JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th of July, 1983 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 78/80, whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed against the judgment and decree dated 21st of October, 1978 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 161/71, whereby the suit of the plaintiff- respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed. 3. The plaintiff-respondent filed at suit for declaration and injunction i against the Municipal Council Jaipur and other defendants including the State of Rajasthan wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and the land thereunder bearing municipal number 1528 and situated at Chowk Mansharam Hajam, Jat-ka-kuaon- ka-rasta, Jaipur. It was pleaded in the plaint that originally Mansharam Hajam was the owner of the land on which this house is situated. This land was sold in court auction in a decree against Mansharam and Shri Nand Kumar, Durgabux Purohit purchased the same on Jeth Sudi 6th Samvat 1939. The plaintiff thereafter purchased this land by registered sale deed dated 22.2.1943 from Durga Bux Purohit with the some construction thereupon. The plaintiff thereafter obtained permission in the year 1956 and 1962 from the Municipal Council, Jaipur for construction of the house. In the year 1962 when the plaintiff was raising construction, the defendant Puranmal, Bhuramal, Bhonrilal and Jugal Kishore raised objection and filed an appeal under Section 170(12) of the Municipalities Act and also a revision under Section 285 of the said Act before the Collector, Jaipur. The Additional Collector, Jaipur, vide its order dated 6.11.1963 set aside the order dated 1.2.1962 passed by the Municipal Council, Jaipur. However, the order of the Additional Collector dated 6.11.1963 was set aside by the Revenue Board vide order dated 20.11.1967. Thereafter the plaintiff completed his construction but on 7.4.1969 Officers of the Municipal Council, Jaipur came on the site for demolishing the house and it was informed to the plaintiff that the State Government vide its order dated 15.11.1968 passed an order against the plaintiff and in these circumstances the present suit for declaration to declare the order of the State Government dated 15.11.1968 as illegal, was filed. 4. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned lower court framed 11 issues which are reproduced in both the judgments passed by both the courts below. The learned lower court vide its judgment dated 21.10.1978 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared the order dated 15.11.1968 passed by the State Government and the order dated 6.11.1963 passed by the Additional Collector as illegal and ineffective against the plaintiff. Being aggrieved with the same a regular civil appeal was preferred by the present appellant which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.7.1983 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In these circumstances the present second appeal was preferred by the defendant-appellant. 5. This Court vide its order dated 19.10.1984 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether both the courts below were justified in holding that the order of the State Government dated 15.11.1968 was illegal because no notice was given by the State under Section 285 of the Municipal Council, Jaipur? 2. Whether both the courts committed serious error of law in decreeing the plaintiff suit in spite of giving finding that the land in dispute belongs to M.C. Jaipur & plaintiff is estopped from challenging the title of M.C. Jaipur over the same?" 6. This court issued notice to the opposite parties. Thus the appeal has now come for hearing before this court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that while deciding issue No. 4 the first appellate court has observed that the plaintiff himself has accepted that the disputed land was a Government land but still he decided issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff and in these circumstances this court framed a substantial question No. 1 of law, as reproduced above, and he prayed that the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside by this court. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the substantial questions of law were framed ex parte on 19.10.1984 and they were not heard before framing the same. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the substantial questions of law were framed ex parte on 19.10.1984 and they were not heard before framing the same. He contended that both substantial questions of law framed by this court vide order dated 19.10.1984 do not arise in the facts and circumstances of the present case and both the questions cannot be said to be substantial questions of law in the eyes of law. He contended that so far as question No. 1 is concerned it is clear from the findings of both the courts below that the order dated 15.11.1968 passed by the State Government was passed without notice whereas as per Section 285 of the Municipalities Act it was mandatory on the part of the State Government to give notice before passing the order under Section 285 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that no notice was given to either party before passing the order dated 15.11.1968 by the State Government. So far as question No. 2, as reproduced above, is concerned, I find that the learned lower court as well as first appellate court both have recorded a finding in respect of issue No. 1 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiff is the actual owner of the land in dispute. He purchased the land through registered sale-deed as per the details given by him in the plaint. Issue No. 4 was decided by the lower court in favour of the plaintiff. The lower court has observed that the defendants did not produce any evidence in support of their contention that the plaintiff obtained the permission dated 1.2.1962 by way of misrepresentation or fraud. The learned first appellate court has confirmed the finding of the lower court in respect of issue No. 4 and specifically recorded a finding that the plaintiff obtained the permission from Municipal Council for raising construction on the land in dispute legally and the same was not obtained by way of fraud. It appears that the first appellate court wrongly mentioned a fact that the plaintiff himself stated that the land belongs to the Government whereas this one-line observation is based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant court not point out anything on the record in this connection. It appears that the first appellate court wrongly mentioned a fact that the plaintiff himself stated that the land belongs to the Government whereas this one-line observation is based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant court not point out anything on the record in this connection. The plaintiff purchased the land, on which house has been constructed, through registered sale-deed dated 22.2.1943 from Durga Bux Purohit, who had purchased the same in court auction in a decree against Shri Mansharam, who was the actual owner of the land/hours in dispute. In view of the above discussion both the questions framed by this court, as reproduced above, are decided against the appellant. There is a concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff in respect of- the fact that house in dispute was constructed after obtaining legal permission for raising construction on the land in dispute and the order passed by the State Government dated 15.11.1968 was passed without notice to either party, therefore, it was against violation of principle of natural justice. 9. In these circumstances I do not find any substance in the second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Second Appeal dismissed. *******