ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to restore the properties of the petitioners to its original condition and pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injury caused to their properties. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.A.C./LAQ.CR 24/2016-17 dated 05.11.2016 passed by respondent No.2. 2. (i) The petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of property bearing Khata No.2794 situated at Kolar-Bangarpet Main Road. The petitioner No.2 is the owner of property bearing Door No.2793 bearing Khata No.(Old-3178) New 405 on Kolar-Bangarpet Main Road. They claim that the Khatha of the aforesaid properties were entered in their respective names by respondent No.3 and the properties were assessed to tax. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 proposed to widen the Kolar-Bangarpet main road from 09 metres to 22 metres. The respondents marked the properties of the petitioners, indicating that they would be demolished. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.3138-39/2016. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 23.09.2016, directed the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar, Sub-Division, Kolar to conduct an enquiry and decide whether any portion of the properties of the petitioners stood vested in the Municipal Council. The petitioners as well as the Town Municipal Council were directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 06.10.2016. It was further directed that if the Assistant Commissioner were to conclude that the petitioners had encroached upon any portion of the properties belonging to the Municipal Council, they were liable to be evicted, but only in the manner known to law. The Assistant Commissioner was granted 06 weeks time from the date of receipt of the said order to conclude the process. (iii) It is stated that on 06.10.2016, the parties appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and the matter was adjourned to 14.10.2016 for filing objections. The petitioners filed their objections on the said date. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter fixed the date of survey on 04.11.2016. The petitioners sought an adjournment of the survey by 02 days. However, the survey was not adjourned but was conducted on the same day and the report of the survey was placed before the Assistant Commissioner at 08.00 p.m. on 04.11.2016. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter fixed the date of survey on 04.11.2016. The petitioners sought an adjournment of the survey by 02 days. However, the survey was not adjourned but was conducted on the same day and the report of the survey was placed before the Assistant Commissioner at 08.00 p.m. on 04.11.2016. The Assistant Commissioner then passed the impugned order on 05.11.2016 rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners and directed the Tahsildar to take steps in accordance with law. The Tahsildar without granting any breathing time to the petitioners demolished the compound wall as well as the staircase leading to the first floor on 07.11.2016. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting their objections and the consequential act of demolishing the compound wall and the staircase, are before this Court in this petition. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the aforesaid contentions submits that the petitioners had requested the Assistant Commissioner to postpone the survey, as they were required to travel to Bengaluru to attend a case. He contends that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have acceded to the request and adjourned the survey by 02 days as no prejudice was caused to the respondents. However, the survey was conducted on the same day in the absence of the petitioners, and a copy of the survey report was not furnished to them. Surprisingly, the survey report was placed before the Assistant Commissioner at 08.00 p.m. on 04.11.2016 and the Assistant Commissioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, on the survey report, proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners and directed the Tahsildar to take steps in accordance with law. He further contends that even a copy of the impugned order was not served on the petitioners, thereby ensuring that the petitioners were prevented from challenging the said order before the appropriate authority. (ii) He thus contends that the petitioners were condemned unheard and that a portion of the compound as well as the staircase leading to the first floor of their house was demolished. He submits that if the petitioners were put on notice of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and furnished with the survey sketch and granted reasonable time, they would have taken steps to protect the building constructed by them. He submits that if the petitioners were put on notice of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and furnished with the survey sketch and granted reasonable time, they would have taken steps to protect the building constructed by them. He further contends that there was no urgency warranting submission of the survey report to the Assistant Commissioner at 08.00 p.m. on 04.11.2016, particularly when the time stipulated by this Court in W.P.No.3138-3139/2016 was to expire only on 18.11.2016 and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner could have issued the notice to the petitioners and afforded them an opportunity. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand submits that the respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia contending that survey was conducted as per the directions of this Court and it was found that the petitioners have encroached into a portion of the road margin area. He contends that the structures which were constructed in the portion of road margin area were removed and the house and other structures were left intact. He submits that the petitioners have not challenged the survey report and the survey sketch till date in the manner known to law. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners have acknowledged the fact that they had encroached into a portion of the road margin area. Thus, he contends that even if the petitioners were not served with a copy of the survey report as well as the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners are not prejudiced and have not suffered any injury or damages and therefore, contends that the impugned order is not justiciable. 5. The Learned Additional Advocate General reiterated the above contentions and submits that the respondents were bound to widen the road as they had undertaken the work on a war footing. Therefore, the respondents had to act quickly and hence, after conducting a survey and after being satisfied that the petitioners had encroached into a portion of the road margin area, steps were taken only to remove the encroachment and nothing else. He therefore submits that no injury is caused to the petitioners and hence no indulgence is warranted in this petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 7. He therefore submits that no injury is caused to the petitioners and hence no indulgence is warranted in this petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 7. It is evident from the survey sketch placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General that a portion of the compound put up by the petitioners lay on the road margin. After the said portion was demolished by the respondents, the petitioners did not take any further steps and appear to have resigned themselves to the situation and reconstructed their property. In that view of the matter, the challenge to the impugned order has now become academic. It is now settled that a writ Court would not look into academic matters and hence no interference is warranted with the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 8. Before parting from the case, it is relevant to note the conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in proceeding in a high handed manner. This Court had specifically directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in the presence of the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner having fixed the survey on 04.11.2016, ought to have considered the request of the petitioners for postponement of the survey, since the time granted by this Court to complete the exercise had not expired. Therefore, no hardship or prejudice would have been caused to the Assistant Commissioner if the survey was postponed by a few days. However, the survey was conducted on 04.11.2016 and the report was placed before the Assistant Commissioner at 08.00 p.m. on the very same day. 9. It is not known as to how the Assistant Commissioner formulated an order on 05.11.2016 and directed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The least that the Assistant Commissioner should have done was to notify the petitioner about the outcome of the survey and must have served a copy of the order rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners so as to allow them reasonable opportunity to challenge it before the appropriate Court. But the respondents proceeded to demolish the compound as well as the staircase of the building of the petitioners thereby causing inconvenience and discomfort to them. But the respondents proceeded to demolish the compound as well as the staircase of the building of the petitioners thereby causing inconvenience and discomfort to them. The petitioners were pitted against the might of the State and they could not have resisted the acts of the respondents. 10. The respondents were bound to act in accordance with law and after providing all opportunity to a citizen to challenge their action before the appropriate Court. Since such an opportunity is not provided, the respondents are bound to make amends for the illegal and high handed Act. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed off . It is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case, to direct the Assistant Commissioner of Kolar to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the Assistant Commissioner fails to pay, the drawing officer of the Assistant Commissioner shall deduct the amount and pay the same to petitioner No.2. 12. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.