1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. SECOND APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2006 (The Amravati Municipal Corporation .v. Smt. Farook Iqbal Ahad Khan and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.K. Pathan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V.V. Datta, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : C.L. PANGARKAR, J. 18TH MARCH, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondents had instituted a suit for damages for demolition of the compound wall. It was the contention of the respondents that the action on the part of the Municipal Corporation is actuated by malice and the officers of the Municipal Corporation had demolished the wall. The respondents have, therefore, demanded a compensation. The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit holding that there was no malice and the construction made by the plaintiffs was illegal in the sense that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they have made the construction of the wall on their own plot. The first appellate Court, however, disagreed 2 with the finding of the learned trial Court and found that the action of the employees of the Municipal Corporation was actuated by malice with a view to help one Gadpal, who had made a complaint and who is said to be the neighbour of the plaintiffs. After having gone through the judgment of the learned first appellate Court, I find that the first appellate Court has considered the fact that the construction that was made by the plaintiffs was after approval of the plans submitted by them. Once the Municipal Corporation had approved the plan, it had no right to demolish the compound wall or if it wanted to do so then it could have done so after giving prior notice. It further held that one Mr. Nagpure who was working as a Clerk and a matriculate, had drawn a rough sketch. The learned first appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that it was not proper on the part of the Municipal Corporation to demolish the construction of this compound wall which was not proved to be made after making encroachment on the government land or the Municipal Corporation land. It appears from the discussion made by the learned Judge of the first appellate Court that he had gone through the entire record and found that there were wrong and false endorsements on the applications and even the records 3 of the Municipal Corporation were manipulated by the employees to suit their convenience. In view of this, I do not find that the learned judge of the first appellate Court has misappreciated any evidence. There is no perversity in the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.