S. D. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) -THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 1st December 1994, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C. O. No. 53 (W) of 1994. ( 2 ) THE fact of 'the matter lies in a very narrow compass, the writ petitioner/respondent allegedly encroached upon some lands situate in Jirkatang No. 2, South Andaman. In relation to the said encroachment, a proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1970, had been initiated. The writ petitioner, however, allegedly encroached a land belonging to a temple resulting in a law and order problem, which prompted the appellants to demolish the encroachment in question. The writ petitioner, however, has asserted in this appeal that he is still in possession of the land in question. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the conduct of some of the appellants in demolishing the said structures constructed by the writ petitioner in undue haste, directed payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages. The learned Judge also took into consideration the fact that after evicting the petitioner from his hearth and home, the entire building material were sold in auction by the authorities concerned which fetched a sum of Rs. 850/- ( 4 ) MR. Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned counsel contends that the writ petitioner has pre-varicated his stand from stage to stage, inasmuch as, in the writ application, he has stated that he had been evicted, but before this court, a stand has been taken by him that he is still in occupation of the land in question. Learned counsel contends that keeping in view of the fact that the building materials merely fetched a sum of Rs. 850/- in auction, shows that the amount of damages directed to be paid to the writ petitioner by the appellants is on a higher side. ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the Judgement of the learned trial Judge, it appears that the question as to whether the petitioner had been in actual possession of the disputed land, and whether the petitioner is an encroaches or not were left open. ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the Judgement of the learned trial Judge, it appears that the question as to whether the petitioner had been in actual possession of the disputed land, and whether the petitioner is an encroaches or not were left open. The learned Judge, however, took into consideration the conduct of the appellants and passed the said order. ( 6 ) MR. Mondal, when questioned, however, fairly, conceded that before the petitioner was evicted and the but constructed by him was pulled to the ground, no proceeding was initiated in respect of the same. Learned counsel, however, contends that the action of the appellants was bona fide and had to be taken recourse to in view of the situation prevailing therein. ( 7 ) IT is now well settled in view of several decisions of the Supreme Court of India that person can be dispossessed only in accordance with law. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, in a given case may decline to exercise its Jurisdiction if it is found that such encroachment had been made either on a public path or has caused greater public inconvenience on the ground that a public right must prevail over a private right. However, according to Mr. Mondal himself, even the temple was constructed illegally and the lands upon which the said temple was constructed, also belong to the Government. ( 8 ) THIS court in exercise of its jurisdiction under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not to interfere with a discretion exercised by the learned trial judge, unless it is found that the judgment is contrary to law. As indicated herein before, the said judgment is not contrary to jaw, as admittedly, the appellants did not initiate any proceedings for eviction of the writ petitioner. Only because there had been some hue and cry raised by a section of the Public, the same was not a sufficient ground for demolition of the building in question. By reason of such a State action, the petitioner's fundamental right as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India was infringed. Only because there had been some hue and cry raised by a section of the Public, the same was not a sufficient ground for demolition of the building in question. By reason of such a State action, the petitioner's fundamental right as enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India was infringed. It is now well known that this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may direct payment of compensation in a case where the State is guilty of commission of constitutional tort. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which we should, particularly in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, interfere with the quantum of damages. However, as the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had no personal interest in the matter, and they, in our opinion, appear to have acted bona fide, the said amount may not be realised from them. We, however, make it clear that the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- should be paid by the State. ( 10 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned modification in the judgment of the learned trial Judge, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall pay and bear their own costs in this appeal. ( 11 ) XEROX certified copy of the judgment, if applied, for, be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, on priority basis. D. K. Jain, J.- I agree. Appeal dismissed.