exercise according to learned Single Judge, was not to be made by writ Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 103 of Constitution of State of J&K. 6. The Writ Court judgment dated 14th February 2007 is questioned in Letters Patent Appeal on hand. The Judgment is assailed on the grounds. set out in the memo of appeal. 7. The Writ Court judgment dated 14th February 2007 is questioned in Letters Patent Appeal on hand. The Judgment is assailed on the grounds. set out in the memo of appeal. 7. We have gone through the memo of appeal, the judgment impugned as also writ record. We have heard learned counsel for parties. 8. On June 11th, 2014, upon hearing counsel for parties, Letters Patent Bench, noticing the view taken by learned Single Judge regarding factual character of controversy, directed Principle District Judge, Srinagar to record evidence in the matter and thereafter return his finding on the controversy raised. The Principal District Judge, Srinagar accordingly allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective stand and recorded statement of Dr. Javid, Consultant JVC Hospital, Srinagar, Dr. G.R. Mir, Shabir Ahmad PSI, Shaheedgunj and Record Keeper of Deputy Commissioner's, Office Srinagar. Respondents did not adduce any evidence, though their counsel cross examined the witnesses summoned at the instance of appellant. On going through evidence brought on record, learned District Judge concluded that appellant suffered injury in 1994 and neck in femur was operated under the supervision of Dr. Ghulam Rasool Mir, the then Head of Department (HOD), Bone and Joints Hospital, Barzulla, Srinagar. It was further opined that though the appellant had earlier suffered fracture, yet earlier fracture was distinct from fracture suffered in 1994 and it was not revival of earlier injury. 9. The report of Principle District Judge, Srinagar dated 16th May 2015 destabilizes very foundation of on the basis whereof, the writ petition was dismissed. It may be recalled that learned Single Judge felt persuaded to dismiss the writ petition inter-alia on the ground that issues raised were factual in character and not be looked into by the writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Once LPA Bench in the facts and circumstances of the case found it just and proper to direct an enquiry by Principle District Judge, Srinagar and later on the basis of evidence recorded arrived at a definite conclusion as regard the issues raised, the ground on which writ petition was dismissed is no more available. 10. Once LPA Bench in the facts and circumstances of the case found it just and proper to direct an enquiry by Principle District Judge, Srinagar and later on the basis of evidence recorded arrived at a definite conclusion as regard the issues raised, the ground on which writ petition was dismissed is no more available. 10. It is settled law that a person with right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India, may in addition to any relief for restoration of liberty or removal of source of infringement of his fundamental right, also ask for compensation for such infringement. He need not resort to civil remedy or file a suit as long as the right to get compensation and amount of compensation can be determined on the basis of record available on the file. He is not even required to file a separate writ petition to get compensation, assessed and awarded. The relief can be sought in same petition, wherein enforcement of fundamental right is sought. Reference in this regard may be made to D.K. Basu v. State, 1997 AIR SCW 233. 11. Appellant in the present case alleges that he was without lawful authority and any reason or justification picked up by Commandant 30th Bn. BSF, placed in wrongful confinement and tortured while in such confinement, resulting in multiple fractures. The appellant's case finds support from the stand taken by respondents 1 & 2 in their reply. The reply as already stated reveals that a case relating to incident was registered at P/S Shaheedgunj, investigation conducted and formal charge sheet, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 325, 342 RPC laid before competent court of jurisdiction against Commandant and Inspector 30th Bn. BSF. 12. This apart material on record and in particular District Judge's report reinforces the petitioner's claim. It is therefore to be concluded that appellant was taken in to custody by respondent No. 3, kept in wrongful confinement, tortured and thereafter released through Police Control Room, Srinagar. 13. This takes us to quantum of compensation due to appellant on account of wrongful confinement and grievous injury. The compensation to be awarded must have nexus with the injury or loss suffered by person because of infringement of his fundamental right. 13. This takes us to quantum of compensation due to appellant on account of wrongful confinement and grievous injury. The compensation to be awarded must have nexus with the injury or loss suffered by person because of infringement of his fundamental right. The compensation must not be in the nature of windfall to a person alleging infringement of fundamental rights but an effort to rehabilitate the aggrieved and reimburse him the expenditure, if any, incurred because of the effects or fallout of infringement on fundamental rights. 14. Learned Principle District Judge, Srinagar in his report dated 16th May 2015, has not dealt with quantum of compensation. The record available on file would reveal that appellant was brought to Bone and Joints Hospital Barzulla, Srinagar by police, alleging custodial torture. He was hospitalized and Dr. Farooqi, Professor Orthopedics in All India Medical Institute New Delhi (AIMS) was consulted by local doctor, attending the appellant at Bone and Joints Hospital Barzulla. Appellant was advised by Orthopedician at Srinagar consult Dr. Farooqi at AIMS at Delhi. Appellant therefore is expected to have incurred expenses on account of medical treatment, engagement of attendant, transportation etc. Appellant was examined by Dr. Paljoor, an Orthopedicion with specialization in bone and joints, Dr. Paljoor in his certificate dated 31st Oct. 1998 has advised 'total hip replacement' followed by mobilization of left knee. To get recommended medical treatment, appellant according to Dr. Paljoor may have spent 3 to 4 lac rupees. 15. Having regard to material available on file, an amount of Rs. 5 lacs would be just compensation to be awarded to appellant. The amount awarded shall not only enable the appellant to organize medical treatment but also compensate him for the pain and agony and discomfort to which he was exposed at the hands of respondent No. 3. 16. Viewed thus, it is to be concluded that appellant was arrested by respondent No. 3, kept in wrongful confinement and tortured while in confinement, resulting in fracture of hip femur. The respondent No. 3 is therefore to pay compensation to petitioner. However, respondents 1 & 2 cannot escape from liability to pay compensation as it is at their instance that BSF has come to aid and assistance of respondents 1 & 2 for maintenance of law and order. The respondent No. 3 is therefore to pay compensation to petitioner. However, respondents 1 & 2 cannot escape from liability to pay compensation as it is at their instance that BSF has come to aid and assistance of respondents 1 & 2 for maintenance of law and order. The respondents 1 & 2 therefore are to pay the compensation awarded, from Security Related Expenditure (SRE) provided by Central Government or in absence of availability of such funds to mobilize their source to pay compensation to the appellant. For the reason discussed, Letters patent Appeal is allowed and the writ Court order dated 14th February 2007, set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with directions to respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs as compensation to appellant. Let the amount be paid within three months from the date of judgment where after it will carry interest @ 9% P.a. Disposed of.