B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Petitions, while conceding title to the respondent temple, the petitioners only sought the relief that they should not be evicted from the suit schedule premises without following due process of law. ( 2 ) HAVING sympathised with the position in which the petitioners are placed as most of them are middle-class and low paid employees, who purchased the lands in question from the persons (landgrabbers), who claimed title over the property, by investing their hard earned monies, this court summoned the higher Officials and after persuasion for over 1 1/2 years, the government issued G. O. Ms. No. 578, revenue (Endowments- IV) Department, dated 19th August, 2000, agreeing to alienate the land as per the terms and conditions mentioned in that order. This exercise was done by the Court so that atleast by paying value of the land, they can save the structures raised by them. Otherwise, all the buildings have to be brought down after the litigation comes to an end, it not today, at least after some time as the petitioners themselves have conceded that they have no title over the property. ( 3 ) AT this stage, the Counsel for the petitioners started contending that the temple is a party to the transactions and in fact, in some cases, the temple collected some amounts towards the value of land. It is not the case of the petitioners that the government issued orders in writing permitting the temple to alienate the immovable property, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 80 of the endowments Act. In the event of the petitioners approaching one Forum or the other, I hope and trust that the authorities concerned shall be more careful and vigilant in giving any direction and they shall not be parties to subvert the law of the land. ( 4 ) ALL these facts were not stated in the affidavit and I cannot permit the petitioners to raise them at the stage of delivering the judgment. It is for the petitioners either to avail the opportunity given by the government at the instance of this Court to get their title to the land in their occupation by getting their occupation regularized or to fight the litigation eternally. The ball is in their Court to decide. It is for the petitioners either to avail the opportunity given by the government at the instance of this Court to get their title to the land in their occupation by getting their occupation regularized or to fight the litigation eternally. The ball is in their Court to decide. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with this case, I must place on record that an impression has been created in the minds of the people that they can violate the law with impunity, more so in case of immovable property held by the government and its Instrumentalities. If democracy has to thrive in this country, it is time to enforce discipline so that the law breakers cannot run away with the cake by having a last laugh at the institutions involved in dispensing justice. In this case, taking advantage of the long drawn battle or disputes between the Government and the temple, I am sure that some people in collusion with the revenue officials as well as the temple officials, created fabricated documents and sold the land in question to these gullible people. As these petitioners have parted their hard earned monies, I am inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioners to initiate criminal proceedings against the vendors, so that the tremors will be felt in the minds of the law-breaking people that the law is not their mistress but it is a sword and it will punish them. If any criminal complaint is filed by the petitioners against the land grabbers, the Magistrate concerned is directed (not) to refer the matter to the Police for investigation, but take up the cases straightaway and proceed with the complaints by recording the sworn statements of the complainants and dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of taking the complaint on file. ( 6 ) THE Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. But under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.