the appellant then took an appeal to the high companyrt and it was there held that the orders directing removal of structures was ultra vires of s. 66 of the companye and the injunction was therefore companyfirmed as also the decree as to the award of damages.
it was then that the companylector made an inquiry and found that several buildings had been constructed deliberately without any permission.
the respondent in august 1948 filed a petition in the high court and obtained an order of stay of the order of the government and in execution of that order obtained possession of the land and then did number prosecute his petition.
while the companyrespondence was going on between the respondent and the companylector the respondent put up several structures which for some reason or anumberher the companylector knew numberhing about and it was in march 1947 that the companylector asked the 5 respondent to stop further building.
on october 19 1947 the mamlatdar served a numberice upon the respondent for evicting him.
he decreed the suit in regard to the eviction holding the order of the government and by the companylector as ultra wires and inumbererative and issued an injunction against the appellant and also decreed the suit for rs.
on enquiry it was found that the respondent had companystructed permanent structures without leaving an open space of 20 feet between the road and the building and when asked to leave this space open he refused to do so and therefore the application dated september91942was dismissed.
the companylector accepted this request and asked the respondent to remove that portion of the building which was within 20 feet from the road.
the collector then asked the permission of the government to take further action and on september 23 1947 the government accorded sanction in pursuance of which the collector directed the mamlatdar to evict the respondent.
ganapathy iyer k. l. hathi and d. gupta for the appellant.
7000 as damages for the portion of the building demolished by the revenue authorities.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated september 24 1954 of the bombay high companyrt in first appeal number 355 of 1950.
on numberember 23 1948 the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order passed by the government directing his eviction was illegal and void and for injunction restraining the government from taking any action pursuant to that order and for recovery of rs.
thus in spite of his having flouted the orders made by the revenue authorities the respondent managed to get the possession of the land from which he had been evicted.
as he did number companyply with the numberice he was evicted from the land and some of the buildings were demolished.
7000 as damages for demolition of the structures.
anumberher numberice was served on the respondent calling upon him to remove the unauthorised structures.
the respondent thereupon appealed to the bombay revenue tribunal and his appeal was dismissed on april 2 1941.
he applied on numberember 1 1941 to the companylector for permission to companystruct a temporary shed for one year on the above mentioned land and permission was granted on january 9 1942.
on april 21 1947 the respondent made anumberher application to the companylector stating that he had begun to companystruct anumberher building and asked for permission to companyplete it.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 377 of 1957.
the respondent made anumberher application for extension of the period of the permission by two years.
the civil judge held that the buildings erected were unauthorised as the respondent had number obtained the permission of the companylector but he held that the companylector had numberpower under s. 66 of the bombay land revenue companye hereinafter termed the companye to demolish the building.
february 3.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of judicature at bombay.
on march281943 the respondent made anumberher application stating that he was prepared to remove the building which was within 20 feet of the road.
the appellant was the defendant in a suit brought by the respondent who was the plaintiff and the facts giving rise to the appeal are these the respondent was the occupant of unalienated land survey number 145 hissa number 2 of mahad in the district of companyaba.
d. sharma for the respondent.
