Situation–Reaction Test — Villager Seeks Urgent Protection from a Powerful Landlord:\nYou are the District Magistrate. A villager has traveled for hours to submit an application asking for protection from a powerful landlord who is trying to grab his land by force. You are rushing between high-level meetings when he finally reaches you. What should you do in that moment?

Introduction / Context:
This scenario evaluates public service ethics, prioritization, and field-level protection of vulnerable citizens. A District Magistrate (DM) holds significant executive authority. When someone alleges illegal land grabbing by an influential local figure, delay can lead to intimidation, violence, or irreversible loss of property. The test is: Can you act quickly, responsibly, and accountably under time pressure?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The villager is vulnerable, has traveled far, and has exhausted local remedies.
• The alleged encroacher is powerful, implying risk of retaliation.
• You are genuinely time-constrained but you do have administrative machinery.
• Urgent intervention (police protection / land records verification / stop-work order) may be needed.

Concept / Approach:
Good administration means two things: (1) acknowledge the grievance, and (2) assign accountable action, not just sympathy. The DM does not personally have to investigate on the spot, but must ensure the machinery is activated. Delegation to a reliable senior subordinate (e.g., SDM/Tehsildar/Police Circle Officer) creates immediate follow-up, sends a signal that intimidation will not be tolerated, and protects the complainant.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Pause long enough to receive and briefly read/understand the written complaint.2) Call in a senior subordinate officer (land revenue / police) in front of the villager.3) Verbally assign responsibility and timeline: e.g., “Look into this today, ensure no coercion, report back.”4) Ensure the villager’s contact details are recorded and that he is told what will happen next.

Verification / Alternative check:
This course of action balances urgency, dignity, rule of law, and practical constraints on your time. It also creates a documented accountability trail inside your office, which is critical if the case escalates legally or politically.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option a (make him wait more hours) is insensitive and risky. Option b (push down to “junior officer” without guidance) looks like brushing him off. Option d (take application and walk away) creates no accountability. Option e (ask him to return later) is effectively denial of access to justice for someone already desperate.

Common Pitfalls:
Overpromising personal intervention you cannot schedule; sending the villager away with vague assurances; failing to document that an officer was directed to act.

Final Answer:
Immediately assign a responsible senior officer in front of the villager and direct urgent follow-up for his protection.