JUDGMENT 1. - This is plaintiff's second appeal arising out of suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the judgement and decree passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota, dated September 26, 1973. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased plot No. 40 situated in new Dhan Mandi, Kota, at public auction made under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Sale of Land in Mandis) (Chambal Irrigation Project Area) Rules, 1957 for Rs. 2,863/75 on December 20, 1960. The sale deed of this plot or land was executed and duty registered on April 5, 1961. On December 7, 1966, a notice was issued by the Secretary, Mandi Committee, Kota, imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the plaintiff under clause 8 of the sale deed. It was mentioned in the notice, which is Ex.5, that the plaintiff had made construction on plot No. 40 in contravention of the sanctioned plan by constructing a room on the first floor. It was further mentioned in the notice that the plaintiff must remove the unauthorised construction and in default thereof, he would be liable to pay Rs. 20/- per day till the unauthorised construction is actually removed. The plaintiff challenged the validity of this notice on several grounds, which are detailed in paragraph No. 6 of the plaint. One of the important objections raised by him was that clause 8 of sale deed was wholly inapplicable as he committed no breach of any of the terms of the sale deed. The suit was confessed by defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan and defendant No. 2 Mandi Committee, Chambal Project, Kota. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:- " 1- D;k oknh ds mij rk% 7&2&26 }kjk 50@& :0 dh isusYVh vkjksfir dh vo/k o vukf/kd`r gS\ 2- D;k oknh us rkehj dks vkKkuqlkj rkehj ugha fd;k gS\ 3- D;k izfroknhx.k dks edku rqM+okus dk vf/kdkj gS\ 4- D;k izfroknh dks 80 lh0ih0lh0 dk uksfVl fn;k x;k og oS/kkfud ugha Fkk\ 5- D;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk twfj'kfMD'ku ugha gS\ 6- lgk;rk " 3. The trial court decided issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and issues Nos. 4 and 5 against the defendant. In the result, the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal before the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota, but without any success. The trial court decided issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and issues Nos. 4 and 5 against the defendant. In the result, the trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went in appeal before the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota, but without any success. The plaintiff has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It is common ground between the parties that the impugned notice imposing penalty of Rs. 500/- and the additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day was issued under clause 8 of the sale deed Ex.1. Clause 8 of the sale deed runs as under:- "8. In the event of breach or non-observance by the vendee of any of the covenants herein on his part to be observed then, and in any such case, it shall be lawful for the vendor, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right for the re-entry, to enter into and upon the said land or building thereon or any part thereof in the name of the whole, and to repossess, retain and enjoy the same as of his former estate and the vendee shall not be entitled to a refund of the purchase money or any part thereof or to any compensation whatsoever on account of such resumption and it shall be further lawful for the vendor to impose on the vendee, after due notice, a penalty which may extend to Rs. 500/- and in case of a continue breach or non-observance continues after the first imposition of penalty and any such penalty shall be recoverable as areas of land revenue." Obviously, this clause comes into play only in the event of breach or non-observance by the vendee of any of the covenants mentioned in the sale deed. 5. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff committed breach of clause 3 of the sale deed. Clause 3 of the sale deed runs as under:- "3. The vendee shall complete to the satisfaction of the Collector the construction of the said shop/residential site/shop and residential house combined/factory. 5. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff committed breach of clause 3 of the sale deed. Clause 3 of the sale deed runs as under:- "3. The vendee shall complete to the satisfaction of the Collector the construction of the said shop/residential site/shop and residential house combined/factory. Within 3 years of the delivery of possession, provided that the time under this clause may be extended by the Collector in case failure to complete the buildings by the stipulated date was due to reasons beyond the control of the vendee. If the vendee either does not secure permission from the State Government or the Government does not agree to give extension, it will be open to the Government to take possession of the plot without payment of compensation." It is significant to note that there is nothing to suggest on the record that the vendee did not complete, to the satisfaction of the Collector, the construction on the plot within the prescribed period. The learned counsel for the respondents were not able to point out how the plaintiff could be held guilty of non-observance or breach of clause 3 of the sale deed. I have gone through the entire sale deed Ex.1, and I find that there is no such clause which made it obligatory on the plaintiff to construct the plot purchased by him in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In this view of the matter, the whole basis of the notice Ex.5 imposing penalty of Rs.500/- and additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day for having constructed room on the first floor in contravention of the sanctioned plan, fails to the ground. The learned counsel for the respondents were also unable to point out any such law or rule under which the Secretary, Mandi Committee was authorised to impose penalty of Rs.500/- and additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day on the plaintiff. In my opinion, the notice Ex.5 was wholly invalid and it was not within the powers of the Secretary, Mandi Committee, to impose the penalty of Rs. 500/- and additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed the judgements and decrees of the courts below are set aside, and the suit is decreed, and the defendants are restrained from realising the penalty imposed by them under notice Ex.5. 500/- and additional penalty of Rs. 20/- per day. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed the judgements and decrees of the courts below are set aside, and the suit is decreed, and the defendants are restrained from realising the penalty imposed by them under notice Ex.5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. 7. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, prays for leave to appeal to a Division Bench, which is refused. *******