Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. In this case, the boundary wall and portions of the residential house of the petitioner were forcibly demolished by the respondent-authorities. According to the State Counsel, the respondents were acting in compliance with the directions given by this Court in order passed from time to time in C.W.J.C. No. 2290/ 1990 : Arun Kumar Mukherjee V/s. State of Bihar. 2. In a recent decision in Bhola Sah and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar 1999 (2) PLJR 851 , the orders passed in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee were examined in detail and this Court came to find and hold that even while acting in compliance of the directions given in that case, it was imperative that certain steps were taken before the executive authorities could forcibly demolish the structure(s) on the grounds that it encroached upon road, road flanks and was causing obstruction in free flow of traffic. See para 51 of the decision in the case of Bhola Sah (supra). 3. From the records of this case, it is manifest that the forcible demolition of the boundary wall of the petitioners house was carried out without following the requirements in terms of the directions given in the case of Arun Kumar Mukherjee and as explained in the decision in the case of Bhola Sah (supra). 4. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Bhola Sah, it must be held and declared that the action of the respondent-authorities in demolishing the boundry wall and portions of the petitioners house was quite arbitrary, high-handed, unjust and unfair. Consequently, it must further be held that in case the petitioner was dispossessed from any piece of land following the demolition of the boundry wall, his possession must be restored forthwith and he be allowed to reconstruct the demolished portions of his boundry wall and the house and to continue in possession of the piece of land till he was removed from the disputed land in accordance with law. 5. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the above declaration/ direction is not to be understood to mean that according to this Court, the petitioners possession over the land was lawful or that the disputed structure(s) were constructed in an authorised manner. 5. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the above declaration/ direction is not to be understood to mean that according to this Court, the petitioners possession over the land was lawful or that the disputed structure(s) were constructed in an authorised manner. The interference by this Court is solely on the ground that the manner in which the respondent-authorities proceeded to demolish the boundry wall and portions of his house, was unsustainable in the eyes of law. In the event, a dispute arises in future regarding the petitioners right over the disputed land this order will not be an evidence of his rights and title over the disputed piece of land and the parties will rely upon such other evidence that may be available to them on that question. 6. This writ petition thus stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.