Judgment 1. In the writ petition the contention of the petitioner is that on the plea of en croachment made by the petitioner over public land 3/4th of the construction made by him has been demolished. In the counter affidavit it has not been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the land in question. What has been stated is that a large number of people had encroached public land. Accordingly, measurements were taken by four Amins. Those Amins allegedly reported that the petitioner, while making the construction, encroached upon 6 x 6 of the land belonging to the public. in order to support the said contention reliance has been placed upon a document, a copy whereof has been annexed to the counter affidavit. In that it has not been indicated on which side of the property the encroachment had been made, whether the same was on the north or on the south or on the east or on the west. Nothing has been indicated in the counter affidavit or in any of the documents referred to in the counter affidavit or Annexures thereto as to how the measurement was taken, i.e., how the fixed point was determined and what was that. On the iast occasion l directed the Anchal Adhikari, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga to bring the report on measurement allegedly taken by the Amins, which in the normal circumstances should contain the signatures of the Amins, as l expected. The Anchal Adhikari is present in Court. He has submitted, through the learned counsel engaged by the State, that no records of such measurement is available. In such background the one and the only conclusion would be that sitting in his office the Anchal Adhikari, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga decided that the petitioner has encroached upon public land and, accordingly, demolished his house and the story that Amins were engaged and they measured the land is an afterthought. It is surprising that the Anchal Adhikari demolished properties belonging to a citizen, for whose service he has been engaged and who pays his salaries, without being satisfied as to the measurement taken and without keeping the records of the measurement. Tne learned counsel for the State submitted that if directed by this court a fresh measurement will be taken. It is surprising that the Anchal Adhikari demolished properties belonging to a citizen, for whose service he has been engaged and who pays his salaries, without being satisfied as to the measurement taken and without keeping the records of the measurement. Tne learned counsel for the State submitted that if directed by this court a fresh measurement will be taken. As a public servant, while the Anchal Adhikari was obliged to protect public property, he was equally obliged not to interfere with the property right of a citizen which is protected by the Constitution. In the name of protecting public property, the Anchal Adhikari concerned has unjustly interfered with the Constitutional propriety right of the petitioner and caused damage to such property without any just reasons and even without bothering to keep on record evidence to support such reason. 2. In those circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to reconstruct the construction which has been demolished by the Anchal Anchal Adhikari, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga is directed to pay a sum of rupees one lac to the petitioner within a period of one month as and by way of compensation assessed on the basis of nominal damages. 3. This order will not prevent any Officer of the State to act in accordance with law and if the petitioner has encroached upon any part of the public land to take steps in respect thereof. This disposes of the writ petition.