JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for damages in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- for alleged unlawful demolition of a certain construction by the respondent No. 1 the Nagar Mahapalika of the city of Allahabad. 2. A notice dated 18-6-1965, purporting to be under Section 557 (1) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyani (hereafter to be referred as Adhiniyam). was issued to the plaintiff and was served on him on 21-6-1965. It states that it had come to the knowledge of the notice-given (Nagar Abhiyanta) from the report of the Ward Inspector that the notice (plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi since deceased) had without obtaining the permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari; under Section 319 of the Adhiniyam, started constructing four rooms which had nearly reached the roof level at 29, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, in an unauthorised manner which was punishable according to the said Adhiniyam and that, therefore, notice was given under Section 557 of the Adhinyam that be the notice, should within 24 hours of its receipt destroy that., unauthorised construction and that failing compliance with the order, the unauthorised construction would be demolished by the Nagar Mahapalika under Section 557 (2) of the said Adhiniyam and the costs of the demolition will be realised by him. This notice was promptly replied to on behalf of the deceased plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi almost immediately after its receipt on 21-6-1965 vide Ex. 2. The reply acknowledges the receipt of the notice that very evening and states "asking me to demolish some outhouses about which you have been informed by your Ward Inspector that they are being newly constructed I beg to say that these outhouses in question are not being newly constructed but are being rebuilt on the same foundation". Further that "there were outhouses which were dilapidated and to make matters worse, a tree fell down and damaged them" and that, therefore, he the plaintiff, was "compelled to reconstruct them before the rains set in." In the end the plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi added "I assure you that the outhouses are not newly constructed and request you to kindly cancel the notice in question. However, if you still feel that the outhouses are newly constructed, the case may please be compounded." 3. However, if you still feel that the outhouses are newly constructed, the case may please be compounded." 3. Another notice also dated 13-6-1965, was alleged to have been served by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari on the plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi under Section 333/1 of the Adhiniyam. This notice stated that since the notice-giver Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was satisfied that the plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi was unlawfully constructing four rooms which had reached the roof level, he (L. K. Nagar Mukhya Nagar Adhikari) required the plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi to immediately stop the said construction. 4. The record of the case was destroyed in the fire which engulfed the Civil Court building at Allahabad and the purport of the said notices has been reproduced from the copies of the documents which have been brought on record by the parties. The notings on the file of the Nagar Mahapalika Ex. A-5 show that notice dated 19-6-1965 under Section 557 (1) of the Adhiniyam was issued under the orders of J.G. Shind and on 23-6-1965. Mr. Shinde put up a note addressed to "M. N. A.", which means the Mukhya Nagar Arihikari, to the following effect :- "The statement of the notice may kindly be seen. He has admitted the under above construction. The under above construction is contravening our bye-laws. Kindly pass orders to demolish under Section 337 (2). Sd/- J.G. Shinde 23/6" There is an order `Demolish' signed by someone on 29-6-1965 and thereafter there is a note dated 16/7 of J.G. Shand again addressed to M. N. A. showing that the U/c. construction has been demolished today. For kind information please" whereon the M. N. A. has noted the word 'seen'. 5. A notice dated 7-11-1965, copy of which is Ex. 4, was thereafter sent by the plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi, since deceased, through an Advocate on the defendant-respondents under section 571 of the Adhiniyam demanding payment of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss caused by the demolition of the said construction and Rs. 1,000/- on account of the loss of reputation, as also Rs. 33.60 as cost of the notice. The plaint of the suit, giving rise to this second appeal, is verified and signed on 2-3-1966 and the suit must have been filed on that day or immediately thereafter. 6. 1,000/- on account of the loss of reputation, as also Rs. 33.60 as cost of the notice. The plaint of the suit, giving rise to this second appeal, is verified and signed on 2-3-1966 and the suit must have been filed on that day or immediately thereafter. 6. The following were the plaint allegations : The plaintiff Khushro S. Gandhi was the owner of premises No. 29, old Number 16/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Allahabad, which comprised of two main bungalows, some cottages and quarters and some outhouses; that a notice purporting to be under Section 557 (1) of the Adhiniyam, under the signatures of Tara Chand, defendant No. 4, Nagar Abhiyanta, was served on the Plaintiff. The contents of the notice, already summarised hereinabove, were then referred to. The notice was received by the plaintiff on 21-6-1965, but he was going out the same day and his brother Kershasp S. Gandhi sent a reply dated 21-6- 1955. The other notice dated 18-6-1965 was received by the plaintiff's brother Kershasp S. Gandhi bearing the date 22-6-1965 below the signatures thereon. It was sent under Section 353 of the Adhiniyam, which appears to be a mistake for Section 333 of the Adhiniyam. It is then stated that the second notice was sent without any reply being given to one plaintiff's letter dated 21-6-1965 and without any opportunity having been given to the plaintiff to explain and to show that the constructions, complained of, were not new and were not illegal. They were wrongfully demolished by the Nagar Abhiyanta, J.G. Shinde, defendant No. 3, and the Building Inspector Nawal Kishore, defendant No 5, on 16-7-1965 purporting to act under the illegal orders of Mr. L.K. Nagar, defendant No. 2, the then Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika, defendant No. 1. It is then asserted that the constructions, complained of, were not constructed illegally and neither the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari nor the Nagar Abhiyanta nor anyone else, including the other defendants, had any power, right or authority under the law to issue the notice dated 18-6-1965 or to demolish the constructions. The demolition was said to have been done mala fide and without affording to the plaintiff any opportunity to explain the matter and without replying to his aforesaid letter dated 21-6-1965 to cause him wrongful loss. The demolition was said to have been done mala fide and without affording to the plaintiff any opportunity to explain the matter and without replying to his aforesaid letter dated 21-6-1965 to cause him wrongful loss. The plaintiff was said to have suffered not only monetary loss but loss of reputation also for which not only the Nagar Mahapalika but also all the defendants were it was claimed personally liable as they had acted mala fide and also against the law. The service of notice under Section 571 of the Adhiniyam is then alleged to have been effected on all the defendants, claiming Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss caused to the plaintiff by the illegal demolition of the construction' on 16-7-1965 and Rs. 1,000/- on account of the loss of reputation and Rs. 33.60 as cost of the notice. The notice was said to have been served on defendant No. 3 on 4-11-1965 and on defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 on 10-11-1965. No amends were said to have been made in spite of the expiry of two months. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss caused by the defendant by the illegal demolition of the constructions and Rs. 1,000/- for loss of reputation - total Rs. 6,000/-. The plaint does not contain any details of the alleged loss of Rs. 5,000/-. It only says that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- claimed for loss of reputation was a small amount claimed only for the purposes of vindicating the plaintiff's rights and protecting his reputation. 7. The defence was that the plaintiff was found constructing four rooms in premises No. 29/61 Mahatma Gandhi Marg Allahabad. The aforesaid construction was unauthorised and wrongful and without obtaining any previous sanction. The notice dated 18-6-1965 was there upon served for demolishing the construction within 24 hours of the receipt of notice. Instead of demolishing the construction or stopping further construction on receipt of notice dated 18-6- 1965, the plaintiff continued with the construction and completed the four rooms, whereupon another notice was served on him under Section 333 (1) of the Adhiniyam. The plaintiff in reply to the notice submitted that the disputed constructions were not new but were built on the same foundation and that the plaintiff was reconstructing the four dilapidated outhouses. The plaintiff in reply to the notice submitted that the disputed constructions were not new but were built on the same foundation and that the plaintiff was reconstructing the four dilapidated outhouses. It is then affirmed that under the Municipal rules and bye-laws prior permission and sanction is necessary even for reconstructing a building or part of a building, but since the plaintiff, instead of compliance with the notice, or moving for condonation of his wrongful action, persisted in hurriedly completing the aforesaid four rooms, and "therefore, they were demolished under the orders of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari". It was said that no loss of reputation accrued to the plaintiff; that he was not entitled to any damages and the monetary loss, if any, caused to the plaintiff was on account of his omission to obtain a building permit from the Municipal authorities and since he was himself guilty of an illegal action he was not entitled to get any compensation. The notices issued were said to have been issued legally under the signatures of competent authorities under powers delegated by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. The suit for damages against defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 personally was said to be mis-conceived in in their personal capacity or out of any malice, against the plaintiff. They acted in discharge of their lawful duties in good faith and, therefore, they were not personally liable. The damages claimed were said to be excessive. 8. The following were the issues on which the parties went to trial:- "1. Whether the demolition of the premises in dispute was mala fide, wrongful and illegal?. "2. Whether the constructions demolished were made by the plaintiff without permission and sanctioned plan obtained from the defendant and, if so, were they illegal? "3. Whether the notices issued to the plaintiff were illegal? 4. Whether the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are personally liable for damages claimed? "5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed? If so, to what amount and against which of the defendant or defendants? "6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" 9. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were taken up together for consideration by the trial Court. 2 to 5 are personally liable for damages claimed? "5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages claimed? If so, to what amount and against which of the defendant or defendants? "6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?" 9. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were taken up together for consideration by the trial Court. It found the action of demolition not mala fide, wrongful or illegal; that the constructions demolished were new and had been made illegally by the plaintiff and so the defendants were entitled to issue the notice which was not illegal and in pursuance thereof they were also entitled to demolish the constructions as the plaintiff did not demolish them in compliance with the notice under Section 557 (1) of the Act. On Issue No. 4 it was held that the suit was barred by the provisions of section 570 of the Nagar Mahapalika Act as whatever the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 did was not in their personal capacity out of any malice, but they did it in the due discharge of their lawful duties and they were in any case not personally liable for the damages claimed. On Issue No. 5 the trial Court recorded a finding that "in case the plaintiff had been successful in establishing that the constructions were not new and that even if the constructions were not new then too they were not liable to be demolished then certainly the plaintiff was entitled to damages of Rs. 5,000/- claimed by him as compensation for the loss caused to him by the demolition of his outhouses. Apart from it the plaintiff as much as none of them did anything would certainly have been entitled to M Rs. 1,000/- claimed by him on account of loss of his reputation." In the result, it was held on Issue No. 6 that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and the suit was dismissed with costs. 10. The following four points were raised before the lower appellate Court : "1. Whether the constructions in question were unauthorised? "2. Whether the notice for demolition tinder Section 557 (1) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam given to the plaintiff-appellant was by a proper authority? "3. Whether the order for demolition under Section 557 (2) of the Act via-properly passed? "4. What amount of darpages is the plaintiff-appellant entitled to get?" 11. Whether the constructions in question were unauthorised? "2. Whether the notice for demolition tinder Section 557 (1) of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam given to the plaintiff-appellant was by a proper authority? "3. Whether the order for demolition under Section 557 (2) of the Act via-properly passed? "4. What amount of darpages is the plaintiff-appellant entitled to get?" 11. The lower appellate Court held on point No. 1 that the constructions were unauthorised as they required permission which was admittedly not obtained; on point No. 2 that the order Ex. A-7, delegating powers under Section 557 of the Adhiniyam was valid and the Nagar Ahhiyanta Mr. Shinde was competent to order, vide Ex. A-5, the issue of notice of demolition Ex. A-1, which was accordingly valid; on point No. 3 that the order of demolition passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under S. 557 (2) of the Adhiniyam was valid and there was no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Municipal authorities: and lastly, on point. No. 4 that the claim of Rs. 5.000/- was highly exaggerated and the action of the Municipal authorities was not mala fide and in any case the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were not personally liable. In the result, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court's decree dismissing the suit. 12. Mr. Gopi Nath Kunzru, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.N. Kaul, urged that under the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam the building regulations are contained in Chap. XIII, beginning with Section 315 and ending with Section 342. The breach complained of by the respondents was of Sections 315, 316 and 317 of the Adhiniyam. Assuming that was so, and assuming ,that the plaintiff should not have proceeded with the reconstruction of the four outhouses without obtaining the sanction of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, the only manner prescribed by the Adhiniyam for proceeding against, the plaintiff was that prescribed by Sections 326 and 327 thereof. Admittedly, that procedure was not adopted and the Nagar Mahapalika proceeded to act only under Section 557 when it issued the impugned notice dated 18-6-1965 under sub-section (1) thereof and proceeded to enforce the notice, under sub-section (2) by demolishing the four outhouses. Admittedly, that procedure was not adopted and the Nagar Mahapalika proceeded to act only under Section 557 when it issued the impugned notice dated 18-6-1965 under sub-section (1) thereof and proceeded to enforce the notice, under sub-section (2) by demolishing the four outhouses. That, the respondents could not do without first issuing a notice either under Section 326 or Section 327 requiring the plaintiff to show cause; and the order for demolition could be passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari only after hearing the plaintiff on such day and at such time and place as was specified in such a notice and that too if the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari why the building or work should not be removed, altered or pulled down. The argument raised by Mr. Kunzru was thus twofold. First, that Section 557 under which the respondents claimed specifically and deliberately to have acted, did not apply in view of the specific provision of Section 327 and secondly, the requirements of Section 327 as to affording the plaintiff a hearing being mandatory, not having been complied with, the order of demolition that is said to have been passed by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari on 29-6-1965, on Nagar Ahhiyanta's report dated 23-6-1965, is wholly illegal and unwarranted by law. Mr. Kunzru reinforced this argument by submitting that even if the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari was demolition to possess the power of ordering demolition of the outhouses in question, dehors Section 327, he could not have ordered it without affording the plaintiff reasonable opportunity of hearing, in keeping with the principles of natural justice and on that ground also the order of demolition was a nullity. That being so. urged Mr. Kunzru, the act of demolition of the plaintiff's outhouses was wholly illegal and unwarranted by law. The respondents being creatures of the statute, anything done by then outside the pale of law, which created them, was an infraction of the plaintiff's fundamental rights and he was entitled to damages by way of compensation against each one of them. 13. Mr. Ashok Mohiley, appearing for the respondents, urged that a plea in this form was not taken before the lower courts and what was pointed out was that the person who had signed the notice under Section 557. namely, the Sahayak Nagar Abhiyanta, respondent No. 4. was not authorised to sign it. 13. Mr. Ashok Mohiley, appearing for the respondents, urged that a plea in this form was not taken before the lower courts and what was pointed out was that the person who had signed the notice under Section 557. namely, the Sahayak Nagar Abhiyanta, respondent No. 4. was not authorised to sign it. In proof of the fact that he was authorised to sign it, Mr. Mohiley referred me to the order of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari dated March 7, 1960, delegating his powers and functions under Section 557 of the Adhiniyam to the Nagar Abhiyanta, I may at once observe that the copy of Ex. A-4 that was filed by Mr. Ashok Mohiley does not go the whole hog. It authorised only the Nagar Abhiyanta's to perform the functions and powers of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikar' under the various provisions, referred to therein, including Section 557. Another copy of Ex. A-4 in the Paper Book, supplied by the appellant, does not agree with the copy supplied by Mr. Ashok Mohiley. I take the copy supplied by Mr. Ashok Mohiley, learned counsel for the respondent Nagar Mahapalika, to be more authentic and correct. That being so, Tara Chand, the Sahayak Nagar Abhiyanta, who has signed the notice dated 18-6-1965, under Section 557 (1) of the Adhiniyam, was obviously not authorised to issue the notice. The fact that the notice was signed by Tara Chand the Sahayak Nagar Abhiyanta, and not by J. G. Shinde, the Nagar Abhiyanta concerned, is a fact which appears from the judgment of the trial court although it appears to have been issued under the orders of J. G. Shinde, the Nagar Abhiyanta. Assuming, therefore, that the notice under Section 557 (1) was an act of Nagar Abhiyanta, J.G. Shinde, and was served by him under Section 557 (1). Mr. Mohiley proceeded to urge that the Nagar Abhiyanta was fully authorised not only to issue the notice under subsection (1) of Section 557, but also to order demolition under sub-section (2) of Section 557 of the Adhiniyam, and he had by way of abundant precaution also obtained the orders of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari on his note dated 23-6- 1965 recommending demolition of the work. 14. 14. The first question which accordingly arises in this case is whether the impugned notice could be issued, or the outhouses could be ordered to be demolished under Section 557 of the Adhiniyam. 15. I had the occasion to consider the scope of Section 557 of the Adhiniyam vis-a-vis a case of enforcement of building regulations, contained in Chapter XIII of the Adhiniyam in Lalji v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad Second Appeal No. 1844 of 1972 decided on 18-11-80: (reported in 1981 All LJ 532). In that case the notice was issued long after the expiry of three months from the date of the completion of the unauthorised work. I held that action for demolition of any building erected and completed in breach of the building regulations could not be taken more than three months after the completion of the work in view of Section 326 of the Adhiniyam: and that being so, the general power of issuing notices and enforcing provisions of the Adhiniyam conferred by Section 557 thereof, could not he availed of in a case covered by the specific provisions for enforcing the building regulations. The same reasoning, adopted by me in that case, applies to the present case also. The specific provision of Section 326 of the Adhiniyam for enforcement of the regulations concerning buildings and works is in the following terms:- "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 matte 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 have 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 he done but which has been omitted to be done." Now, therefore, whenever the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, or the Nagar Abhiyanta in the present case, (in view of the delegation of powers to him. vide Ex. vide Ex. A-4) comes to know, whether as a result of his inspection or otherwise, at any time during the erection of a building etc. or at any time within three months after its completion, that the erection of the building etc., is in contravention of any provision of the Adhiniyam or any rule or bye-law framed therein, he has to require the owner erecting the building, to cause anything done contrary to any I such provision, rule or bye-law, to be amended, or to require that to be done which the owner was bound to but omitted to do. In the present case the only allegation of the respondents was that the work was commenced without obtaining the prior permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under Section 319 read with Sections 315, 316 and 317 of the Adhiniyam. It was not alleged, and it has not been shown by anything on record that the reconstruction of the outhouses was contrary to any rule or bye-law. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could, therefore, by notice under Section 333 require the plaintiff to stop the further construction of the building in exercise of the powers conferred on him by that Section, which, I may incidentally observe, was purported to be done in the present case by the other notice Ex. 3 that is said to have been served on 22nd or the 23rd June, 1965. I may here observe that the powers of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari under Section 333 of the Adhiniyam do not appear to have been delegated under the order dated 7-3-1965, Ex. A-4, to the Nagar Abhiyanta. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could have required the plaintiff to make amends, by obtaining permission and compounding the offence before proceeding on with the work or the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could have taken steps for ordering demolition, in case the building substantially contravened some rule or bye-law, by following the procedure -prescribed by Section 327 which is in the following terms :- "327. Proceedings to be taken in respect of building or work commenced contrary, to Art, rules or bye-laws - (1) If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is referred to in Section 317 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or by-laws, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari unless be deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 323 shall (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Mukhya Nagar Adhi kari, to show sufficient. cause, why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down, or (b) require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not he removed, altered or pulled down. (2) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said person." I may observe here that the power of taking proceedings under Section 327 of the Adhiniyam is limited to those cases where the erection of a building, as defined under Section 315, or repairs or alterations etc., of a building, as defined under Section 317, of the Adhiniyani, is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or bye-laws. In such a case the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has two options - either to require by written notice to the person, who has erected or executed such work, to show cause by a statement in writing, before such day as may be specified in the notice why such building or work should not he removed, altered or pulled down, or to require the person, who has erected such building or executed such work, on such day and such time and place as may be specified in the show cause notice to attend personally or by a duly authorised agent and show sufficient cause why such building or work should not be removed, altered or pulled down. 16. The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari is then authorised by sub-section (2) of Section 327 to order removal, alteration or pulling down of the building or work, which, ipso facto, must be such as has been erected in contravention of the provisions of the rules or bye-laws, in case the person to whom the show cause notice is issued fails to show sufficient cause or the cause shown is not sufficient to the satisfaction of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari. 17. These provisions postulate that the power of ordering demolition or removal of building or work, commenced or erected without the necessary permission of the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, can be exercised only in those cases where building or work contravenes any specific rule or bye-law framed in that behalf which are commonly called the building bye-laws. 18. However, even assuming that the proceedings for demolition could have been taken in the present case, for contravention of the provisions of Sections 315, 316, 317 read with Section 319, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari could not have ordered demolition without following the procedure prescribed by Section 327 of the Adhiniyam. That was clearly not done in the present case. Assuming that Section 557 authorised the respondents to order demolition, they could not have done so without giving the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, which vitally affected him, merely on the basis of the report of the Nagar Abhiyanta. The haste and the manner in which the proceedings were carried out leads me to think that the authorities were not acting bona fide. The haste and the manner in which the proceedings were carried out leads me to think that the authorities were not acting bona fide. I say so on the basis of the following finding recorded by the trial court :- "It may be that defendant No. 3 may be exaggerating so far as the date of receipt of the letter Ex. A-3 on 23-10-1965 is concerned in order to show that the notice under Section 333 (1) Ex. 2 had already been issued before the receipt of the letter Ex. A-3. But, whatever the position may be this much improved from Ex. A-5 that Mr. Shinde had issued instruction for the issue of notice under Section 557 (1) to the plaintiff and for preparing a notice under Section 333 (1) to be issued by the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari on 18-6-1965 and both the notices were actually prepared on the same date and signatures of Mr. Tara Chand for "Nagar Abhiyanta were obtained on the notice under Section 557 (1) on 18-6-1965 but it was not issued from the office till 21-6- 1965 when Mr. Shinde himself took it and served it on the plaintiff." As noticed above, one of the points raised by Mr. Ashok Mohiley for the respondents was that the case now not forth in this court was not taken at the trial or before the lower appellate court, but that is not strictly correct. The plaintiff had, in paragraph 6 of the plaint, specifically pleaded:- "That without any reply having been sent to the aforesaid letter dated 21st of June, 1965 sent by plaintiff's brother in reply to first notice, to the Nagar Abhiyanta and without any opportunity having been given to him or the plaintiff to explain and to show that the constructions complained of were not new and were not illegal, the said constructions were wrongfully demolished by the Nagar Abhiyanta Sri J.G. Shinde, defendant No. 3 and the Building Inspector Sri Nawal Kishore defendant No. 5 on 16-7-1965 purporting to act tinder the illegal orders of Sri L.K. Nagar, defendant No. 2, the then Mukhya Nagar Adhikari of the Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad (defendant No. 1)." It cannot, therefore, he said that the case which has been found to he made out, on the material on record, was not within the scope of the pleadings. 19. 19. The speed with which the action was taken in this case for demolition of the constructions, raised by the plaintiff, was rather extraordinary. It is not suggested that the Municipal Authorities acted improperly if they acted speedily and with promptitude to prevent a violation of the provisions of the Act and their action would have been commendable, but for the fact that they themselves violated the procedure established by law and proceeded to demolish the constructions raised by the plaintiff without affording him any opportunity of being heard. Their act must he struck down as invalid, unauthorised and unwarranted by law. Indeed, it was I clear case of malice in law, if that phrase has any meaning. 20. Another argument raised by Mr. Ashok Mohiley for the respondents wall that even so, no damages could be awarded against the defendant-respondents for the demolition of the plaintiff's constructions in the present case. First, the constructions were admittedly raised without permission, and to award damages to the plaintiffs for demolition of those constructions would be to rewarding an illegal act. Secondly, the respondents were protected by Section 577 of the Adhiniyam. 21. The points, so raised by Mr. Ashok Mohiley, would have surely carried weight in a case of this kind if the action taken by the respondents in the matter of demolition of the plaintiffs constructions had been found to be authorised by law. The order of demolition was passed without affording the plaintiff any opportunity of being heard. The constructions belonged to the plaintiff. The land on which the constructions were erected also belonged to the plaintiff in the sense that he had a right of occupancy thereon, even if the land view lease-hold and not free-hold. The powers of the respondent Mahapalika and its officers or authorities under the Adhiniyam are those conferred on them by the Adhiniyam itself. I have found that the demolition of the plaintiff's constructions by the respondents was an unauthorised act. It is not possible for me to find out from the material, made available to me, whether the respondents other than the Nagar Mahapalika, were acting in good faith so as to he protected by Section 570 of the Adhiniyam. Nor, does it appear expedient at this distance of tinmp to take fresh evidence on the point. It is not possible for me to find out from the material, made available to me, whether the respondents other than the Nagar Mahapalika, were acting in good faith so as to he protected by Section 570 of the Adhiniyam. Nor, does it appear expedient at this distance of tinmp to take fresh evidence on the point. I must, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the respondents, other than the Nagar Mahapalika were protected by Section 570. 22. The question which, therefore, remains is whether any damages should be awarded against the respondent Nagar Mahapalika and if so, the reasonable amount thereof. The finding of the trial court on this point, under issue No. 5, has already been referred to above. The finding is cryptic and the lower appellate court has in an equally cryptic manner set aside the finding relating to the damages, for loss suffered by the demolition, by saying that the claim was exaggerated and the plaintiff-appellant had admitted that Rupees 200/- or Rs. 300/- were spent on repairs. The lower appellate court has, chosen not to say anything about the trial court's finding relating to the claim for damages in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the loss of reputation. The record in this case was destroyed in the fire which engulfed the Civil Court building. The lower appellate court has held that there was no evidence in support of the claim for damages in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the loss suffered by the demolition. Although copies of the statements of the witnesses have been included in the Paper Book, filed by the plaintiff-appellant, besides some other papers, it was neither possible for me sitting as a court of second appeal to assess the damages for myself, nor was it possible to place implicit reliance on the copies of the statements that have been filed. In this situation, I put it across to Mr. G.N. Kunzru, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, that in case I were to find that the demolition in question was unlawful, whether his client would be satisfied with an award of token damages. Realising the difficulties, Mr. Kunzru stated before me that he would have no objection even if a decree for recovery of a token amount of Rs. G.N. Kunzru, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, that in case I were to find that the demolition in question was unlawful, whether his client would be satisfied with an award of token damages. Realising the difficulties, Mr. Kunzru stated before me that he would have no objection even if a decree for recovery of a token amount of Rs. 1,000/- was passed against the respondent Nagar Mahapalika to vindicate the plaintiff's honour, who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, and is now represented by his legal representatives. 23. On an over-all consideration of the situation I, therefore, think that the ends of justice would be met in this case if a decree for recovery of Rupees 1,000/- only is passed against the respondent Nagar Mahapalika as token damages, more for the purposes of enforcing the rule of law than for compensating the plaintiff-appellant; and the parties are left to bear their own costs. 24. I, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the decree appealed from, and instead decree ; he plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) against the respondent Nagar Mahapalika of the City of Allahabad, but leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.