Judgment 1. It is not only unfortunate but it is , unthinkable that in a society ruled by law an authority, as powerful as the District Collector, Patna, has at the instance of BISCOMAN, yet another limb of the State, entered into the tenanted property of the tenant of BISCOMAN, forcibly evicted him, removed his goods and threatened to sell such goods and in the meantime handed over possession of the tenanted portion to BISCOMAN, who promptly let out that portion to a third party. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant of BISCOMAN. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has not paid the rents payable by the petitioner to BISCOMAN in respect of the tenanted property. At the same time there is also no dispute that as yet BISCOMAN has not initiated any proceedings under any law for eviction of the petitioner. 2. It is surprising that BISCOMAN approached the Collector, Patna District with a request to remove the petitioner forcibly and the Collector, Patna duly obliged BISCOMAN. The petitioner has not only been removed from his tenancy without due process of law, in breach of the law of this country which is in force for last 150 years, since the day the Privy Council pronounced the judgment in Midnapur Zamindari Case, but it is even more surprising that the District Collector had the audacity to touch the properties of the petitioner without having any authority to do so. It is astonishing that the District Collector after obtaining possession handed over the tenanted portion to BISCOMAN and BISCOMAN promptly thereafter inducted a new tenant in the tenanted premises. Surprises after surprises, as now BISCOMAN with the assistance of the District Collector, Patna is threatening to sell away the assets of the petitioner removed from the premises in question. 3. The action of BISCOMAN as well as of the District Collector, Patna as above, is unthinkable, repulsive and contrary to the basic concept of law. 4. It is now well settled in law that an action under Article 226 is maintainable against a public authority as well as against a public officer to redress an ultra vires act or acts. The action of BISCOMAN as well as of the District Collector, Patna as above, is unthinkable, repulsive and contrary to the basic concept of law. 4. It is now well settled in law that an action under Article 226 is maintainable against a public authority as well as against a public officer to redress an ultra vires act or acts. It is also well settled in law that compensation for damage suffered by a citizen as a consequence of an ultra vires act is recoverable from the public authority as well as from the public officer responsible for the act. The acts complained of in the instant case as mentioned above have no sanction of law and accordingly they are ultra vires acts. The question is what would be the quantum of damages, apart from putting back the clock to wipe off the ultra vires acts complained of. The mental agony suffered by the petitioner in view of the acts complained of cannot be compensated in money. The acts complained of are so heinous in nature. 5. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. BISCOMAN is directed to hand over possession of the tenanted property of the petitioner within 24 hours from now. BISCOMAN is directed to hand over the properties of the petitioner now in its custody within 24 hours from now. BISCOMAN shall pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs. Ten lacs and the District Collector, Patna shall pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs. Ten lacs from his personal resources. Such payment shall be made within seven days from today. 6. This disposes of the writ petition. 7. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for BISCOMAN as well as learned counsel for the State.