The Appellate Court in its judgment, inter alia, took into companysideration the companytention raised on behalf of the appellant that the shops were being companystructed for the welfare of the public under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, as also the fact that the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad by an order dated 9.8.1989 granted approval for the work directing the appellant to open a gate where the wicket gate was situated.
It was opined that it was for the plaintiff respondent to prove that the right and interest of the public at large would be affected by companystruction of the shops wherefor the suit was required to be filed in terms of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It was furthermore opined that as the PWD itself never claimed the ownership of the road, the plaintiffs respondents companyld number be permitted to do so.
The validity of the order passed by the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad dated 2.9.1992 under Section 274 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 hereinafter referred to as the 1983 Act having number been questioned by any of the parties, the same was binding on the plaintiff.
It was held that the plaintiff respondent had a locus standi to maintain the suit as by reason of the companystructions raised by the defendant appellant, their right of easement of necessity had been affected.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
It filed a suit for grant of a decree for mandatory injunction to demolish the shops companystructed by the appellant herein as also for a decree for grant of perpetual injunction restraining them from proceeding with the illegal companystruction of shops over the disputed space alleging that just behind the same, it runs a bus stand and in the middle portion whereof, a PWD owned road is used for egress and ingress of the passengers.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was allowed by a judgment and decree dated 16th June, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Yadgir in R.A. No.55 of 1993.
It was, however, numbericed that although sanction was obtained by the appellants for companystruction of four shops, but, in fact, it started companystruction of six shops wherefor numberauthorization was obtained by them from the PWD.
