JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is a glaring example of high-handedness in which a person in authority, entrusted with power to use it to the benefit of the people in accordance with law and for protecting the rights of the citizens, has acted in its breach. 3. The petitioner has raised grievance about the agreement dated 24th March, 1987 (Ex. 5), which has been entered into between Urban Improvement Trust - an authority created under Statute, and the respondent No. 3 in respect of the property, ownership of which admittedly vested in the petitioner. This agreement was executed between Madhavlal s/o Lalchand Baheti and his wife Smt. Suraj Devi w/o Madhavlal on the one side and the UIT, Udaipur as the second party. The impugned agreement records in unequivocal terms that the land in question which was originally belonging to Chhaganlal s/o Bheraji and Shankarlal s/o Bhanwarlalji was sold to eight persons named in the agreement on 5-8-63 which was ratified on 28-5-65 for removing some defects in the original transfer. The documents were executed and registered by Bhanwarlal and Chhaganlal sons of Bherji, and Shankarlal s/o Bhanwarlal Mali. The document further records that the land which was purchased from the original purchaser, except Narendralal Mehta and Shankarlal everybody else has further sold his shares in the property. The property of Smt. Pusplata Dhakar, stated to be at No. 1 amongst eight purchasers of the land, was sold to the present petitioner Navratanmal Duggar. It was stated in the agreement in no uncertain terms that out of the land in question which is sought to be acquired by mutual agreement by the Urban Improvement Trust for its own purpose has three sharers namely Navratanmal Duggar, Narendralal Mehta and Surajdevi Dhayati, Surajdevi Baheti purchased the property from the person named at Serial No. 8 amongst the purchasers in 1963. After recording that the property is in physical possession of Madhavlal Baheti and that certain constructions are there, the agreement also records that in respect of this property litigation is pending between Navratanmal Duggar and Narendralal Mehta on the one side and Madhavlal on the other. 4. After recording that the property is in physical possession of Madhavlal Baheti and that certain constructions are there, the agreement also records that in respect of this property litigation is pending between Navratanmal Duggar and Narendralal Mehta on the one side and Madhavlal on the other. 4. In spite of these statements of fact, the Urban Improvement Trust purported to acquire the land by mutual negotiation from the persons in possession in consideration of allotting land to Narendra Mal Mehta and Madhavlal Dhayati by way of compensation as a result of mutual negotiation who were neither parties to the agreement nor their consent was sought thereafter or before. If the Urban Improvement Trust can choose to acquire the land from person in possession knowing the fact that the title does not vest in it and litigation as to the land in question is pending in civil Court and that too without taking consent of the person whose title is admitted in the agreement itself, only shows scant respect for law on.the part of Urban Improvement. The Trust which proposed to acquire the land in public interest by putting into operation the provisions of Land Acquisition Act but showing its willingness to acquire the property by negotiations. Though it admitted the vesting of title in the petitioner, still decided to acquire the land by negotiation from Madhavlal and his wife to put in the jeopardy the rights of the petitioner. This was clearly an act of the instrumentality of State by which it indulged in destroying the admitted rights of the petitioner by joining hands with a person while litigation is pending between the parties. A State or an instrumentality of State having necessary authority with it to acquire land for public purposes it wants to carry, if acts in abuse of it, by not resorting to the mechanism provided under law for the purpose, but knowingly deals with a person, who admittedly does not have the title in him to the detriment of owner, is an act subversive of rule of law that shatters the faith of people in fair governance. Such high-handedness cannot be permitted to stand. 5. The fact that the land in question has been appropriated by the respondents by making use of it, would not render the petitioner remediless against such high-handedness. Such high-handedness cannot be permitted to stand. 5. The fact that the land in question has been appropriated by the respondents by making use of it, would not render the petitioner remediless against such high-handedness. The respondents' plea that they have acquired the possession and they have named compensation to be provided is no answer for treating the citizens with such high-handedness with knowledge about the existing title holder, whose property they want to acquire without initiating acquisition proceedings or negotiating with him. 6. Keeping in view the facts and also keeping in view that the land has been used for public purpose, the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is awarded exemplary compensation for being treated in breach of rule of law by the respondent 4,9 who were entrusted to act in accordance with law. The respondent Urban Improvement Trust is directed to pay Rupees Fifty Thousand to the petitioner in addition to the compensation which is payable for the land which has been used by them for their own purposes and without prejudice to the remedies of the petitioner, which he may have in this regard for determination of just compensation for his land which has been, appropriated by State wrongfully.Order accordingly. *******