1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2010 The Municipal Council, Latur, Tq. and District Latur, Through its Chief Officer. ...PETITIONER (Ori.Defendant No.1) VERSUS 1. Kamlakar s/o Raghunathrao Pathak, Age 87 years, Occ. Nil, r/o Koyana Nagar, Latur, District Latur. ...(Ori.plaintiff) 2. Subhash s/o Rangrao Deshmukh, Age major, occ. Business, r/o Latur, District Latur. 3. Rambhau s/o Nagorao Shingare, Age 56 years, Occ. service, r/o ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :8th Jan.,2010 *** 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. V.D.Hon, Counsel appearing for Municipal Council, Latur, seeking to challenge concurrent findings recorded in Special Civil Suit No.166/1994, dt.15.11.2007, confirmed by the learned District Judge, Latur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.7/2008, dt.16.9.2009. 2. Learned Counsel submits, the award of Rs.25,000/- by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, towards damages is uncalled for, the removal of encroachment by the Municipal Council was in tune with the powers vested in them as without any authority the plaintiff Kamlakar had effected such projections in the leased property. The Counsel submits, there was no evaluation under what head such amount of Rs.25,000/- as damages could have been fixed as liability against the Municipal Council or its officers. Consequently, he has sought interference by way of present Civil Revision Application. 3. Needless to add, the scope in the Civil Revision Application is confined to the legal aspects involved in the matter. 4. There is no controversy that the Municipal Council - appellant herein has allotted 3 a piece of 10 x 10 fts. open space lying between shop No.25 and 26 Mini Market, Latur, to the plaintiff on yearly lease of Rs.600/-. Since there was post mortem room of Civil Hospital, next or behind the said open space, the open space was closed by the Municipal Council, Latur, by erecting a wall on eastern side of the licensed premises. Consequently, the premises has come into conversion like a shop. The plaintiff was carrying his business activities in the said premises/shop for which rentals were paid and collected by the Municipal Council upto March,1994. It was canvassed by the Municipal Council that such possession of the respondent herein, was unauthorized or illegal. It is a matter of record, the Municipal Council, without serving any notice, removed the Respondent/plaintiffs belongings in the shop and caused damage to the same for which action was sought by way of Special Civil Suit, referred above. The learned Civil Judge, on evaluation of the evidence concerning loss suffered by plaintiff/respondent, found that the claim assessed by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as damages, was just. There was no authority vest in the Municipal Council to remove the plaintiff from the licensed premises which was under lease without following due process of law. Even if there was any encroachment, the due procedure, as was required under the Statute, 4 was not complied with by the Municipal Council. 5. Needless to add, the liability of officers of the Municipal Council was not personal. It was only the Municipal Council which was required to comply with the orders of damages. There is no legal aspect or legal issue raised in the Civil Revision Application to hold the Courts acted illegally or with material illegality. Accordingly, no merits in the revision. It is dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/1-10cra