Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents act of damaging/demolishing his eastern boundary wall from the north and damaging north-eastern pillar of one of his gates on 21-10-98 was illegal act exhibiting gross highhandedness for which the petitioner is entitled to an exemplary compensation. The petitioner also prayed for grant of payment of cost for the repair and reconstruction of damaged structure which was illegally demolished by the respondents. 2. The petitioner case is that he is the owner of plot No. 46-B situated in Shrikrishna Puri in the town of Patna which was allotted to him by the Patna Improvement Trust in the year 1966 by virtue of a registered lease cum deed agreement dated 23-8-1969. As per boundary given in the deed there are four plots on the three sides and 80 wide roads towards north as well as east as this plot as well as its adjacent plots are located on a more middle of north-east. The petitioner house and plot has boundary walls on all the four sides in accordance with the deed/lease agreement. He constructed a house as per a duly sanctioned plan on the said plot since more than two decades and is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that towards the adjacent north-east of the petitioner plot, plot No. 47B is situated in which a house was built after obtaining sanction plan from the Patna Improvement Trust 20 years back. The north-east boundary of the petitioner was built by him and it is serving as common boundary wall between him and plot No. 47B. At the northern end of this boundary there are pillars attached to it, one belonged to the petitioner to support one of his gate and the other also in plot No. 47B to support one of his gates of the said plot. The petitioner case is that he has not encroached any part of the 80 wide public road on north-east and the boundary wall as well as the gate pillars attached to it are well within allotted private lands. The road beyond the constructed boundary walls as well as pillars is 80 wide without any encroachment. The petitioner case is that he has not encroached any part of the 80 wide public road on north-east and the boundary wall as well as the gate pillars attached to it are well within allotted private lands. The road beyond the constructed boundary walls as well as pillars is 80 wide without any encroachment. The petitioner case is that he never received any notice from the respondents nor marking was ever put on their pillars or boundary walls in spite of measurement held in the area to indicate any encroachment by the petitioner on the public road. However, during the Deewali holidays the respondents authorities started with rough and ready device of removing the alleged encroachment in Shri Krishna Puri Mohalla against several houses built with sanctioned plans. In course of such action a team of officials/employees of respondent No. 2 along with a jeep loaded with Armed Police and a powerful crane like machine came at the house of the petitioner and in presence of petitioner son who is a doctor and without any plausible explanation used force and machine to forcibly damage the northern end of petitioner wall which is common with plot No. 47B, and the pillars of gate attached to both sides of that common wall built by the petitioner long back in accordance with laws of the subject on the ground that the length of the said wall as allegedly more than what should have been as per dimension of adjacent plot No. 47B. It is stated that such action of the respondents has led to lack of security for the house of the petitioner as well as his adjacent neighbour as gates are badly disturbed due to serious damage to the supporting pillars. Such incident shocked the petitioner who is a retired public servant when he came back from his village home after few days. The petitioner case is that the aforesaid illegal act was done deliberately in violation of principles of rule of law and it has caused material as well as mental injury to the petitioner for the reason that there was no encroachment on any public land or road and still 80 wide road exists adjacent to the plot in question. 3. The petitioner case is that the aforesaid illegal act was done deliberately in violation of principles of rule of law and it has caused material as well as mental injury to the petitioner for the reason that there was no encroachment on any public land or road and still 80 wide road exists adjacent to the plot in question. 3. When the matter was listed on 24-11-98 prayer was made by the petitioner for a direction to the Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority to measure the land of the petitioner including the road in front of the house. The Court accordingly directed the authority to get the measurement done in the presence of the petitioner and produce a copy of such measurement along with a counter-affidavit. Pursuant to that order the authority got the land measured and filed a counter-affidavit annexing a copy of such measurement. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the land of the petitioner was measured in his presence and it was found that the petitioner has encroached 1 more land on southern side, since as per allotment the land of the petitioner was 104 while the petitioners in possession of 105 land. Accordingly the petitioner has encroached 1 land on southern side which has been demolished by the respondents authorities. It is further stated that prior to demolition a general notice was advertised on daily newspaper "Hindustan dated 4-8-96 to remove the encroachment within 15 days otherwise the authority will remove the encroachment. In spite of general notice the petitioner has not removed the encroachment himself, so the authority has demolished only the encroached portion of the land. 4. I have heard Mr. Sharwan Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the authority. During the course of argument Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh very fairly admitted that there was no encroachment on the road rather the petitioner encroached 1 land belonging to the authority towards road side and constructed a pillar and boundary wall. From perusal of the affidavits of both the parties the admitted fact is that the petitioner has not made any encroachment on the 80 wide road. Rajendra Prasad Singh very fairly admitted that there was no encroachment on the road rather the petitioner encroached 1 land belonging to the authority towards road side and constructed a pillar and boundary wall. From perusal of the affidavits of both the parties the admitted fact is that the petitioner has not made any encroachment on the 80 wide road. From perusal of the measurement report annexed with the counter-affidavit it appears that 80 6" wide road has been shown and thereafter adjacent to that road there is a plot No. 46B belonging to the petitioner and 47B belonging to another person. In between these two plots a boundary wall has been shown naming as south boundary wall. In the said measurement the encroachment point has been shown which is in between 80 6" wide road and land of plot No. 46B. In the counter-affidavit also the respondent authority has not disputed that there is any encroachment made by the petitioner on 80 wide road. Admittedly there is no encroachment on the 80 wide road rather according to the respondent authority the petitioner has encroached 1 land on southern side of the plot. The southern side of plot is admittedly not a road. Even assuming that the petitioner included 1 land within his boundary wall that cannot give unfettered right to the respondent to demolish the pillars and boundary wall without resorting the remedy provided under the Regional Development Authority Act or under Land Encroachment Act or under any other laws for the time being in force. From perusal of the notice it appears that the authority gave a general notice for removal of encroachment on the basis of certain order and direction passed by this Court. I am afraid this Court has ever issued any such direction for demolition of any structure which does not exist on the public land and road. It is true that pursuant to general direction of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation the respondents and the authorities of the State have been directed to remove encroachment which exists on the road and drain after giving general notice and after getting measurement of the road and the land in presence of the respective owners of the adjacent house and the land. The purpose of encroachment drive is to remove encroachment from public land in order to eliminate encroachment and to ensure a free flow of traffic. It has been found that in the garb of such general order and direction the authorities of the State and the respondent authority have been misusing the order and direction of this Court. In the instant case as noticed above there has been no encroachment on the public road and drain and from the measurement report it is clear that the petitioner plot is adjacent to the road. Therefore, there does not appear any encroachment made by the petitioner by constructing boundary wall. Even assuming that there is some encroachment on the land allegedly belonging to the authority then I am of the definite view that in case of such encroachment the authority is not empowered under the law to remove encroachment without giving personal hearing to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit the respondent authority has given an evasive reply and from reading the whole counter-affidavit which is of few paragraphs it transpires that when after measurement no encroachment was found on the 80 wide road then the authority has falsely made out a case of encroachment of land belonging to it on the southern side without mentioning the detail description of the land. As noticed above the petitioner has constructed his house and boundary wall twenty years back after obtaining necessary sanction from the Patna Improvement Trust. In such circumstance the action of the authority in demolishing the boundary wall is nothing but totally illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. It is well settled that the State or its authorities are subject to "etat de droit", i.e. the State is submitted to the law which implies that all actions of the State or its authority and officials must be carried out subject to the constitution and within the limits set by the law. In other words the State is to obey the law. It is equally well settled that executive or administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the person affected thereby. In other words the State is to obey the law. It is equally well settled that executive or administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made in conformity with the rule of natural justice, which at least requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the person affected thereby. In my opinion, therefore, the action of the authority was illegal and violative of all principles of rule of law which has certainly caused mental pain and injury to the petitioner besides material damages to his property. Such action of the authority must be deprecated. I am therefore, of the view that it is a fit case where an appropriate writ should be issued directing the respondent authority to forthwith repair and/or reconstruct the pillars and the boundary wall of the petitioner not later than two weeks from today and in the alternative pay a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 being the cost of construction. The respondent authority is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by way of compensation for the mental pain and agony suffered to the petitioner on account of illegal act and high-handedness of the respondent authority. 5. This writ application is allowed with the aforesaid directions.Application allowed.