ORDER This appeal arises out of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 831 of 1998 on 10.11.98 whereby repelling the submission of the appellant for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to construct any drainage to the adjoining west of the residential plot no. A/356 which has been allotted to Sri S.P. Srivastava on the eastern side of the road running from South-North to the extreme west of the A.G. Colony in Mohalla Sheikhpura, Patna, the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under. The land measuring 54.75 acres said to have been acquired for A.G. Colony by the State of Bihar in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/80-81 and after acquisition, possession was handed over to the society i.e. the appellant. 3. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Patna Regional Development Authority without making any proper measurement has demolished a portion of the residential building over plot no. A/356 to construct a drainage by diverting the existing drainage on the western side of the road. It is, therefore, submitted that such an attempt on behalf of the Patna Regional Development Authority and other authorities of the State was not only arbitrary but malafide inasmuch as this step was taken to extend benefit to certain influential persons residing in that vicinity. The appellant has also stated that there was no encroachment on the public land or drainage and, therefore, demolition of the building and boundary wall was wholly illegal. 4. The averments made by the appellant were refuted by Patna Municipal Corporation by filing a counter affidavit which was duly sworn in by the Chief Engineer and in that counter affidavit it is stated that the drainage in question was constructed for the discharge of effluent and stagnation of waste water as well as the sewerage treatment plant of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences. It is also stated that keeping in view the water logging problem, which is, in fact, a great threat for the general public, a meeting was convened in Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Urban Development Department and several other higher authorities of Patna Municipal Corporation, and also of Patna Regional Development Authority and the State Government and in the meeting a decision was taken for construction of drainage etc. A reference of C.W.J.C. No. 9576 of 1996 has also been given wherein the authorities were directed by this Court to provide proper facility for drainage etc. within a time bound programme. 5. It was also found that construction raised by the appellant was illegal and unauthorized and, therefore, demolition was made with respect to boundary wall etc. and it is also contended that steps were taken only to remove encroachment of the structures which were made on the alignment of Nala and garbage etc. to construct a pucca drain. 6. Having considered the case of both sides the Writ Court reached the conclusion that the case as set out by the appellant in the writ petition that the demolition made by the Patna Regional Development Authority and other concerned authority was neither illegal not arbitrary nor malafide rather it was within the limits of the authorities concerned, which have demolished the construction. 7. Assailing these findings, it is contended that without affording any opportunity and without any adjudication on the question of encroachment, the demolition has been made of the compound wall and a portion of the building and so the respondents are liable to reconstruct the demolished portion. 8. A strong reliance was made on a decision in the case of Gauri Shankar Bhagat vs. State of Bihar and others : 1996(2) PLJR, 780 wherein it is held that if it is found that the authorities have acted arbitrarily, the Court can issue direction to restore back the possession and can also direct payment of heavy cost. 9. Accordingly applying the above ratio in the above said case it is contended that heavy cost may be directed including that of restoration of possession and reconstruction of the demolished portion of the building. 10. 9. Accordingly applying the above ratio in the above said case it is contended that heavy cost may be directed including that of restoration of possession and reconstruction of the demolished portion of the building. 10. No doubt where it is found that the construction was made in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the decision referred to above in Gauri Shankar Bhagat case (supra) will apply with full force and it is not only expected by all concerned rather they are bound to proceed in accordance with law as proceeding without following the due process of law will render an act done illegal and in such a case the Court while exercising its jurisdiction must stretch its long arms to deal with any litigant or person who attempts to play with the procedure of the Court and shows disregard of the rule of law. 11. But here in the instant case, the position is otherwise. The findings reached by the learned Writ Court is that the construction was illegal and where illegal construction or possession is found by the authority concerned, the concerned authority is entitled to have the unauthorized or illegal construction demolished if the owner himself voluntarily does not demolish such illegal and unauthorized construction and to remove such illegal construction if by prima facie evidence it is not shown that the construction has been raised after obtaining proper sanction of the competent authority. For removal of such illegal encroachment or demolition of illegal construction by the authorities, they are not bound to pay any compensation of the value of such demolished portion, which was raised unauthorisedly without permission of the authority concerned. (See the decision in the case of State of Orissa vs. Rajakishore Das : (1996) 4 S.C.C.221). 12. This being so, rightly the learned Writ Court has reached the conclusion that the petition as framed and filed by the appellant-petitioner has no force and dismissed the same. 13. Thus, in our opinion, no interference is called for. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.