JUDGMENT The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and decree dated 23.11.1984 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.145/1985. By the said judgment and decree. the appeal was partly allowed to the extent that the defendants, who are the appellants in the above appeal were directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.7,800/- to the plaintiff with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization with proportionate costs. 2. The genesis of the suit filed by the plaintiff lies in the order dated 4.9.1975 passed in Special Civil Application No.543/1970 by this Court. The said order reads as follows: "My Vaidya for Corporation states that the request of the petitioner to have the wire fencing as proposed is being favourably considered and there appears to be no objection if the petitioner undertakes before the Corporation to remove the wire fencing if so, required by the provisions of any other law. In view of this statement, Mr. Shrivastava withdraws this petition as substantial relief is concealed on behalf of the Corporation. The Corporation will accord the permission in terms of the concession within a period one month from today." 3. In terms of the said order, the plaintiff submitted a fresh plan to the defendant no. 1 - Corporation for sanction. The same was forwarded by his letter dated 20.10.1975. In the said letter the plaintiff gave an undertaking to the following effect: "I am also giving undertaking that the work will be removed when requested for any public purpose like road winding scheme." 4. Indubitably, the land in question, on which the fencing was laid by the plaintiff was of his ownership. The plaintiff was, therefore, issued a letter dated 8.9.1982 by the Corporation to remove the fencing within three days as the work of widening of the road has been taken up by the defendant no.1 Corporation. The plaintiff was put on notice that if he failed to remove the fencing within three days, the same would be removed by the Corporation at his risk and costs. Thereafter correspondence ensued between the parties, as the plaintiff was not available in Nagpur and as he was away from Nagpur, the son of the plaintiff initially addressed letter to the Corporation requesting the Corporation to stay its hands till the return of his father, which would be after three weeks. Thereafter correspondence ensued between the parties, as the plaintiff was not available in Nagpur and as he was away from Nagpur, the son of the plaintiff initially addressed letter to the Corporation requesting the Corporation to stay its hands till the return of his father, which would be after three weeks. Thereafter the plaintiff himself by his letter dated 15.10.1982 informed the Corporation that he is agreeable to remove the fencing at his own costs as per his undertaking. He further enquired from the Corporation as to how much land was needed by the Corporation for the road widening and what price would be paid to him as compensation for the acquisition. According to the plaintiff, the land to the extent of three feet was required by the Corporation for road widening. Since the plaintiff did not remove the fencing within the time mentioned in his sons letter, the defendant no.1-Corporation removed the fencing on 22.10.1982 after the file had passed through various authorities of the Corporation and the decision taken for removing of fencing. There are certain antecedents facts as regards the removal of unauthorized construction made by the plaintiff in the plot in question dating back to the year 1977, however, the said facts are not relevant for the purposes of the present appeal. 5. On removal of said fencing, the plaintiff filed the suit in question, which was filed simplicitor for damages on account of removal of fencing. The claim to the suit was based on estimates by one of the witnesses of the plaintiff. The damages claimed were Rs.2,400/- towards costs of bricks, Rs.3,250/ - towards the costs of grill and Rs.3,500/- and towards costs of 12 ft. rail beam. The plaintiff also claimed Rs.l,000/- as general damages. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was the case of the defendants that fencing was removed by the defendants for the purpose of road widening after giving the plaintiff reasonable time, as the said road widening was to be completed. It was the case of the defendants that they were carrying out their statutory duties under the Local Municipal Act and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. 6. It was the case of the defendants that they were carrying out their statutory duties under the Local Municipal Act and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. 6. The trial Court on the basis of the material which was on record, and principally in view of the fact that since the plaintiff had given an undertaking before this Court, and also in view of the fact that in spite of the defendant no.1-Corporation calling upon him to remove fencing having not removed the same, the plaintiff was not entitled for any damages. It was held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff has not brought any evidence on record to show that the defendant no.1-Corporation has demolished the structure i.e. the fencing, malafide and with ill motive. 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Regular Civil Suit No. 1013/1983 the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 145/1985. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the said Appeal and issued directions of payment of damages to the plaintiff to the extent mentioned in the earlier part of this order. As indicated above, it is the said judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 27th July, 1994 which is challenged in the above Second Appeal. The substantial question of law, which has been framed in the above Second Appeal is to be following effect: "Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in reversing judgment and decree dated 23.11.1984 passed by Jt. C.J. J.D. Nagpur and partly allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff directing the present appellant/deft. To pay either jointly or severally Rs.7,800/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 9% per annuin from the date of filing of suit till realization with proportionate cost despite the undertaking given by the plaintiff before Deft. Corporation on 20.10.1975 to the effect that the fencing would be removed by him as and when required by the Corporation for any public purpose." 8. It is undisputed that the plaintiff had given an undertaking that the fencing will be removed when required for any public purpose like road widening scheme. It is also undisputed that the land on which the fencing lay was of the ownership of the plaintiff himself under the Nagpur Corporation Act 1948. It is undisputed that the plaintiff had given an undertaking that the fencing will be removed when required for any public purpose like road widening scheme. It is also undisputed that the land on which the fencing lay was of the ownership of the plaintiff himself under the Nagpur Corporation Act 1948. The Corporation is obligated to acquire the land either by agreement or by having recourse to the procedure of acquisition envisaged there in. It is undisputed that no such proceeding for acquisition either by agreement or by recourse to the provisions of Act was resorted to by the Corporation at the relevant time. It requires no debate that the work of road widening is a public purpose and the Corporation would have been within its rights to acquire the land in question, if it was required for the purposes of road widening. However, just because the plaintiff had given an undertaking that he would remove the fencing whenever called upon by the Corporation to do so for the purpose of road widening, it was not open for the Corporation to remove the fencing without acquiring the land in question as thereby even if the fencing was removed, no useful purpose would have been served as in actual fact, the land was not acquired and, therefore, no road could have been constructed on it. 9. In my view, the Trial Court has glossed over this aspect and merely on the basis that the plaintiff has given an undertaking that he would remove the fencing as and when required for road widening, dismissed the suit, In my view, the First Appellate Court has considered the matter in the right perspective and thereby has partly decreed the suit and the damages granted to the plaintiff towards the value of the grill and railing cannot be said to be unreasonable. Considering the judgment of the First Appellate Court, in my view, there is no merit in the above Second Appeal. The substantial question of law therefore stands answered accordingly. The Second Appeal to stand dismissed. Second Appeal dismissed.