Judgment : 1. The Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge-II at Panaji, in Civil Suit no. 305/2004, on 26.12.07, by which the suit filed by the Respondent is partly decreed directing the original defendant no. 2-Sarpanch,Village Panchayat of Guirim to initiate an action against the illegal construction carried out by the Appellant, according to law. The learned Trial Judge has further directed the original defendant no. 3-Senior Town Planner to revoke the approved revised plan of the Appellant and the licence/permission granted in favour of the Appellant is declared as null and void. 2. The case of the Respondent no. 1-Plaintiff is that she is the neighbor of the Appellant-original defendant no. 1, that the Appellant-defendant no. 1 has illegally constructed a house because of which the Respondent no. 1-original Plaintiff is directly affected. According to the Plaintiff, show cause notice dated 27.03.2001 was issued to the defendant no. 1 after a report was prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Public Works Department which showed that the defendant no. 1 had not maintained the set back as per the approved plan while constructing the house. The Appellant-defendant no. 1 has filed the written statement and opposed the claim of the Plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 has stated that he had submitted a revised plan which is approved by the defendant no. 3 and in view of the revised plan, the construction made by the defendant no. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. 3. The learned Trial Judge proceeded with the trial and by the impugned Judgment held that the prayer made by the Plaintiff for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from undertaking the construction has become infructuous as the construction of the house is completed. However, the learned trial Judge has granted Decree n favour of the Plaintiff directing the defendant no. 2 to initiate action as far as illegal construction of the defendant no. 1 is concerned. The learned Trial Judge has also directed the defendant no. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan of the defendant no. 1 and has declared the licence/permission granted in favour of the defendant no. 1 as null and void. The original defendant no. 1 being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, has filed this Appeal. 4. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan of the defendant no. 1 and has declared the licence/permission granted in favour of the defendant no. 1 as null and void. The original defendant no. 1 being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, has filed this Appeal. 4. Heard Shri Teles, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1 and with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties, I have examined the record. The points which arise for my consideration are:- (i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the declaration that the licence/permission granted in favour of the defendant no. 1 is null and void and the revised plan approved by he defendant no. 3 is to be revoked ? (ii) Whether the Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant no. 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction undertaken by the defendant no. 1 is proper? 5. Shri Teles, learned Advocate for the Appellants, has submitted that the construction licence is granted on 03.01.2000 and the revised plan is approved on 20.02.2003 and, accordingly, the construction is undertaken by the Appellant as per the revised plan. The learned Advocate has submitted that the Respondent no. 1-original Plaintiff has not pointed out the specific illegalities in the construction of the Appellant and the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in directing the defendant no. 3 to revoke the roved revised plan. The submission on behalf of the Appellant is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue the directions to the defendant no. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan specifically when the Respondent no. 1-Plaintiff has not placed the material on record to show that the approval of the revised plan by the defendant no.3 was contrary to the statutory provisions. The submission on behalf of the Appellant is that the Civil Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the defendant no. 3 in the matter of approval of the plan/revised plan and, therefore, the impugned Judgment has been passed by the learned Trial Judge transgressing the jurisdiction vested in him. 6. Shri V. Menezes, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1-Original Plaintiff, has submitted that the Appellant-defendant no. 1 has misled the authorities and has undertaken the construction of the house illegally and contrary to the approved revised plan. 6. Shri V. Menezes, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1-Original Plaintiff, has submitted that the Appellant-defendant no. 1 has misled the authorities and has undertaken the construction of the house illegally and contrary to the approved revised plan. According to the learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1-Original Plaintiff, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the Appellant-defendant no. 1 has not taken any steps to rectify the front set back of six metres as per the approved plan. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1 has submitted that though the case of the Appellant is that he has undertaken the construction in consonance with the approved revised plan, in fact the construction of the house was completed much prior to the approval of the revised plan and this shows that the Appellant is trying to misled the Court also. 7. It is not disputed on behalf of the Respondent no. 1 that the defendant no. 3 is having the powers to approve the revised plan submitted by the Appellant. The defendant no. 3 is the competent statutory authority to approve or reject the plan submitted for construction. In my view, the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in issuing the directions to the defendant no. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan of the Appellant. Similarly, the learned Trial Judge has transgressed his jurisdiction by declaring the licence/permission granted to the Appellant as null and void. The above mentioned directions are issued by the learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence of the Appellant regarding the alleged gift of land in favour of the Village Panchayat to constitute six metres road. After examining the evidence of the Appellant, the learned Trial Judge has concluded that the Appellant has not placed any documentary evidence on the record to establish that he has gifted six metres road in favour of the Village Panchayat. The learned Trial Judge has further found that the Appellant had constructed the compound wall over his property on all four sides and, therefore, the submission about gifting of six metres road by the Appellant through his property cannot be accepted. As per the conclusions of the learned Trial Judge, the Appellant has failed to prove the gifting of six metres wide road as pleaded by him and, consequently, the revised plan submitted by the Appellant which is approved by the defendant no. As per the conclusions of the learned Trial Judge, the Appellant has failed to prove the gifting of six metres wide road as pleaded by him and, consequently, the revised plan submitted by the Appellant which is approved by the defendant no. 3 relying on the alleged gift of six metres road has to be revoked. In my view, these findings given by the learned Trial Judge cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and the learned Trial Judge could not have issued directions to the Respondent no. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan. In view of the findings given by the learned Trial Judge, the matter should have been remanded to the defendant no. 3 to re-consider the legality of the approved revised plan and to take appropriate decision according to law after verifying the factual position on the site. 8. As far as the directions given by the Trial Court to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction of the Appellant is concerned, the same cannot be faulted with. The Village Panchayat had issued the notice dated 27.03.2001 (Exhibit no. 65), directing the Appellant to demolish the construction on the ground that it is not in consonance with the approved plan and the construction licence. It has come on the record that the Appellant and the Respondent no. 1 both are politically active in the affairs of the Village Panchayat and there is a chequered history of their political rivalry. There are allegations and counter allegations by the Appellant and the Respondent no. 1 against each other of the abuse and misuse of powers and that the authorities of the Village Panchayat have acted on the dictates of either the Appellant or the Respondent no. 1. Without going into these aspects, it has come on record that the Appellant on his own submitted the revised plan for approval and this was on the basis that he has donated land to the Village Panchayat to constitute six metres road and, according to the Appellant, the requirement of front set back was met. However, the Appellant has failed to prove that he has donated land to the Village Panchayat to constitute the six metres wide road. Therefore, the very foundation of the claim of the Appellant to show that the construction undertaken by him is legal, is found to be incorrect. However, the Appellant has failed to prove that he has donated land to the Village Panchayat to constitute the six metres wide road. Therefore, the very foundation of the claim of the Appellant to show that the construction undertaken by him is legal, is found to be incorrect. The case of the Respondent no. 1-original plaintiff, in paragraph no. 19 of the plaint, is also that the construction of the Appellant-original defendant no. 1 is not according to the approved revised plan. Therefore, in my view, the directions given by the Trial Court to the defendant no. 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction of the Appellant are proper and are required to be maintained. If the construction of the Appellant is legal and in consonance with the approved revised plan, then no prejudice would be caused to the Appellant if the directions given by the Trial Court to the defendant no. 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction of the Appellant are maintained. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order: (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is modified. (iii) The directions given by the Trial Court to the original defendant no. 2 to initiate action against the illegal construction of the Appellant, according to law, are maintained. (iv) The directions given by the Trial Court to the defendant no. 3 to revoke the approved revised plan of the defendant no. 1 and the declaration that the licence/permission granted to the defendant no. 1, is null and void, are set aside. (v) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their respective costs.