A.C.Upadhyay.J.:- We have heard Mr. B.D.Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the respondents-contemnors. 2. This contempt application under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been initiated for willful violation of the judgment and order dated 29.08.2006 passed by this Court in PIL No. 49 of 2006 and order dated 26.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2006. 3. Facts leading to the filing of this contempt petition may be stated, in brief, as follows: Sometime in 2005, the respondent authorities had demolished boundary walls and other permanent structures belonging to the local residents adjacent to the petitioners' land, without following any procedure of law and without issuing any notice. Apprehending demolition of their residential and commercial buildings, boundary walls and other permanent structures standing on their 'myadi-patta' lands, the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 of this contempt petition filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 4026 of 2005 and the petitioner No.1 along with Shri Prabhat Chandra Mahanta also filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 192 of 2006, seeking interference of this Court. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the learned Single Bench of this court, in the interim, directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the petitioners' properties. 4. In the mean time, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No. 49 of 2006) was also filed by some local residents of Malow Ali, Jorhat Town complaining of inconvenience to the inhabitants of Malow Ali, Jorhat, indicating therein that Jorhat Development Authority and the State Government as well failed in completing the scheme of construction of drains on both sides of the roads and thus abandoned the project without any reason or justification whatsoever. The learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of the PIL No. 49 of 2006 along with W.P.(C) No. 4026 of 2005, W.P.(C) 7790 of 2005, W.P.(C) No. 4627 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 192 of 2006, by a common judgment and order dated 29.08.2006 with the following directions:- "In such view of the matter we consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to expeditiously complete and implement the government sponsored scheme for construction of drains and sewerage in Jorhat Town so that the works undertaken by the authorities could be completed before the expiry of the scheme for which purposes special funds have been sanctioned by the Govt. of India and as well as the State Government. But in the process the respondents may not be allowed to take the law into their hands and resort to forcible dispossession or eviction without putting the affected persons on notice. In case of requirement of any land, building, house or portion thereof belonging to the petitioners and in the absence of their willingness to donate the land, building, house, as the case may be, necessary steps in accordance with law may have to be taken for the purpose of which notice must be served upon the petitioners. The respondents are directed not to resort to any summary eviction, dispossession or demolition without putting the persons, likely to be affected by such move, on proper notice and without following the procedure prescribed. 15.It is, however, clarified that in such cases where the individuals have occupied government land, road margin and made constructions without making any provision for construction of drains the respondents shall be at liberty to resume such portion or portions of the lands or buildings without paying any compensation. 16.The PIL and the writ petition shall accordingly stand disposed of without any order as to costs." 5. Thereafter the respondent authority issued notices dated 15.09.2006, in terms of Section 30B, 1-3 of the Assam Town & Country planning Act, 1959, directing the petitioners to remove illegal part of the boundary walls constructed by them on their periodic patta lands along the 'Baroda Phukan Road'. Thereafter the respondent authority issued notices dated 15.09.2006, in terms of Section 30B, 1-3 of the Assam Town & Country planning Act, 1959, directing the petitioners to remove illegal part of the boundary walls constructed by them on their periodic patta lands along the 'Baroda Phukan Road'. Apprehending irregular action by the respondents, the petitioners filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 4940 of 2006, assailing the validity of the notice dated 15.09.2006, issued by the Chairman, Jorhat Development Authority, in the individual names of the six writ petitioners, alleging therein that no such direction was given in the said judicial pronouncement in PIL No. 49 of 2006, empowering the authority to issue those notices in terms of Section 30(B) of the Assam Town County Planning Act, 1959,directing the petitioners to remove the illegal part of the boundary walls constructed by them along the Boroda Phukan Road . Learned Single Bench of this Court, on due consideration of the rival contentions made by the parties in the aforementioned W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2006, by its order dated 26.09.2006 issued the following directions: - "On meticulous scanning of the materials available on record including the impugned notices as well as upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be satisfied, if this writ petition stands closed to day itself at the motion stage with a direction to the petitioners to approach the competent authority i.e. the Member Secretary, Jorhat Development Authority by preferring detailed representation(s) jointly or severally highlighting all the grievances narrated in this writ petition within a period of twenty days from today and the competent authority above, on receipt of such representation(s) shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law as well as strict in compliance of Section 30(B) 1-3 of the Act as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of the representations(s). It is ordered accordingly. Till such disposal of the representation(s) within the time frame indicated above, the impugned notices shall not be given effect to. It is ordered accordingly. Till such disposal of the representation(s) within the time frame indicated above, the impugned notices shall not be given effect to. The petitioner shall be at liberty to furnish a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition with all the annexure appended thereto to the competent authority as indicated above to do the needful. With the above observations and directions, this writ petitions stands disposed of." 6. This contempt petition has arisen for willful violation of the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 29.08.2006 in PIL No. 49 of 2006 along with the connected writ petitions as well as the order dated 26.09.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4940 of 2006. It has been alleged by the petitioners that on 28.06.2007, the respondent authorities came to the petitioners' lands and demolished their boundary walls by using excavators in total disregard to the orders passed by this Court, without even giving any notice whatsoever of such demolition. It has been further contended by the petitioners that during the process of demolition, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were present and they had directed the demolition of the boundary walls standing on the petitioners myadi patta/periodic patta land, by deploying police force under the instruction of the respondent No.4. The petitioners further alleged that none of the contemners or the respondents was willing to even see the aforementioned orders passed by this Court even when the same was brought to their notice, when the demolition was going on.So, this contempt petition. 7. On 04.11.2009, when this contempt petition was taken up for consideration, this court upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in order to ascertain the veracity of the rival claims, for effective disposal of the contempt petition, passed the following orders appointing Advocate commission to hold the enquiry:- "04.11.2009 Heard Mr. BD Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. B. Goyal, learned State counsel. The grievance of the petitioners, in substance, is that in violation of the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment and, order dated 29.8.06, in PIL No. 49/06, and the order, dated 26.9.06, passed in WP(C) No.4940/06, by a learned Single Judge, the respondents have encroached on the periodic patta land of the petitioners, demolished their boundary walls and constructed a drain thereon. These factual allegations are denied by the respondents. In the circumstances indicated above, it is submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that a Commission may be appointed for making an enquiry as to whether the respondents have demolished boundary wall on the periodic patta land of the petitioners and constructed drain as alleged. We are of the view that it would be in the ends of justice if a Commission, as sought for, is appointed so that the contempt proceeding can be effectively disposed of. We, therefore, express no opinion as regards the truthfulness or veracity of the allegations and the counter allegations made by the parties. We here appoint Smti. Sumitra Sarma, Advocate of this Court as the Commission to hold an enquiry into the matter as indicated hereinabove. The Commission shall submit its report to the Registry within a period of six weeks from today. The Commission shall sit subject to payment of a fee of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners. The petitioners shall also bear the actual expenses incurred by the Commission. Copies of all the relevant materials, in this regard, shall be accordingly handed over to Smti. S. Sarma by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Let the matter after submission of report by the Commission." 8. Pursuant to the order aforesaid dated 04.11.2009, Smti. Sumitra Sharma the Advocate Commissioner submitted herreport dated 18.12.2009 opining therein that the collapse of the boundary wallsof the petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are attributable to the act of deepening/excavation for construction of pucca drains. The relevant extract of the report reads as follows:- "There was a clear decision of all concerned in the meeting dated 10.12.2006(Annexure-A) authorizing deepening of the old/existing drain in front of the contempt petitioners' houses, for the purpose of constructing the pucca drain under the government sponsored scheme for effecting overall improvement of the Malow Ali. The collapse of the five walls (of petitioners No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) being attributable to the act of deepening/excavation made pursuant to the consent recorded in Annexure-A hereto, the contempt petitioners would not be justified in complaining of violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court even if loss of land occasioned by the process of drain deepening when satisfactorily established may provide a just cause of compensation." 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the report of Advocate Commissioner, this Court on 08.04.2010 made certain queries to ascertain ground realities and the status of the dispute in question and passed the following orders:- "8.4.2010 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at some length, we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, to lay before us within 15(fifteen) days from today, the following information: - 1. Regardless of the circumstances, in which, the boundary walls of petitioner Nos.4, 5 and 6 had fallen apart/demolished, whether it is possible on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to reconstruct the said boundary walls; 2. According to the petitioners, 700 sqft, and 931 sqft, of Myadi patta land of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are presently under the occupation of the district administration. The Deputy Commissioner to verify the said fact with reference to the revenue records and thereafter place his findings before the Court. List again on 26.4.2010. Copy of this order be furnished to Ms. B. Goyal, learned Govt. Advocate, immediately." 10. Pursuant to the order 8-4-2010, the Deputy commissioner, Jorhat submitted requisite information through the learned state Government counsel, which reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT. No.JRP34/2007/76Dated Jorhat the 22nd April, 2010. To Mrs. B. S. Goyal, Jr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, Guwahati High Court. Sub: Information in regard to the Order dtd.8/4/2010 passed by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in contempt case(c) No. 303/2007 of Sri Kiron Chandra Phukan & Others Vs. Ms. L.S. Changsan & Ors. Ref: Your letter No. JR/GA/BSG/2010/3617 dt. 9/4/2010. Madam, In inviting a reference to the subject and letter cited above, I have the honour to furnish requisite information as follows: PARA 1.(i) It is not possible on the part of Deputy commissioner to construct the wall. (ii) The wall had collapsed, when the construction of the drain was done by the Jorhat Dev. Authority. The wall was not demolished. (iii) As reported by Jorhat Development Authority, they have not kept any administrative/contingency fund in the estimate. PARA II.(i) It is true that land measuring 128 feet in length and 5 feet in breadth covered by Dag No. 5710 of PP No. 70 under block No. 8 of Jorhat Town, standing in the name of Plaintiff No. I and land measuring 113 feet in length and 61/2 feet in breadth covered by Dag NO. PARA II.(i) It is true that land measuring 128 feet in length and 5 feet in breadth covered by Dag No. 5710 of PP No. 70 under block No. 8 of Jorhat Town, standing in the name of Plaintiff No. I and land measuring 113 feet in length and 61/2 feet in breadth covered by Dag NO. 1334 of PP No. 436 of Sarbaibandha Gaon standing in the name of Plaintiff No. 2. (ii) The above mentioned land is presently the part of Malow-Ali, due to widening of road. The total length of the road is 2.2 KM. All the Pattadars all along the road have surrendered 5- 7 feet of their patta land in order to facilitate the widening of road. (iii) As mentioned above the land is not in possession of District Administration, it is a part of road only. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Commissioner Jorhat." 11. There is no denial of the fact by the respondents that the boundary walls belonging to the petitioners collapsed when the respondents dug the drain adjacent to the boundary walls deep for the purpose of reconstruction. There is no denial of the fact by the respondents that the walls fell within the 'myadi-patta' land belonging to the petitioners. 13. Admittedly, lands measuring 128 feet in length and 5 feet in breadth covered by Dag No.5710 of PP No.70 under block No.8 of Jorhat Town and the land measuring 113 feet in length and 61/2 feet in breadth covered by Dag No.1334 of PP No.436 of Sarbaibandha Gaon standing in the name of the petitioners are presently the part of Malow Ali, due to widening of road. 14. Fact remains that the boundary walls constructed by the petitioners in their own 'myadi-patta' land collapsed, when the drain was dug at the instance of the respondents for the purpose of reconstruction. In such a situation, the respondents cannot shift their responsibility by alleging week structural design of the walls. Basically the decision to design and build the sewer systems or drain in the municipal area is the discretion of the respondent Authority. However, such discretion cannot be exercised by violating the direction of the court, without taking adequate measures for public safety and protection of public property. Basically the decision to design and build the sewer systems or drain in the municipal area is the discretion of the respondent Authority. However, such discretion cannot be exercised by violating the direction of the court, without taking adequate measures for public safety and protection of public property. While replacing/rebuilding or even while doing developmental work in the municipal area if such drains adjoining the properties belonging to private individuals get damaged, the responsibility and/or liability is squarely of the municipality to repair/replace the damage unless exempted by law. As a matter of fact, law provides that all buildings and boundary walls are required to be constructed only with the permission of the respondent authorities, therefore, it is the responsibility of the respondent authorities to ensure that the constructions meet the building requirement indicated by them, so that it does not fall down or collapse for poor construction work. Consequently, the respondents also cannot keep away from the responsibility simply by neglecting and/or refusing to inspect such constructions.The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizens that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. 16. Considering entire gamut of facts leading to filing of this contempt petition, since the boundary walls beside the drain collapsed while the construction of the drain was carried out by the Jorhat Development Authority, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this contempt petition by issuing a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat and the Chairman, Jorhat Development Authority to take necessary steps for reconstruction of the collapsed walls beside the drain constructed by the Jorhat Development Authority. This exercise may be carried out under the super vision of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat within a period of 2(two) months from the date of passing of this order. 17. This exercise may be carried out under the super vision of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat within a period of 2(two) months from the date of passing of this order. 17. However, since the lands measuring 128 feet in length and 5 feet in breadth covered by Dag No.5710 of PP No.70 under block No.8 of Jorhat Town and the lands measuring 113 feet in length and 61/2 feet in breadth covered by Dag No. 1334 of PP No.436 of Saraibandha Gaon, standing in the name of the petitioners are presently the part of Malow Ali and the said land have been admittedly used by the Jorhat Development Authority for construction of the drain/road, the petitioners are at liberty to take necessary steps to claim compensation in accordance with law . 18. With the above observations and directions, this contempt petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Therefore, which the court moulds the relief by granting" compensation in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. 1609 C] 2.07. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making 'monetary amends' under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights 588 of the citizen. [609 D] 2.08.The compensation is in the nature of the exemplary damages' awarded against the wrong-doer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law. [609 E] 2.09. [609 E] 2.09. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings. [609 F-G] 2.10. The State, of course, has the right to be indemnified by and take such action as may be available to it against the wrongdoer in accordance with law through appropriate proceeding. Of course, relief in exercise of the power under Article 32 or 226 would be granted only once it is established that there has been an infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the court in the facts and circumstances of the case, is possible. [609 H, 610 A] 2.11. Law is in the process of development and the process necessitates developing separate public law procedures as also public law principles. It may be necessary to identify the situations to which separate proceedings and principles 'apply and the courts have to act firmly but with certain amount of circumspection and self restraint, lest proceedings under Article 32 or 226 are misused as a disguised substitute for civil action in private law. [610 D-E] "Freedom under the Law. By Lord Denning First Hamlan Lecture, 1949, referred to. Neilabati behera - In the affidavit submitted by the contemnor-respondent No. 1 it has been stated that all actions were taken consistent to the direction and observations of this court in the Judgment and order dated 29-8-2006 passed in PIL No. 49 of 2006 and W.P(C) No. 4940 of 2006. The respondent further stated that the petitioner had illegally constructed their boundary walls without keeping the road margin. The respondent further stated that the petitioner had illegally constructed their boundary walls without keeping the road margin. Further, it has been stated that shallow foundation of the walls at a depth of hardly 1(one) feet to 1(one) feet 6 inches below the ground level, without considering the structural suitability of the walls and without maintaining the required depth of the drainage gradients of more than 3 fts. Made the walls to collapse, when the near by katcha drain was dug deeply for the purpose of reconstruction of the drain. The respondent contended that the walls as alleged by the petitioners were not demolished by the respondent except those of Smt. Nirupama Phukan and Smt. Bina Devi, who constructed their boundary walls unauthorizedly/illegally without keeping the road margin and provision for road side drain. Had the petitioners scientifically constructed the boundary walls by providing beam/lintel of proper size and RCC post with proper depth and road margin, there was no reason for the wall to collapse automatically.