JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for injunction restraining the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, from demolishing the constructions shown by letters A B C D in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the plaintiff's appeal therefrom was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 2. As the record of the suit and of the appeal is reported to have been lost in the fire which engulfed the record room of the district Court at Allahabad on 1-5-1978, all that I have before me are the copies of the judgments of the two Courts below, and of the decree of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellants did not file copies of any of the documents on the record, but the respondent Nagar Mahapalika filed copies of Exts. A4, A5, A6, A7/3. A7/4, A7/5, A8/1, A9/1. A9/2, A10, A12, A13 and A18 as also of a notice dated 17-12-1966, which purports to have been issued by a Nagar Abhiyanta of the respondent Nagar Mahapalika under S. 557 (1) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, regarding the demolition of the house No. 1043 of Mohalla Mutthiganj, Allahabad, by the second plaintiff-appellant Bhagwandin, although his parentage, as given in the notice, does not tally with the parentage given in the decree under appeal. These copies have been certified by the learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Mahapalika to be true copies of the documents which were filed in the Courts below. I, therefore, admitted them as the only available material on record and proceeded to hear the appeal on that basis. 3. The first plaintiff-appellant appears to be the son of the second plaintiff-appellant. The following was the plaintiff's case as set out in the judgment of the trial Court. Ram Autar, father of the second plaintiff-appellant, had raised certain constructions denoted by letters A B C D on the plaint map, some 50 years ago. They bore the Municipal numbers 1043-A and 1043-B, and consist of three rooms. Ram Autar lived in them during his life. After his death they have been in the possession of the plaintiffs, but on mutual partition the first plaintiff-appellant is in possession of two Kothris towards the north which bear the Municipal No. 1043-B while the third Kothri, which bears the Municipal No. 1043-A, is in the possession of the second plaintiff. Ram Autar lived in them during his life. After his death they have been in the possession of the plaintiffs, but on mutual partition the first plaintiff-appellant is in possession of two Kothris towards the north which bear the Municipal No. 1043-B while the third Kothri, which bears the Municipal No. 1043-A, is in the possession of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs have been paying the Municipal taxes in respect of them. The defendant Nagar Mahapalika gave notices dated 4-11-1966 and 17-12-1966 alleging the constructions to be unauthorised. A reply was sent stating that the constructions were not unauthorised and only some repairs were carried out. The plaintiffs were afraid that the defendant Mahapalika would demolish the constructions in pursuance of the said notices, hence the suit. 4. The defence pleas were that the constructions were not old, but were unauthorised. They were raised in the year 1964-65 without the necessary permission of the Nagar Mahapalika. The constructions stand on Rouza Begum Bagh in Mouza Ahia-pur which was Nazul property belonging to the Government, and when the fact of the unauthorised constructions came to the notice of the defendant Nagar Mahapalika, it issued notices for its removal. The replies sent by the plaintiffs were wrong and they did not comply with the notices. Demolition was commenced on 29-4-1967 and two of the four rooms were demolished, but while the demolition was in progress, an injunction, issued by the court, was served. It was wrong to say that there were three kothris. In fact, there were four Kothris. The Kothris were first assessed to Municipal tax in the quinquennial assessment of 1965-70. The plaintiffs were not living in them for 50 years as alleged. They had their place of residence at House No. 1042/627, Muthiganj, Allahabad. Although originally it was the notice dated 4-11-1967 which was issued, the houses No. not having been given therein, fresh notices were given separately to the two plaintiffs later on (obviously on 17-12-1966). Other technical pleas were also raised. 5. The following were the issues on which the parties went on trial. "1. Whether the construction in dispute is authorised as alleged by the plaintiffs? "2. Whether the notice given by the defendant is invalid, illegal? "3. Whether the construction in dispute is new or old? "4. (a) Whether the suit has been under valued? "(b) Whether the court-fee paid is insufficient? "5. "1. Whether the construction in dispute is authorised as alleged by the plaintiffs? "2. Whether the notice given by the defendant is invalid, illegal? "3. Whether the construction in dispute is new or old? "4. (a) Whether the suit has been under valued? "(b) Whether the court-fee paid is insufficient? "5. Whether the suit is had for misjoinder of parties, causes of action and multifariousness as alleged in part 24 of the written statement? "6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in para 29 of the written statement? "7. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?" 6. Issues Nos. 1 and 3 were taken up together for consideration by the trial Court. On a detailed appraisal of the evidence on record, it came to the conclusion that the constructions in suit were raised for the first time in the year 1964-65 and were unauthorised for two reasons: Firstly, because they were on Nazul land belonging to the Government; and secondly, because they had been raised 'without the necessary permission of the Nagar Mahapalika. On Issue No. 2 it found that the impugned notice of demolition was not invalid when it was given and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get the relief of injunction as they were not owners of the land on which the constructions in suit stood. Issue No. 4 appears to have been decided earlier. On Issue No. 5 the trial court held that the suit was not bad for misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties, although it also added, I think erroneously, that the issue was decided against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 6 was not pressed before the trial Court and on Issue No. 7 it held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs claimed; and, in the result, dismissed the suit. 7. The lower appellate court considered the material points involved in the case all over again and concurred with the findings of trial Court that the land over which the constructions in suit stood was Nazul land and did not belong to the plaintiff-appellants, that the constructions in suit were not made 50 years ago as alleged by the plaintiff-appellants but came into existence sometime in the year 1964-65. The lower appellate court also held that the title of the Government over the land was not lost by the making of these constructions by the plaintiff-appellants in the year 1964 and that, therefore, the respondent Nagar Mahapalika had every right to claim demolition of the constructions and at any rate, no injunction could be issued restraining it from demolishing them. An argument raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that the Nagar Mahapalika was estopped from demolishing the constructions on account of its having realised property tax from the plaintiff-appellants was also repelled by the lower appellate court. The next argument raised before the lower appellate court was that the impugned notice of demolition was rendered infructuous by the coming into force of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. That argument was also repelled by the lower appellate court on the ground that the said Act superseded only Chapter XII of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam but had no effect on the impugned notice which was issued under Section 557 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The last argument raised before the lower appellate court was that the notice in question was nor given by the prescribed authority under Section 10 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. On this point the lower appellate court held that the notice had been issued under the orders of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and repelled the argument on that basis. Lastly, the lower appellate court held that the constructions having been made on Government Nazul land, they were wholly unauthorised and the civil court would not grant the discretionary relief of injunction to prevent the demolition of such unauthorised constructions. 8. It is not necessary for me, nor was it possible, in the absence of the record, to go into the correctness of the facts found by the two courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not attempt to assail the same. 8. It is not necessary for me, nor was it possible, in the absence of the record, to go into the correctness of the facts found by the two courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not attempt to assail the same. His contention, on the other hand, was that notwithstanding the findings that the constructions are unauthorised and have been erected on Nazul land, the respondent Nagar Mahapalika being a creature of the statute, and being a local authority and thus included within the meaning of the 'State', vide Article 12 for the purposes of enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, it could not proceed to act otherwise than in due course of law. Learned counsel argued that the impugned notice dated 17-12-1966 requiring the plaintiffs to demolish their house, was ultra vires & Section 557 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and that being so the respondent Nagar Mahapalika could not take the law into its hands and remove the so-called unauthorised constructions by employing force. According to the learned counsel the only course open to the respondent Nagar Mahapalika was, if the facts found by the two courts below were true, to institute a suit against the plaintiffs and to regain possession over the Nazul land, of which it was in management, under a decree of the court. Two questions, therefore, arise in this appeal: Firstly, whether the impugned notice was ultra vires Section 557 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, and secondly, if it were so, whether the court would be justified in refusing to issue an injunction restraining the respondent Nagar Mahapalika from demolishing the constructions in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17-12-1966. 9. These questions have to be answered in the background of, or on the facts and in the circumstances found by the two courts below. The constructions in suit have been found to have been raised in the year 1964-65 without obtaining the necessary permission of the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, under Section 319 of Chapter XIII, headed as "Building Regulations," of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam [1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Mahapalika Adhiniyam)]. The constructions are also an unauthorised encroachment on Government Nazul land, the management of which is vested in the respondent Nagar Mahapalika. The constructions are also an unauthorised encroachment on Government Nazul land, the management of which is vested in the respondent Nagar Mahapalika. The constructions were assessed to property tax in the quinquennial assessment of 1965-70 by the Nagar Mahapalika, but the Nagar Mahapalika is not estopped from demolishing the constructions, nor is its right to regain possession lost on any such count. The question is, and only is, whether the respondent Nagar Mahapalika could proceed without anything more, to demolish the constructions and enter into possession of the land by force in pursuance of and after the notice dated 17-12-1966 under Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam served by it on the plaintiff-appellants, remained uncomplied with. 10. The notice issued to the second plaintiff-appellant, of which also a copy has been filed before me, may now be reproduced:- [This matter being in Hindi we regret that we have to omit it here as we have no facilities for printing Hindi-Ed.]. 11. The notice was given under subsection (1) of Section 557, and sub-section (2) of that provision has been invoked for saying that if the notice is not complied with, the unauthorised constructions shall be demolished by the Nagar Mahapalika, thereunder, at the cost of the plaintiff-appellant No. 2, to whom it is addressed. Learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, specifically took up the position before me that the provision of law, namely, Section 557 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, relied upon in the notice, was correctly relied upon and there was no mistake about it, and that on facts of the case it was competent for the respondent Nagar Mahapalika to do so under that provision. My attention was also invited to the office notes in the Nagar Mahapalikas File, which show that the notice was issued under Section 557, and the power conferred on the Nagar Mahapalika under that provision of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam was invoked after due deliberation. The first question, therefore, is whether the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could order the removal of the constructions in suit by notice under subsection (1) of Section 557 of Mahapalika Adhiniyam and in case of non-compliance with such notice to have the constructions removed under sub-section (2) thereof at the cost of the noticee. 12. Section 557 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 reads as follows:- "557. 12. Section 557 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 reads as follows:- "557. Work or thing done without written permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to be deemed unauthorised-(1) If any work or thing requiring the written permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law is done by any person without obtaining such written permission or if such written permission is subsequently suspended or revoked for any reason by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, such work or thing shall be deemed to be unauthorized and, subject to any other provision of this Act, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time, by written notice, require that the same shall be removed, pulled down or undone, as the case may be, by the person so carrying out or doing. If the person carrying out such work or doing such thing is not the owner at the time of such notice then the owner at the time of giving such notice shall be liable for carrying out the requisitions of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. (2) If within the period specified in such written notice the requisitions contained therein are not carried out by the person or owner, as the case may be, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may remove or alter such work or undo such thing and the expenses thereof shall be paid by such person or owner, as the case may be." Section 557 occurs in Chapter XXIV headed as 'Miscellaneous' of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The sub-heading under which the provision appears is 'unauthorised works' and the marginal heading of the section reads "work or thing done without written permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to be deemed unauthorized"; and that is what the section says when it provides that if any work or thing requiring the written permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law is done by any person without obtaining such written permission ...... the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time, by written notice, require that the same shall be removed, pulled down or undone, as the case may be, by the person so carrying out or doing. the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may at any time, by written notice, require that the same shall be removed, pulled down or undone, as the case may be, by the person so carrying out or doing. Sub-section (2) of the section authorises the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to enforce his requisition, if not complied with, by the notice by getting the thing done by him at the cost of the notice. This obviously is a general provision and could cover anything requiring the permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation or bye-law framed thereunder, when done without his permission. In the case in hand we are concerned with a construction which required the permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under Section 319 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam read with the Sections 316 and 317 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The raising of that construction could, therefore, be regarded to be an unauthorised work within the meaning of Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. But, there is a specific provision contained in Section 326 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam for enforcement of the provisions concerning buildings and works. That provides:- "Where the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari at any time during the erection of the building or the execution of such work as aforesaid or, at any time within three months after the completion thereof, whether as a result of his inspection or otherwise comes to know of any matter in respect of which the erection of such building or the execution of such work is in contravention of any provision of this Act or of any rule or bye-law framed thereunder, he may require the owner erecting or executing or who has erected or executed the said building or work, to cause, anything done contrary to any such provision, rule or bye-law, to be amended or to do anything which, by any such provision, rule or bye-law may be required to be done but which has been omitted to be done." It cannot be disputed that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could have required under Section 326 the removal of the unauthorised work which was erected without the necessary permission under Section 319 or even under Section 320. But, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could do so latest within three months after the completion of the work, which places a limitation on the exercise of his powers of enforcing the provisions concerning buildings and works, or the Building Regulations in short. The question is whether in view of the specific provision contained in Section 326 for enforcing the Building Regulations, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could resort to the general power conferred on him for removal of the unauthorised works under the omnibus provisions of Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. The settled rule of interpretation is that the special excludes the general provision, more so, in this case when the special provision of Section 326 imposes a limitation of time of 3 months after the completion of the work within which the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is authorised to enforce the Building Regulations against the erring, owner of the work. I am, therefore, of the view that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could not have resorted to his powers under Section 557 in the present case as he had failed to act within the period of three months of the completion of the unauthorised work for enforcement of the Building Regulations. In so far as the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 is concerned, the provisions of that Act were, applied to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad for the first time on 31-12-1966. The impugned notice was served on 17-12-1966. The unauthorised work had been completed long before that Act came into force. The provisions of that Act could not be, and indeed were not, invoked in the present case. 13. As to the fact that the construction in suit was an unauthorised encroachment on the Government Nazul land, it is sufficient to say that the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could not have granted any permission for raising of that construction on Government Nazul land under any of the provisions of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam or any rule, regulation or bye-law framed thereunder. Only that which could be permitted by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under any provision of the Act, rule, regulation or bye-law, but was constructed without his permission, could be removed under Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. That which could not be permitted by him could not be removed under that provision. Only that which could be permitted by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under any provision of the Act, rule, regulation or bye-law, but was constructed without his permission, could be removed under Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam. That which could not be permitted by him could not be removed under that provision. The power for removing that encroachment has to be found elsewhere, may be, under the U.P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959, or may be in some other enactment. I say nothing as to that. Whether the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has had any such power under that Act or any other similar Act is a question which does not arise in the present case. 14. Having come to the conclusion that the notice in question was ultra vires Section 557 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam, the next question which requires consideration in the present case is whether the Court would yet be justified in refusing to issue an injunction restraining the respondent Nagar Mahapalika from demolishing the constructions. The constructions are unauthorised and do constitute, on the findings recorded in the present case, an unauthorised encroachment on Government Nazul land. They are thus liable to be removed. But, the State must act in accordance with law. Even for having the unauthorised constructions removed, the State cannot take the law into its hands. It must follow the procedure prescribed by law. Surely, the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, as the body in whom the management of the Government Nazul land is vested, cannot be restrained from having the unauthorised constructions removed, but it can certainly be restrained from having them removed in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17-12-1966, leaving it open to the respondent Nagar Mahapalika or the Government, which owns the land, to have them removed in due course of law. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and the decrees of the two courts below are set aside. Instead, there shall be a decree restraining the respondent Nagar Mahapalika by a perpetual injunction from demolishing the constructions in suit in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17-12-1966. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and the decrees of the two courts below are set aside. Instead, there shall be a decree restraining the respondent Nagar Mahapalika by a perpetual injunction from demolishing the constructions in suit in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17-12-1966. But, it is expressly made clear that the injunction, so issued, shall not debar the respondent Nagar Mahapalika or the Government, which has been found to be the owner of the land on which the constructions in suit are situate and which have been found to be unauthorised encroachments thereon, to have them removed in due course of law. 16. In the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.