JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree of the Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur confirming the judgment & decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City who dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit for permanent injunction. 2. The salient facts giving rise to this second appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff appellant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction averring therein inter-alia that he had been residing at the suit plot measuring 27.6. ft. x 31 ft. situated in Kachhi Basti Sitarampura in Survey No. 4526/71, Nehru Nagar Jaipur for more than 30 years without any interruption and to thereby had acquired ownership rights by adverse possession. The State of Rajasthan made survey of Kachhi Basti for regularisation, wherein survey No. 4526 was given to the plaintiff, but on 18.5.91 a notice Under sections 32 and 33 of the Jaipur Development Act, 1982 (for short "the JDA Act") was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (for brevity "JDA") alleging therein that the constructions were made unauthorisedly by the plaintiff without seeking prior permission of the Corporation and hence the same could not be regularised and were to be demolished. Against the said notice, an appeal was also filed before the JDA-Tribunal and the validity of the said notice was upheld. At the relevant time the aforesaid Scheme in which the appellant's plot was located was transferred from JDA to Jaipur Nagar Nigam on 19.6.1995. Thereafter, the enforcement officers of the defendant Corporation came for demolishing the construction over the suit-plot as such, the suit claiming the relief of permanent injunction was filed. Consequently, the appellant filed the suit restraining JDA from carrying out demolition of the construction raised over the pot in question by him which was dismissed by the trial Court giving rise earlier to an appeal before the First Appellate Court which affirmed the findings of the trial court and thereafter he has come up before this Court by way of present second or issuance of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant Corporation from demolishing the construction and interfering with plaintiff's possession over the suit land. 3. The defendant-Jaipur Nagar Nigam for short "the Corporation" in it's written statement pleaded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was as a trespasser while its owenership vested in the Jaipur Development Authority. 3. The defendant-Jaipur Nagar Nigam for short "the Corporation" in it's written statement pleaded that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was as a trespasser while its owenership vested in the Jaipur Development Authority. The defendant-Corporation denied the adverse possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot for more than 30 years because the encroachment by the plaintiff was new one and the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the suit plot from time to time on many occasions in the past. Hence, plea of adverse possession or ownership rights claimed thereon by the plaintiff in absence of any evidence of lawful title could not be sustained. The defendant denied any construction raised over the plot by the plaintiff in the year 1971. The Corporation defendant pleaded that even the JDA had also not accepted plaintiff's ownership over the suit plot and the defendant had lawful right to remove encroachment and further that since the suit being for permanent injunction was not maintainable in the absence of as suit for declaration. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred first appeal before learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and which was finally decided and dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Hence this second appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the findings of fact record by the courts below on due appreciation of evidence 5 as well as legal position of the case. Prima-facie I am of the considered view that the concurrent findings of fact recorded after due appreciation of the evidence on record are not open to challenge by way of this second appeal. The impugned concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot was illegal in absence of any 16 documentary-evidence regarding possession or title over which he had carried out constructions unauthorisedly without obtaining prior permission of the respondent Corporation in gross violation of the provisions of the JDA Act. Hence, plea of ownership by adverse possession was not sustainable. 6. Hence, plea of ownership by adverse possession was not sustainable. 6. As regards the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent Corporation was not justified in issuing notice under Sections 32 & 33 of the JDA Act, I am of the view that before aforesaid provisions of Sections 32 & 33 of the JDA Act are attracted, the person aggrieved by such threatened action of the Authority or the Corporation as the case may be has to establish by prima-facie conclusive and positive evidence that he is owner of the suit plot in his own lawful right even though he might have carried out constructions unauthorisedly without obtaining prior permission of the Corporation further the construction has to be carried out only after obtaining requisite sanction as regards the bulilding plan duly approved by the Authority established by law viz; the Corporation. Since, admittedly the plaintiff-appellant has failed to furnish any cogent evidence of record his plea of adverse possession or having acquired any ownership rights over the disputed plot in question would not arise. it is settled law that no person can be permitted to carry out the construction over the land unless he has obtained prior sanction of the concerned Authority. Applying this principle to the instant case, I am of the view that it is not the case of the plaintiff that he is owner of the land in question over which he has raised construction unauthorisedly and hence in the absence of the appellant's establishing a title over the suit plot or any evidence with regard to sanction plan which had the prior approval of the Corporation, which he admittedly has failed to furnish the question with regard to restraining the respondent Corporation from carrying out demolition of the construction untuthorisedly over the suit plot would not arise. Hence is my view the defendant-Corporation is fully empowered to have issued notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 & 33 of the Act, which was in fact issued and served upon the plaintiff-appellant as a matter of abundant caution before carrying out the demolition over the suit plot. 7. Hence is my view the defendant-Corporation is fully empowered to have issued notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 & 33 of the Act, which was in fact issued and served upon the plaintiff-appellant as a matter of abundant caution before carrying out the demolition over the suit plot. 7. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the notice under section 32 & 33 of the JDA Act was served on the plaitniff hence, the plea of the plaintiff as regards his ownership by adverse possession should have been upheld. In my considered opinion, this contention of the learned counsel is un-sustainable. The Courts below on proper appreciation of notice (Ex.2) and the order (Ex.3) of the JDA Tribunal in appeal against the said notice as well as the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that neither the title nor any evidence of ownership was tendered on record and hence the plaintiff does not deserve to succeed. Thus, in view of the notice given Under section 32 & 33 of the JDA Act and the judgment thereon especially when the plaintiff has not sought decree for declaration as to his ownership in the present suit, the findings of fact as to the adverse possession and ownership arrived at by two courts below cannot be assailed in second appeal. Judgment (Ex. 3) of the JDA Tribunal on notice (Ex. 2) merely established as rightly held by the two courts below that on the disputed survey number of the plaintiff, existence of one room 8 ft. x 8 ft. was only for three years and the order to remove the boundary wall raised thereon beyond height over 4.5 ft. was issued. Thus, merely because notice (Ex. 2) was given Under section 32 & 33 to the plaintiff under the JDA Act, in a suit for permanent injunction in absence of declaratory relief would by itself not establish any lawful claim of the plaintiff either over the plot in question or with regard to any construction carried thereon. Hence, it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff appellant had any lawful right or justification to raise the construction which in my considered view had been done unauthorisedly. 8. Hence, it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff appellant had any lawful right or justification to raise the construction which in my considered view had been done unauthorisedly. 8. As regards the contention of the appellant as to the application of Section 203(3) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act as amended in 1991, in my view the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of cause of action having arisen when the defendant-Corporation took the action of carrying out the demolition of the encroachment over the part of suit plot which according to the defendant in its written statement, was public road in Sitarampura Scheme where the Corporation undertook work of construction of severage and road. Hence, it cannot be said that Section 203(3) is not applicable to the instant case. Section 203(3) as amended in 1991 empowers the Municipality to dispossess anybody if there is encroachment on the public street which causes unwarranted interference with regard to Section 203(3) of the Act and public amenities. Since in written statement the suit plot has been claimed as the Municipal land where the defendant Corporation wanted to carry out construction of severage line and road and the encroachment by the plaintiff established, hence in order to remvoe the same, the Corporation was obviously justified in carrying out its' removal. I may further state that in the present appeal for the first time the appellant has come with new case which he has neither pleaded nor led any evidence in this regard before the courts below and hence the plaintiff-appellant cannot be allowed to advance any such plea in the present appeal in view of well settled law that evidence on the record should not be contrary to the pleadings. 9. The defendant Corporation as stated above, has specifically pleaded before the Courts below that the suit land belongs to the MA/Corporation, over which the plaintiff had carried out the encroachment. Merely because he has been in possession may be since the year 1971, does not by itself would prevent the Corporation from getting the appellant dispossessed of the ecroachment over the suit land in accordance with law. Merely because he has been in possession may be since the year 1971, does not by itself would prevent the Corporation from getting the appellant dispossessed of the ecroachment over the suit land in accordance with law. I am fortified in my observation from the decision in Bhurji v. UIT Alwar, 1996 (3) WLC (Raj.) 155 , wherein in an identical circumstances like in the present case, this Court was of the view that suit for injunction simpliciter without declaration was not maintainable and the defendant- Corporation could not be restrained from taking necessary action in accordance with law. 10. As a result of the above discussion, neither any substantial questions of law is made out nor there is any error, infirmity or illegality in the so concurrent findings of facts under impugned judgments of two Courts below, warranting any interference in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in present appeal. Consequently, this second appeal is dismissed in limineSecond Appeal Dismissed. *******