Judgment 1. The petitioner calls itself a Society. Its name is Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Kalyan Evam Vikash Sansthan. This Society was seeking a tract of land by an allotment whatever be its purpose and whatever use it may put to subsequently. But before the allotment could be made it misused politics and took the law in its own hands. The net result is that whatever happened firstly is an insult to a great Parliamentarian Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, a man who dedicated his life for the rule of law and for functioning of parliamentary democracy. Otherwise, he is acknowledged in history as one of the foremost leaders who was active in the Constituent Assembly in the making of the Constitution of India. Let his name not to be defiled in the manner in which it has been done in the case before the Court. 2. Rightly, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition as dirty politics was violating the rule of law. In case the society had interest in a piece of land then the process of considering whether the land may be allotted or cannot be allotted should have been permitted to be over. Only two things would have happened, either an allotment would have been made or the request would have been rejected. But what happened is very disturbing. 3. The Court can hardly ignore this case as such instances are happening and give an impression to an ordinary citizen who would like to live by the law and would like to function within the framework of the rule of law that power flows out of a barrel of the gun. If any such situations were to be encouraged it would shake parliamentary democracy in India. Admittedly, even counsel for the petitioner appellant does not deny that the rule of law has been violated. 4. In the very first paragraph of the order the learned Judge has recorded that even before the allotment process could be completed a foundation stone was laid by a Minister. How did an agent of the Government walk into a public land or for that matter anybody elses land without express permission or a licence to do so. A Minister is the executive part of the government. Such circumstances are happening very frequently in this State and this case is a live example. 5. How did an agent of the Government walk into a public land or for that matter anybody elses land without express permission or a licence to do so. A Minister is the executive part of the government. Such circumstances are happening very frequently in this State and this case is a live example. 5. A Minister goes and lays a foundation stone on a land which is being considered for allotment. After the Minister lays the foundation stone the land is encircled by a wall. What else is left? Padding up the record to record an allotment order in favour of the Society on an illegal act of the Minister, cannot be a State action nor an executive action within the frame of a democracy working with due regard to the Constitution. This is breakdown of the rule of law. Such action of an executive makes the government accountable obliging the cabinet to take the responsibility and be answerable to the legislature, on a censure motion. 6. The Minister having trespassed over public land was aiding and abetting with the favour seekers to allot this land to the favoured organisation for Re. 1/-; one rupee only. This is not affirmative action. It is hooliganism and criminal trespass by a Minister on public land. This is terrorism in misplaced politics. The government may itself use the land, for a defined public purpose. Because if it was private land there would have been need to resort to sovereign powers to acquire and yet for a public purpose. But, let the name of a great statesman, parliamentarian and nationalist be not exploited as a preserve of anarchists in politics. Between the society and the Minister this public land having seen criminal trespass there can be no transfer under the law. Beginning an exercise to alio the land under the blackmail of an opening ceremony by a Minister is extra-statutory acquisition. Every person who has arranged for this blatant arrogant show of power regardless of rank and favour should be proceeded with for criminal action as this is the rule of law. 7. The Court was concerned on what the learned Judge has recorded and had made a request to the State Counsel Mr. V.N. Sinha, G.P.9 that if possible, the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar may be present. 7. The Court was concerned on what the learned Judge has recorded and had made a request to the State Counsel Mr. V.N. Sinha, G.P.9 that if possible, the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar may be present. The Court was indicated that the Chief Secretary has at present been summoned to the Raj Bhawan on the law and order situation prevailing in the State. As the Chief Secretary cannot be at two places at the same time let the Chief Secretary pay his attention to this case also as this is no different than the purpose for what he has been summoned at the Raj Bhawan. 8. Now the petitioner desires that if he is treated to be an encroacher then he must receive a notice under the law. The petitioner wants to take aid of the law after having violated its sanctity. This can become a bad practice and precedent both. Encroachers and violators of the law and persons like the petitioner who have no respect for the rule of law and will walk into anothers land and occupy it cannot expect that they will be given an opportunity to explain their action for having illegally occupied what is other peoples property. This would make mockery of the law. 9. Action to remedy the situation has to be tackled at the very root of it. Trespassers under the cover of a Minister possessing land and then blackmailing the State to make allotment and that also on a payment of Re. 1/- cannot be permitted. If other people also were to join in this exercise where would it leave the law abiding people and the rule of law and situations like this would make permanent friction between those who violate the law and others who live by the law. 10. Whatever illegality has been done must be undone forthwith. These circumstances are not to be encouraged. The State of Bihar should now be more cautious that the name of a national leader is not abused as a camouflage to occupy public land and other peoples property. 11. The Cort cannot certify the circumstances and unusual circumstances demand unusual answers. 10. Whatever illegality has been done must be undone forthwith. These circumstances are not to be encouraged. The State of Bihar should now be more cautious that the name of a national leader is not abused as a camouflage to occupy public land and other peoples property. 11. The Cort cannot certify the circumstances and unusual circumstances demand unusual answers. The possession is certified to be of the State and will remain of the State and the Court expects that the State of Bihar regardless that the Minister had laid a foundation stone and the area was encircled by a boundary wall will restore the possession on the record and physically as Government possession. Both law and equity are against the petitioner. 12. Dismissed.