ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filled declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 to 3 when the respondents No. 4 to 6 highhandedly illegally demolished the houses of the petitioners while the petitioners are living in the houses without following due process of law, as illegal; too direct the respondents No. 1, 2, 7 & 88 to provide necessary aid to the petitioners to raise structures in the land located in Sy. No. 577/A-1 to 577/A-8 of Piduguralla Revenue village, Guntur and also to direct the respondents No. 1, 77 and 8 to compensate the petitioners. 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavit while denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that no action is taken by the revenue authorities either to dispossess or to evict the petitioners from the land. It is further stated that necessary steps are being taken by 2nd respondent i.e. Tahsildar Piduguralla to provide house sites to the eligible petitioners in this writ petition. 3. The 3rd respondent has also filed counter affidavit and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is mainly contended that the petitioners have impleaded this respondent in the writ petition unnecessarily and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent is the person looking after the affairs and administration of the Piduguralla Municipality. The land in Sy No. 577/A-1top 577/A-8 is Government land and the same is classified as “Grama Kantham” site as per the revenue records. He further submits that the ancestors of the petitioners have encroached the above Grama Kantham site. The petitioners are residing in the said survey number since more than 40 years by making permanent constructions. Basing on the resolution of the Nagara Panchayat Pidugralla and also basing on the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor the 2nd respondent has also addressed proceedings bearing Rc. No. 124/2009-A, dated 25.02.2009 to the 3rd respondent and the said proceedings are clearly shows that they are ‘Enjoyers’ of the site with door numbers. He further submits that even as per the proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 31.06.2006 issued through Roc. No. 602/06-A1 their ward is ‘Indiramma Adarsha ward”. No. 124/2009-A, dated 25.02.2009 to the 3rd respondent and the said proceedings are clearly shows that they are ‘Enjoyers’ of the site with door numbers. He further submits that even as per the proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 31.06.2006 issued through Roc. No. 602/06-A1 their ward is ‘Indiramma Adarsha ward”. While the matter stood thus, the 9th respondent police all of a sudden came along with 200 police personnel with weapons and started demolishing the petitioners houses with the help of proclainers and stated that the site belongs to the police department. He further submits that the 9th respondent police have not even bothered to give minimum time to the petitioners to remove their house hold articles. The petitioners when approached the respondents No. 2 and 3 requesting to stop the illegal and high handed action of the police personnel, they failed to interfere into the matter. The respondents No. 4 to 6 cannot dispossess and demolish the petitioners’ dwelling houses illegally and high handedly without following due process of law. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a catena of decisions of various High Courts reported in (i) The High Court of Gauhati in a case of Rokunga vs. State of Mizoram, 2014 (9) LAWS (GAU) 28; (ii) The High Court of Bombay in a case of Sujata Mukunda Manerao vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 (6) LAWS (BOM) 7; (iii) The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case of Basttelanka Satyanarayana vs. Government, 2011 (10) LAWS (APH) 19. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) vs. State of Orissa and others, (1993) 2 SCC 746 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when 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. 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 of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer 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. 35. 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. 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 proceedings. 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 proceedings. 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. The decisions of this Court in the line of cases starting with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar1 granted monetary relief to the victims for deprivation of their fundamental rights in proceedings through petitions filed under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the rights available under the civil law to the aggrieved party where the courts found that grant of such relief was warranted. It is a sound policy to punish the wrongdoer and it is in that spirit that the courts have moulded the relief by granting compensation to the victims in exercise of their writ jurisdiction. In doing so the courts take into account not only the interest of the applicant and the respondent but also the interests of the public as a whole with a view to ensure that public bodies or officials do not act unlawfully and do perform their public duties properly particularly where the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 is concerned. 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. (ii) In another case reported in Amol Vithal Rao Kadu vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 13 SCC 595 wherein the Apex Court held that: Human and Civil Rights-police/Armed Forces Inaction/Atrocities/Fake Encounters/False Implication/Custodial Deaths and Violence/Illegal Detention - Custodial Death - compensation for - can be recovered once liability for unnatural death is fastened - Direction for recovery of compensation amount, awarded under Article 21 of the Constitution/Writ Jurisdiction from investigating officer concerned, if liability were fastened confirmed. (iii) In another case reported in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association and another vs. Union of India and others, (2017) 8 SCC 417 wherein the Apex Court held that: Rule of Law - Part of basic structure of Constitution which shields people from arbitrary executive action - protection and preservation of human rights is important aspect of rule of law. It was finally submitted by the learned Attorney General that compensation has been paid to the next of kin for the unfortunate deaths and therefore it may be not necessary to proceed further in the matter. We cannot agree. Compensation has been awarded to the next of kin for the agony they have suffered and to enable them to immediately tide over their loss and for their rehabilitation. This cannot override the law of the land, otherwise all heinous crimes would get settled through payment of monetary compensation. Our constitutional jurisprudence does not permit this and we certainly cannot encourage or countenance such a view. There is no doubt that the rule of law has been placed on a pedestal ever since the time of Aristotle. More recently Dicey has also expounded on the constituents of the rule of law and it is now expected that all modern democratic jurisdictions accept the rule of law as the guiding light and a shield available to the people against arbitrary executive action. As far as we are concerned, the rule of law has also been accepted as a part of the basic structure of our constitutional jurisprudence. Undoubtedly, the protection and preservation of human rights is one of the most important aspects of the rule of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the above decisions submits that as far as the petitioners are concerned, protection and preservation of human rights is important aspect of rule of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to issue a direction to the concerned respondent authorities as stated supra and also to award compensation to the petitioners. 9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 5 has already filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated that this respondent enquired with the revenue officials and that no orders have been issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Piduguralla vide Rc. 9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the respondent No. 5 has already filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated that this respondent enquired with the revenue officials and that no orders have been issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Piduguralla vide Rc. No. 124/2009-A dated 25.2.2009 regarding allotment of house sites to the present writ petitioners. It is further stated that the Municipal Commissioner, Piduguralla and Tahsildar, Pidugrurall Mandal issued certificate vide Roc No. 518/2013/G1, dated 12.7.2013 and Rc No. 885/2013-A dated 12.7.2013 stating that Pillalagadda, Ward No. 1 and St. No. 577/A of Piduguralla Village and Mandal is classified as “Gramakantam” poramboke and police quarters were constructed long ago in the said survey number in an extent of Ac 0.18 cents. With regard to letter of the Commissioner, Piduguralla Municipality vide Roc.No. 518/2013/G1, dated 20.07.2013 that the letter Rc. No. 124/2009-A, dated 25.2.2009 of the Tashildar purported to have been issued by the Tahsildar was not received by the office. It is further stated that the allegation of the petitioners that the police personnel illegally trespassed into their house and dragged them from their houses in Site No. 577/A1 to 577/A8 of Piduguralla and demolished their dwelling houses proclaiming that the site belongs to the police department is false. With a view to remove the waste material which was dumped by unknown persons in the police quarters which are in a dilapidated condition the Inspector of Police, Piduguralla visited along with the Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P. State Police Housing Corporation Limited, and demolished the same to prevent any untoward incidents. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Tahsildar, Piduguralla is taking necessary steps to provide house sites to the eligible petitioners for construction of houses in the vacant site available in Pidugurallla village. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court observed that the petitioners have constructed tiled houses and were residing in the premises. But as contended by respondent police that they were constructed a century back and they belong to police personnel is not at all acceptable because they have not produced any material to that extent. 11. A perusal of the photographs filed by the petitioners discloses that the respondent authorities have demolished the site. But as contended by respondent police that they were constructed a century back and they belong to police personnel is not at all acceptable because they have not produced any material to that extent. 11. A perusal of the photographs filed by the petitioners discloses that the respondent authorities have demolished the site. It appears that whoever the officers on the spot are responsible to compensate. It is evident from the material on record that the petitioners are having possession and it is also clear that the respondent authorities have demolished the houses of the petitioners. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that, the respondents without following due process of law, have high handedly demolished the houses of the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 13. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above and on considering the relevant material on record, this Court is of the view that, inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following observation: (i) the action of the respondents that without following the due process of law high handedly demolished the houses of the petitioners is declared as illegal and arbitrary. (ii) the respondents no. 1, 2, 7 and 8 are directed to provide necessary aid to the petitioners to raise structures in the subject site. (iii) That the petitioners would be entitled to the costs of Rs.25,000/- each to be paid to the petitioners towards compensation which shall be deposited at the first instance by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and then would be recovered from the salaries of the defaulting/erring officers/officials in accordance with law. 14. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.