JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.6.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant's WP(C) No. 3167/2010. 2. Originally, the writ petition was filed by Bani Chakraborty and after she died, her son Dulal Chandra Chakraborty has been prosecuting the same. 3. One Ashok Chakraborty was son of Bani Chakraborty and brother of the appellant. They lived together at Dhubri. On 14.12.1992, Ashok Chakraborty went to market, but did not return. His body also could not be traced out by anyone including the police. Everyone thus believed that Ashok Chakraborty had become a victim of communal riots and violence after the infamous Babri Masjid demolition on 6.12.1992. Bani Chakraborty lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Bazar TOP, Dhubri on 19.12.1992 stating therein that Ashok Chakraborty is missing since 14.12.1992. During that period, the State of Assam was also suffering from militancy. After waiting for many years, when Ashok Chakraborty did not return, nor his body was found, Bani Chakraborty filed a writ petition claiming ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs in terms of Assam Public Services (Appointment of Family Members of Persons killed by Extremist/Terrorist) Rules, 1992. 4. In reply, the respondents took a stand that since Ashok Chakraborty did not die due to any act of extremist/terrorist, Bani Chakraborty was not entitled for any ex-gratia compensation. The respondents also relied upon report dated 2.1.2003 of the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, wherein he stated that Ashok Chakraborty has been missing since 14.12.1992 during the communal disturbance and he could not be traced out. 5. On this backdrop, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition holding that Ashok Chakraborty was only missing and not killed by extremists/terrorists. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that since Ashok Chakraborty is a victim of communal riots and violence, the State must compensate his loss. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Md. Haroon v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 252 . The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam responded by fairly submitting that the State will comply with whatever order is passed by this court. 7. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Md. Haroon v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 252 . The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam responded by fairly submitting that the State will comply with whatever order is passed by this court. 7. Report dated 2.1.2003 of the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri confirms that Ashok Chakraborty is missing since 14.12.1992 on account of communal disturbance. There is yet another letter dated 29.11.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri addressed to the Additional Senior Government advocate, Assam which reads as under: “Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri reported vide Letter under reference that immediately after the demolition of Babri Maszid on 6.12.1992 the law and order situation deteriorated to such extent that curfew had to be imposed in Dhubri. Several persons were killed and several were injured during that period. He has further informed in his Letter under reference that as per report submitted by the then Superintendent of Police, Dhubri that one Ashok Chakraborty S/O-Late Anil Chakraborty of A.M. Co. Road, Dhubri had been missing since 14.12.1992 during the communal disturbance in the year 1992 and could not be traced out till the submission of the report. However, on scrutiny of the available Dhubri PS and Bazar TOP records, no record of violence reported on 14.12.1992. In this connection report received from Superintendent of Police, Dhubri vide under reference is enclosed herewith for your ready reference. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action. Enclo: As stated above Yours faithfully, Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri.” 8. The above quoted letter dated 29.11.2017 leaves no iota of doubt that immediately after demolition of Babri Masjid on 6.12.1992, the law and order situation in Dhubri had deteriorated to such an extent that curfew had to be imposed. The letter also mentions that several persons were injured and killed during that period. But at the end, the Deputy Commissioner has mentioned that on scrutiny of the available Dhubri Police Station and Bazar TOP record, no incident of violence is reported. The letter also mentions that several persons were injured and killed during that period. But at the end, the Deputy Commissioner has mentioned that on scrutiny of the available Dhubri Police Station and Bazar TOP record, no incident of violence is reported. This observation is self-contradictory because in the earlier part of the letter, the Deputy Commissioner has very categorically stated that soon after 6.12.1992 the law and order situation in Dhubri had seriously deteriorated due to which curfew was imposed and several persons were injured and killed during that period. Perhaps, on 14.12.1992, no incident of violence might have been reported, but the fact that Ashok Chakraborty became a victim of riots on account of demolition of Babri Masjid cannot be ruled out. The Supreme Court in Md. Haroon (supra) has held that kith and kin of those who died in communal violence are also entitled for compensation. We, therefore, in the fact situation of the case, direct the State Government to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the appellant within three months from today. The learned counsel for the appellant has agreed that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 is a reasonable amount and the appellant is satisfied with the amount awarded. 9. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.