JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J.- Town area Committee Chitbaragaon has assailed the decree for permanent injunction granted by two courts below restraining it from demolishing or otherwise removing the constructions, tin shed chabutra etc, as they committed an error of law in misreading Ext. A-3 and ignoring Section 211 of U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 applied to Town Areas since 1959. 2. Constructions in dispute are standing on two sides the road which run through the Town Area. According to respondents they had raised constructions as far back as sixty years after obtaining permission from Zamindar whereas appellant claimed these constructions to have been raised three years ago unauthorisedly on Town Area land. Both courts below examined the oral evidence which in fact was the main evidence and held that constructions were standing over Sahan land of respondents since not less than sixty years and not on the public road or payment. The trial court found that P.W. 2 Mohd. Usman had been a member of Town Area but he deposed that he has been seeing constructions since he attained the age of discretion. It also placed reliance on testimony of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 Jang Bahadur and Ram Behari who were Zamindars of Sharakat Sahib Arnaas where the disputed constructions lie. Inference was drawn against appellant as it did not produce any employee or witness of sufficient standing nor it examined even the Chairman who was not only a local man but Zamindar of the place. 3. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any flaw in appreciation of oral evidence. But he urged that in the first instance, that trial court acted illegally in rejecting Ext. A-3 as inadmissible but being faced with difficulty that the appellate court had set aside the finding submitted that they misread the document and erroneously treated it as a plan of the market when in fact it was map. According to him it was not a plea of any proposed market, but map of the market as it existed in 1885 A.D. The lower appellate court found that it appeared to be a map in Misc. proceedings. It was a copy of the plan of a market proposed by Mr. Robert to be set up at Chitbargaon. He found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the present market was set up according to this plea. proceedings. It was a copy of the plan of a market proposed by Mr. Robert to be set up at Chitbargaon. He found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the present market was set up according to this plea. Attempt of the learned counsel for appellant to demonstrate that this was not a plan but a map failed miserably. It does not give any scale or measurement of the plan or map. The shops shown in it are nearly 217 whereas on spot there are not more than 40 or 50 shops. From the recital at the top of the map it appears more to be a plan than map of the market, Moreover, the entire argument of the learned counsel for appellant fails to the ground as the trial court found that Harendra Nath examined as D.W. 1 on behalf of appellant admitted that there was map which was the sole record of this market but it was filed in another case. The trial court found that no attempt was made to get a copy of this map or to file it in the case. In the circumstances the courts below did not commit any error in not placing any reliance on Ext. A-3 or treating it as a map of the road or the shops. 4. It was then urged that in 1959 section 211 of U.P. Municipalities Act was amended and the Town Areas were empowered to remove the encroachments on a street or road and person concerned was entitled to compensation only if that was prior to 1960. According to him after extension of this provision to Town Area the respondents could not resist the notice issued by appellant and their only remedy was to get compensation. The argument cannot be accepted as for applicability of this provision there has to be a finding of encorachment. The finding is otherwise. It has been found by the two courts below that constructions have been raised by respondents in front of the their shops on their sehan land. In other words there was no encroachment. The provisions of Section 211, therefore, were not applicable. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the orders of Town Area Committee have become final between the parties and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside. In other words there was no encroachment. The provisions of Section 211, therefore, were not applicable. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the orders of Town Area Committee have become final between the parties and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside. It was also urged that four of the respondents were convicted u/s 32 of the Town Area Act for encroachment on public road and the criminal cases against other respondents are pending. According to him the courts below committed an error in not taking into consideration the criminal cases and decisions thereon. The arguments has no merit. It hardly needs any discussion as neither the order passed by Town Area Committee nor order passed in criminal cases debarred the Civil Court from examining whether constructions were on land of respondent or road belonging to appellant. 6. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for parties judgment was reserved in the appeal. When it was listed for delivery of judgment on 9.2.1982 the learned counsel made a mention that he wanted to say something more. He was permitted to do. He passed on a note on behalf of Town Area Committee. Its purpose is not clear as these very points were raised except of course Point no II mentioned in the note. It reads as under : "Even if there was slight encroachment, no suit lay for injunction restraining the Town Area from carrying on its statutory duties." 7. This point was not taken in the lower courts. No issue was framed on it. Even in the grounds of appeal, in this Court no such controversy was raised. Otherwise also the point has no merit. It proceeds on assumption thus there was encroachment. It is begging the question, The finding of fact which has been found to be well founded is that constructions were raised by respondents on their land. Similarly it has been held that Section 211 was not applicable. The argument, therefore, that order passed u/s 211 is appealable u/s 318 and 381 of the Act is of no consequence. 8. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.