ORDER R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Society which runs Intermediate and Degree Colleges in Sirsa district, Allahabad. These two colleges have been impleaded as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Both the colleges are owners of plots Nos. 416/2, 417/2, 418/2, 419/2, 449/3, 538, 539, 540, 541/1 and 2, 415/2, 536/2, 537/2, 537/1, 420, 421, 542and 543, situate in village Chhatwa Pargana, Khairagarh. Tahsil Meja, District Allahabad. In 1985 the officials of Public Works Department, Allahabad started digging earth in the aforesaid plots for construction of road which was objected to by the petitioners. But when respondents did not stop construction of the road over those plots they filed this writ petition before this Court in which an interim order was passed on 25-3-1985, directing the respondents not to construct any road on the land of the petitioners, unless proceedings for acquisition or requisition of the said land have taken place. This order was subsequently confirmed.
2. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit and the petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Respondents in their counter-affidavit have not disputed the fact that the plots in question belong to the petitioners and those plots have not been acquired by them under any law. However in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that before construction of the road the Gram Pradhan of village Chhatwa and local representative of the Consolidation department of the Government were called and it was decided to construct the road under Sectorial Rural Landless Employment Guaranteed Programme subject to payment Of compensation to the land owners after their land is acquired. It is also stated that road was being constructed with the consent of the land owners. But there is no averment that the respondents have taken permission from the petitioners. Petitioners in their rejoinder-affidavit have denied the allegations made in the counter-affidavit and have specifically stated that neither any consent was taken from them nor have they given any consent or understanding for construction of the road over their plots.
4. From perusal of the affidavits of the parties it is clear that the land in question belong to the petitioners and it has not been acquired by the State and no proceedings for acquisition or requisition of the said plots have taken place. Respondents, without the consent of the petitioners had started digging earth from their plots for construction of the road and did not stop it till this Court granted an interim order on 13-8-1985. The act of the respondents has the effect of depriving the petitioners of their property without authority of law. The Government and its officers can neither deprive others of their property without authority of law nor can they interfere with their rights unless they can point out any rule of law authorising their action. In this connection reference may be made to Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570, wherein it was laid down as under (Para 14):
"The action of the Government in taking law into their hands and dispossesing the petitioners by the display of force, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirement of the rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government functioning in a society governed by a constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the Executive of peaceful possession of property. As pointed out by this Court in Wazir Chand v State of Himachal Pradesh, (1955) 1 SCR 408 : AIR 1954 SC 415, the State or its Executive Officers cannot interfere with the right of others unless they can point to some specific rule of law which authorises their actions."
XXXXX "We have here the highly discriminatory and autocratic act which deprives a person of the possession of property without reference to any law or legal authority."
5. In the instant case respondents had neither the power to take possession of the land of the petitioners nor can they interfere with their possession for making construction of the road without acquiring the land. Howsoever laudable object the State may intend to achieve it can neither deprive a person of his property nor can it interfere with his right save by authority of law. Apart from violation of Article 300A of the Constitution such an action of the State is also yiolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. By threatening to take possession of the petitioner's property for purposes of construction of the road without acquiring the land, the respondents have acted in most high handed manner and they continued to do so till this Court granted interim order.
6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we assess costs at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) which shall be paid by the respondents within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before them. The respondents are directed not to construct road and not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute.
7. Petition allowed.