Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that contrary to the order passed by this Court on 30-10-1998 in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of 1998 (Pankaj Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.), the respondent have demolished his two-storeyed, 14 rooms pucca construction after taking law in their own hands. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have submitted that after finding the constructions to be illegal demolished started on 29-10-1998 and the same came to an end on 30-10-1998 much before the order passed by this Court could be served upon the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the directions contained in order dated 30-10-1998, the respondents were obliged to measure, earmark and demarcate the area falling within the zone of the National Highway including the area of its flanks. 4. According to the petitioner the manner in which the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of the 1998 was ignored speaks volume against the respondents. He, however, submits that this Court must make an inquiry and award damages for illegal demolitions. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the alleged pucca construction was demolished much before the order passed by this Court could be served upon the respondents, therefore, the petitioner cannot make a complaint before this Court that the respondents have violated the spirit of the order dated 30-10-1998. He further submits that as the question relates to disputed facts as to when the demolition took place and the petitioner house stood on the private land or public land, this Court can neither make any inquiry into the question of disputed facts nor can award damages in these proceedings/He, however, submits that the petitioner must be left with option to approach the Civil Court, where in a duly constituted suit he may ask for damages. He further submits that the direction issued in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of 1998 have become infructuous and the petitioner cannot now take advantage of the said order because the house in dispute has already been demolished. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the records. He further submits that the direction issued in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of 1998 have become infructuous and the petitioner cannot now take advantage of the said order because the house in dispute has already been demolished. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the records. So far as the question of demolition either on 29-10-1998 or 30-10-1998 is concerned, this Court cannot make any inquiry into the same nor in view of the defence raised by the respondents can award damages to the petitioner. It is only in a case where the facts are incontrovertible the High Court may award damages. The petitioner must be advised to approach Civil Court in duly constituted suit where he may claim damages for alleged illegal demolition by the respondents. 7. So far as the directions dated 30-10-1998 made in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of 1998 are concerned, the respondents cannot be allowed to say that the directions issued by the High Court have become infructuous. When the Highest Tribunal of justice in the State issues a direction, the authorities concerned are bound to obey the directions and cannot be allowed to say that because of the changed circumstances, the observation cannot be adhered to. In fact, in the earlier order dated 30-10-1998, this Court issued particular directions to the respondents. The respondents were required to take measurement in presence of the petitioner and his own Amin. The High Court also gave direction to the authority concerned to come to a positive conclusion that whether the petitioner had made any encroachment upon the public land or made construction on his private land. The said direction still stands. The respondents are duty bound to observe and carry out the said directions. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the Collector, with a copy of this order who shall pass necessary order in accordance with the directions dated 30-10-1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9217 of 1998. From the proceedings recorded by the Collector, it appears that he is taking the directions issued by this Court very lightly. If the Collector fails to pass necessary order within four weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order as also copy of order dated 30-10-1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9217/98, this Court may take coercive action against him and may draw contempt proceedings against him. If the Collector fails to pass necessary order within four weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this order as also copy of order dated 30-10-1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9217/98, this Court may take coercive action against him and may draw contempt proceedings against him. The Collector is hereby reminded that any person subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot ignore the mandatory directions issued by this Court. 9. The petition is finally disposed of with a direction that the Collector shall observe the directions as contained in the order dated 30-10-1998. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties within three days from today.