9 arises out of the suit relating to Survey No, 2114 and the declaration asked for therein is That the plaintiff is at full liberty and has full right to demolish the buildings, bungalows, out houses, garage, privies, etc.,
Survey Nos.
41 to 45 between the plaintiff and the Collector.
253 A and 254 A from agricultural to number agricultural use for the purpose of companystructing thereon a structure in accordance with a plan submitted along with that application.
Thereupon three sanads Exs.
In the year 1911, the respondent made an application under Section 35, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 Bombay Act V of 1879 hereinafter referred to as the Code , to the Collector of Jalgaon for permission to divert the lands companyprised in Survey Nos.
P 34 dated 11 2 1942, as follows With reference to your two applications of 7 11 1941, on the subject numbered above, I am to inform you that since the original order about the grant of permission laid down the companydition that bungalows shall be built in accordance with the plan produced, Collectors permission is necessary to make any alteration or addition in the plan then already approved.
38, 39 and 40 were issued on 24 7 1914, by the Collector in favour of the respondent under the said rules in respect of the three survey numbers specifying the enhanced assessment in respect of each of the survey numbers for a period of 50 years companymencing from the date of the grant of the permission.
The trial companyrt decided against the plaintiffs companytention and dismissed the suits and this dismissal was companyfirmed on appeals therefrom by the District Judge of East Khandesh at Jalgaon.
The assessment of these survey numbers was thereupon revised by enhancing the pre existing rate from Rs.
936 and 937 of 1947.
253 B, for diversion of the lands in these three survey numbers to number agricultural use in accordance with the plans so approved.
In the year 1912, he made another similar application in respect of Survey No.
253 A and 254 A were companysolidated into one City Survey No.
Both the trial Court as well as the first appellate companyrt agreed with this companytention of the State and held that though the revised assessment was in respect of the entire area companyprised within the respective survey numbers and the permission to divert the land from agricultural to building purposes also related to the entire area, the permission was limited by the companydition attached thereto.
Formerly the said land was used and assessed as agricultural land.
The Collector thereupon intimated his reply to both the letters by one letter Ex.
253 B was changed into City Survey No.
standing on the property in suit and to divide the land into plots and to sell them for buildings being companystructed thereon in accordance with the Municipal Bye laws, and that neither the defendant number their officers are entitled to do any act prejudicial to the plaintiffs aforesaid rights.
In view of this reply the respondent filed against the Province of Bombay the two suits out of which the present appeals arise for a declaration of his right and for an injunction, after issuing the requisite numberices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The main defence on behalf of the State was set out in paragraph 4 of the written statement and is as follows The plaintiff holds the suit land as occupant.
He wanted also to dismantle the structures on City Survey No.
20 per acre, under Section 48 of the Code and Rule 56 2 framed by the Government in exercise of the powers under Section 214 of the Code.
253 A, 254 A, and 253 B, which, prior to the year 1911, were used and assessed as agricultural lands.
253 B. The Collector after referring the plans to the Municipality and obtaining their views, granted the necessary permission, on 1 8 1911, in respect of Survey Nos.
He accordingly wrote two letters to the Collector dated 7 11 1941, one in respect of each of the two survey numbers, intimating his intention and added in each of the letters as follows We presume that you have numberobjection to this.
It was held that the companydition was to be gathered from the companyrespondence, Exs.
1 9 0 to Rs.
2114 and to sell the land companyprised therein in companyvenient plots for building purposes in accordance with the Municipal Building bye laws.
Pursuant to the permission granted and in accordance with he plans approved, the respondent companystructed buildings on the said survey numbers and had been paying the revised assessment.
2113 and Survey No.
The appellant in each of these appeals is the State of Bombay and the respondent is Mulji Jetha Company.
In the year 1941, the respondent wanted to build two more bungalows on City Survey No.
The respondent owned three survey numbers at Jalgaon in the State of Bombay being Survey Nos.
253 A and 254 A, and on 1st August, 1912, in respect of Survey No.
Jagannadhadas, J. These two are appeals on leave granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution against its companymon judgment in Second Appeals Nos.
