Manoj Misra, J.;— 1. Heard counsel for the appellant and Sri K.C. Srivastava, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava for the respondent No.1. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Moradabad in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2011 arising out Original Suit No. 98 of 2006. 3. The Original Suit No. 98 of 2006 was instituted for permanent prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the defendant-appellant (Nagar Palika Parishad) and the State of U.P. through Collector, Moradabad from recovering a sum of Rs. 1,32,719/- vide recovery certificate No. 523 and Citation No. 020751 purpotedly drawn under Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. 4. The plaint case, in short, was that the defendant-appellant (Nagar Palika Parishad) was seeking to recover damages amounting to Rs. 1,32,719/-, as arrears of land revenue, even though it could not be recovered as such under Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which relates to recovery of taxes. The suit was decreed by the trial Court with a finding that section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 did not enable Nagar Palika Parishad to recover damages, as arrears of land revenue. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2011. The lower appellate Court while deciding Issue No.2 in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2011 held that the Nagar Palika Parishad (the defendant-appellant herein) had failed to produce detail of the expenses incurred by it, which it was seeking to recover as damages, and it also could not prove that any bill was raised on the plaintiff so as to justify the demand of Rs. 1,32,179/-. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. The counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the courts below that the damages could not be recovered, as arrears of land revenue, is not sustainable as such recovery was permissible under Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Sri K.C. Srivastava, senior counsel, on behalf of plaintiff-respondent submitted that there is a special provision with regard to recovery for compensation caused on account of damage to municipal property. Sri K.C. Srivastava, senior counsel, on behalf of plaintiff-respondent submitted that there is a special provision with regard to recovery for compensation caused on account of damage to municipal property. He has drawn the attention of the Court to section 316 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, which reads as under:- " 316: Compensation for damage to municipal property:- If through an act, neglect or default on account whereof a person shall have incurred a penalty imposed by or under this Act any damage to the property of the Board shall have been caused, the person incurring such penalty shall be liable to make good such damage as well as to pay such penalty; and the amount of damage shall, in case of dispute, be determined by the Magistrate by whom the person incurring such penalty is convicted, and on non-payment of such amount on demand the same shall be levied by distress, and such Magistrate shall issue his warrant accordingly." 7. In reply to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, the counsel for the appellant submitted that recovery could be sustained under Section 312 of the U.P. Municipalities Act read with section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The provision of Section 312 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, reads as under:- " 312. Recovery of expenses of removal by Board under Sections 211, 263, 264, 265 and 278:-- (1) The expenses incurred by the Board in effecting any removal under section 263 or 265 or, in the event of a written notice issued under Section 211, 263, 264 or 278 not being complied with under Section 307, shall be recoverable by sale of the materials removed and if the proceeds of such sale do not suffice, the balance shall be recoverable from the owner of the said materials in the manner provided by Chapter VI. (2) If the expenses of removal are in any case paid before the materials are sold, the Board shall restore the materials to the owner thereof, on his claiming the same at any time before they are sold or otherwise dispose of and on his paying all other expenses, if any, incurred by the Board in respect thereof, or in respect of the intended sale or disposal thereof. (3) If the materials are not claimed by the owner thereof, they shall be sold by auction or otherwise disposed of as the Board thinks fit, as soon as conveniently may be after one month from the date of their removal, whether the expenses of the removal have in the meantime been paid or not; and the proceeds of any, of the sale or other disposal shall after defraying therefrom the cost of the sale or other disposal, and if necessary, of the removal, be paid to the credit of the municipal fund, and shall be the property of the Board." 8. A bare perusal of section 312 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 goes to show that it enables a municipality to recover, in the manner provided by Chapter VI, the expenses incurred by the municipality in effecting any removal which is carried out under sections 263 or 265 or in the event of written notice under Sections 211, 263, 264 or 278 not being complied with under section 307. 9. Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding, which has not been challenged by the appellant, that the defendant-appellant had failed to prove that any bill or demand was raised on the plaintiff, and that detail of the expenses incurred by the Municipality was also not produced, the recovery under Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 cannot be sustained. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. _