JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal No.1/2008 “Virdi Chand Bohra S/o Asu Lal Bohra Vs. K.P. Sharma S/o Puran Mal Sharma & Ors.” who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 328/1999 “K.P. Sharma Vs. Urban Improvement Trust & Ors.” and Civil Original Suit No. Virdi Chand Bohra Vs. K.P. Sharma & Ors.” by which, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra seeking demolition of the illegal construction raised by the defendant-K.P. Sharma in the set back area of the house in question was dismissed, and the cross-suit filed by the defendant-K.P. Sharma seeking permanent injunction for not removing the questioned construction was decreed in his favour. 2. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra aggrieved by the concurrent rejection of his suit by the Courts below, while decreeing the cross-suit filed by the defendant-respondent-K.P. Sharma, a retired Professor of the Jodhpur University. 3. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal and the second appeal itself is being disposed of by this order with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties. “Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra, while decreeing the cross-suit filed by the defendant-K.P. Sharma in view of admitted illegal construction of a garage and room with porch in the set back area and then, getting the same compounded by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation?” 4. The dispute arose in the circumstances that in the Abhaygarh Scheme, Ratanada, Jodhpur both the parties are neighbours having residential corner plot No. 5 of the defendant-K.P. Sharma admeasuring 45 x 70 ft. and adjacent plot No. 6 of plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra admeasuring 35 x 70 ft. The dispute arose because of the alleged illegal construction raised by the defendant – Prof. K.P. Sharma in the set back area of 15 ft. wide, in which, he raised a wall, room and porch ahead of that construction by the defendant-Prof. and adjacent plot No. 6 of plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra admeasuring 35 x 70 ft. The dispute arose because of the alleged illegal construction raised by the defendant – Prof. K.P. Sharma in the set back area of 15 ft. wide, in which, he raised a wall, room and porch ahead of that construction by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma blocked, the north-east view, light and air of the plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra. 5. This Court perused the map, Commissioner's Report and the site photographs, while hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. From the record, it is clear and as admitted by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma that the construction in question was made irregularly and beyond the originally sanction/permission granted by the respondent-defendant-Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur for constructing his house but the defence of the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma before the Courts below was that such illegal construction was got compounded by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma in the 4/22 Meeting of the Compounding Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur under the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities [Compounding & (Compromising) of Offences] Rules, 1966 held on 05.02.2001. The said compounding was approved on payment of Rs.1539/-by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma which was deposited vide Receipt No.29 dated 22.05.2001 for a sum of Rs.1539/-and the said decision of compounding was also approved by the State Government vide Communication dated 11.05.2001 as mentioned in para 22 of the Trial Court's order. The said decision of compounding was taken by the Compounding Committee despite the objection and dissent note given by the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, who before the said Committee stated that in view of the pendency of suit filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra, in which, the Municipal Coporation is a party and the Court had passed the order to maintain the status-quo in relation to the property in question and, therefore, the Committee should not proceed with the matter and compounding of such illegal construction is not proper. However, it was so done by the majority of the Compounding Committee on payment of compounding charges in the sum of Rs.1539/-which was deposited by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and the approval of the State Government was also obtained. However, it was so done by the majority of the Compounding Committee on payment of compounding charges in the sum of Rs.1539/-which was deposited by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and the approval of the State Government was also obtained. It is noticed that even the appeal filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra against the said compounding came to be dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur on 21.04.2000 namely, Appeal No. 1/2000 : Virdi Chand Bohra S/o Asu Lal Bohra Vs. K.P. Sharma S/o Puran Mal Sharma & Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur holding the said appeal incompetent, not maintainable and defective. The suit (No.343/1999) filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29.05.2006 and the cross-suit filed by the defendant-K.P. Sharma was decreed. The relevant portion of the said discussion made by the learned Trial Court on Issues Nos. The suit (No.343/1999) filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29.05.2006 and the cross-suit filed by the defendant-K.P. Sharma was decreed. The relevant portion of the said discussion made by the learned Trial Court on Issues Nos. 1, 3, and 7 are quoted herein below for ready reference:- 19- cgl lquh xbZ i=koyh ,oa lqlaxr fof/k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh us vius vfHkopuksa ds leFkZu esa ekSf[kd lk{; ds nkSjku Hkh ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk vius [kjhnlqnk IykWV ij fuekZ.k djus gsrq uxj fuxe tks/kiqj }kjk vuqefr izkIr dh xbZ ftldk Lohd`r uD’kk izn’kZ 2 gS] uD’ksa ds foijhr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks uxj fuxe }kjk dEikm.M pktZ tek djok dj jktLFkku ljdkj ds vkns’k }kjk fu;fer dj fn;k x;k gS ftjg ds nkSjku mDr xokg us ;s gh dFku nksgjk;s gSA tcfd izfroknh us vius vfHkopuksa esa ,oa lk{; esa ;s gh dFku nksgjk;k gS fd oknh us vius Lohd`r uD’ks ds vuq:i fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djok;k gS ftls og fu;af=r djokus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA bl laca/k esa oknh }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fuekZ.k vuqefr dk Lohd`r uD’kk izn’kZ 2] fuekZ.k vuqefr dh lwpuk izn’kZ 3] fuekZ.k Lohd`fr vkns’k izn’kZ 3 gSA ;gka mYys[kuh; gS fd oknh }kjk fnukad 21-8-1998 dks vius IykWV ij fuekZ.k djus dh vuqefr ckcr uxj fuxe esa izkFkZuk i= is’k fd;k x;k ftl ij fnukad 22-12-1998 oknh dks fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZA oknh dks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr dh lwpuk fnukad 9-12-1999 dks nh xbZA mDr fuekZ.k Lohd`fr ds vkns’k ds fo:} izfroknh us fMohtuy dfe’uj esa vihy izLrqr dh xbZ tks v{ke] viw.kZ] =qfViw.kZ] budksEihVsaV ,oa e;kn ckgj gksuk ekurs gq, fnukad 21-4-2000 dks fMohtuy dfe’uj }kjk [kkfjt dj nh xbZ mDr vkns’k ds fo:} izfroknh }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ ftlls ;g Li”V gS fd uxj fuxe }kjk oknh dks nh xbZ fuekZ.k vuqefr vfUre o fof/k ekU; gSA 20- uxj fuxe }kjk vuqefr fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa vf/koDrk izfroknh us dFku fd;k gS fd oknxzLr LFky ij fuekZ.k djus gsrq uxj fuxe }kjk vuqefr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA bl laca/k esa ;gka mYys[kuh; gS fd izfroknh Lo;a us viuh lk{; dh ftjg ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus vius lsVcsd ,fj;k esa fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ds dEikmf.Max pktZ dh jkf’k uxj fuxe esa tek djokbZ o fu;ferdj.k djok;k o uxj fuxe }kjk uD’kk ikl djok;k gSA uxj lq/kkj U;kl us vius i= fnukad 20-10-1999 izn’kZ 9 }kjk uxj fuxe tks/kiqj }kjk Lohd`r uD’ks dks lgh gksuk ekuk gSA blds vykok jkT; ljdkj] Lok;r ‘kklu foHkkx us vius vkns’k la[;k 90 fnukad 4-9-1992 ds }kjk Li”V fd;k gS fd ‘kgj dh pkj nhokjh ds ckgj uksu Ldhe ,fj;k dh Hkwfe ij fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djokus dk vf/kdkjh uxj fuxe dks gS u fd uxj lq/kkj U;kl dksA blds vykok oknh dk IykWV vHk;x<+ Ldhe dk IykWV gS tks fd Qzh gksYM Hkwfe gS vkSj uksu Ldhe ,fj;k gS vr% izfroknh dk mDr rdZ ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd uxj fuxe dks fuekZ.k vuqefr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 21- ;q-vkbZ-Vh- dksVZ cuke cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;q vkj-,y-vkj- 1998 ¼2½ ist 311 ds U;kf;d n`”Vkar esa Hkh ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd uksu Ldhe ,fj;k esa fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj uxj fuxe dks gS u fd ;q-vkbZ-Vh- dks gSA 22- vr% mijksDr foospu ls ;g Li”V lkfcr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk vius IykWV ij uxj fuxe }kjk fuekZ.k dh vuqefr izkIr dj gh fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk vc gekjs le{k iz’u ;g jgrk gS fd D;k oknh us vius Lohd`r uD’ks ds vuq:i gh fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk Lohd`r uD’ks ds foijhr fd;s fuekZ.k dks oknh fu;fer djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS ftls izfroknh dks pqukSrh nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA bl laca/k esa i{kdkjksa }kjk fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa ,oa lk{; ds lexz foospu ds mijkUr ;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd oknh us vius fuekZ.k vuqefr ds Lohd`r uD’ks ds foijhr vius IykWV ds nf{k.k fn’kk 16 xq.kk 10 QhV dk xsjst ,d dejs dk fuekZ.k fd;k gS ftls Lo;a oknh us viuh lk{; ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% vc gesa ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k og vius bl fuekZ.k dks fu;fefrdj.k djokus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ;gka ij mYys[kuh; gS fd vukf/kd`r fuekZ.k esa le>kSrk djus gsrq jktLFkku ljdkj us 30 ebZ 2000 dks izR;sd uxj ikfydk esa le>kSrk lfefr dks vf/kdkjksa dh lwpuk tkjh dh xbZA gLrxr izdj.k esa Hkh oknh us uxj fuxe ds le>kSrk lfefr ds le{k ,d izkFkZuk i= is’k fd;k ftl ij le>kSrk lfefr }kjk ;g vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dk izdj.k ik’oZ csd esa xSjst] ,d dejs dk 16 xq.kk 10 QhV dk fopyu mijksDr fu;eksa ds rgr 5 izfr’kr fuekZ.k O;; ysdj dEikm.M djus dk fu.kZ; lfefr jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk ,Q ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ¼:Yl½ 1@1@Vh,p@2000@13875 fnukad 30-5-2000 ds rgr cgqer ds vk/kkj ij ysrh gS mDr vkns’k ds vuqeksnu gsrq le>kSrk lfefr }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds ikl Hkstk x;k tks izn’kZ 6 gSA jkT; ljdkj }kjk vuqeksnu djus dk vkns’k d-i-17¼d½Hkwfe@Mh-,y-ch-2001@5651 fnukad 11-5-2001 ds vuqlkj jkT; ljdkj us uxj fuxe dks le>kSrk lfefr ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk djus ds funsZ’k fn;sA jkT; ljdkj ds vkns’k ds i’pkr~ uxj fuxe }kjk oknh dks dEikmf.Max iSusYVh dh jkf’k 1]539@& :i;s tfj;s jlhn la[;k 841 izn’kZ 8 ds tfj;s tek djok;s x;sA 23- oknh }kjk vius IykWV ds lsVcSd ,fj;k esa Lohd`r uD’ks ds foijhr tks fuekZ.k dk;Z fd;k x;k mldk uxj fuxe dh le>kSrk lfefr us le>kSrk djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k ftldk vuqeksnu jkT; ljdkj }kjk dj fn;s tkus ij uxj fuxe }kjk oknh ls isusYVh dh jkf’k tek djokbZ xbZ ,oa mDr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks fu;fer dj fn;k x;kA 24- oknh }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`”Vkar vkj-vkj-Mh- 1983 ist 567 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; us uxj ikfydk dks uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 26 o 120 ds vUrxZr le>kSrk djus ds vf/kdkj dks mfpr Bgjk;k gSA 25- vr% mijksDr foospu ds mijkUr esjs fouez erkuqlkj oknh us uxj fuxe }kjk fuekZ.k Lohd`fr izkIr dj Lohd`r uD’ks ds vuqlkj fuekZ.k djok;k x;kA uD’ks ds foijhr Hkw[k.M ds lSVcSd ,fj;k esa xsjst@dejs dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k ftls uxj fuxe le>kSrk lfefr }kjk uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e vijk/kksa dk ‘keu vkSj le>kSrk fu;e ds rgr jkT; ljdkj ds vkns’k ls dEikmf.Max jkf’k olwy dh tkdj fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dk fu;ferhdj.k fd;k x;k gS ftls voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA uxj fuxe }kjk fuekZ.k dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ gS rks ml Lohd`fr ds vykok fd;s x;s voS/k fuekZ.k ds laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkj uxj fuxe dk gS u fd uxj lq/kkj U;kl ;k izfroknh dksA uxj fuxe }kjk le>kSrk lfefr }kjk uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e esa fn;s x;s izko/kkuksa o fu;eksa ds vUrxZr jkT; ljdkj ds vkns’k ls oknh }kjk uD’ks ds foijhr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks dEikmfMax jkf’k olwy dh tkdj oknh ds fuekZ.k dks fof/k vuqlkj fu;fer dj fn;k gS rFkk uxj fuxe }kjk oknh dks iznr fuekZ.k vuqefr dh izfroknh la[;k rhu }kjk lc fMohtuy dfe’uj ds le{k vihy izLrqr dh tks Hkh [kkfjt dh tk pqdh gS vr% esjs erkuqlkj tc uxj fuxe }kjk voS/k fuekZ.k dks fu;fer dj fn;k x;k gS rks mldks rksM+us dk o izfroknh dks mDr fuekZ.k ckcr pqukSrh nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha jg tkrk gS D;ksafd izfroknh us Lo;a us uxj fuxe ls okn ds nkSjku dEikmfMax jkf’k tek djkdj uD’kk Lohd`r djok;k x;k gS ;fn oknh izfroknh dks uxj fuxe }kjk mDr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k ds fu;fefrdj.k ckcr gks rks og mlds le{k vf/kdkfjrk ds le{k pqukSrh ns ldrk Fkk mlds }kjk ugha dh xbZ gS uxj fuxe }kjk vuqefr nh xbZ uxj fuxe }kjk gh vius Lohd`r uD’ks ds foijhr fd;s x;s fuekZ.k gsrq dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, l{ke gS ftlds }kjk fuekZ.k dks fu;fer fd;k tk pqdk gSA** 6. The learned Appellate Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur also dismissed the appeal (No.1/2008 : Virdi Chand Bohra Vs. The learned Appellate Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur also dismissed the appeal (No.1/2008 : Virdi Chand Bohra Vs. K.P. Sharma & Ors.) on 12.05.2008 affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court in the following manner:- 70- miyC/k vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls ifjyf{kr gS fd izR;FkhZ dk Hkw[k.M uksu Ldhe ,fj;k esa gSA fofu.kZ; Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. Board of Revenue & Others, RLR 1998 (2) 311 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd uksu Ldhe ,fj;k esa fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj uxj fuxe dks gS] uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks ughaA orZeku ekeysa esa izR;FkhZ dk Hkw[k.M uksu Ldhe ,fj;k esa gksus ds dkj.k mDr U;kf;d n`”Vkar esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds izdk’k esa fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks ugha gSA vr% tc uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks fuekZ.k Lohd`fr iznku djus dk vf/kdkj gh ugha gS] rc uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks izR;FkhZ ds fookfnr fuekZ.k dks /oLr djus dk Hkh vf/kdkj ugha gSA 71- ;g fy[kuk vR;f/kd lqlaxr gksxk fd izLrqr izdj.k esa uxj lq/kkj U;kl }kjk oknksrj izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS blds vfrfjDr uxj lq/kkj U;kl us dksbZ ekSf[kd vFkok nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr ugha dh gSA fygktk uxj lq/kkj U;kl ds oknksrj] ekSf[kd lk{; rFkk izys[kh; lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd uxj fuxe] tks/kiqj }kjk Lohd`r uD’ks ds vuqlkj izR;FkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks rFkk uxj fuxe }kjk fu;fer fd;s x;s izR;FkhZ ds fuekZ.k dks rksM+us dk vf/kdkj uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks {ks=kf/kdkj gSA 72- bl fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 34 ls 62 esa fd;s x;s foospu ds vk/kkj ij esjk ;g fuf’pr er gS fd izR;FkhZ ds-ih- ‘kekZ ds fookfnr fuekZ.k dks /oLr djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkuk fof/k lEer ugha gSA fygktk uxj lq/kkj U;kl dks fookfnr fuekZ.k dks /oLr djus dh dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA 73- mi;ZqDr foospu dh jks’kuh esa fook?kd la[;k 2 dks oknh@izR;FkhZ ds-ih- ‘kekZ ds i{k esa rFkk vihykFkhZ@izfroknh fojnhpan ds fo:} r; fd, tkus esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV ugha dh gSA vr% fook?kd la[;k 2 dks izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd, tkus ds fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fofu’p; dh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA 74- iwoZxkeh lexz foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns’k 75- ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ@fojnhpan dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼d-[k-½ dze&2] tks/kiqj }kjk nhokuh ewyokn la[;k 328@22 ^^ds-ih- ‘kekZ cuke uxj lq/kkj U;kl o vU;** rFkk nhokuh ewyokn la[;k 343@99 ^^fojnhpan cksgjk cuke ds-ih- ‘kekZ o vU;** esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 29-5-2006 dh iqf”V dh tkrh gSA vihy O;; nksuksa i{k viuk viuk ogu djsaxsA ipkZ fMdzh blh vuq:i rS;kj fd;k tk,A ,lMh@& ¼vkse izdk’k xqIrk½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh’k dze ,d tks/kiqjA** 7. Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellant-plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra preferred the present second appeal before this Court on 18.07.2008. 8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Thanvi appearing for the appellant-plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra submitted that in view of the admitted illegal construction raised by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and the dissent note/objection of the Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, the Compounding Committee could not have proceeded in the matter to compound the illegal construction raised by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma on payment of a paltry sum of Rs.1539/-and even the said decision of compounding was approved by the State Government. It is also submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in putting their seal of approval on such compounding which could not have been given by Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur as well as the State Government in the present case and, therefore, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra deserves to be allowed and the impugned and the offending construction admittedly raised by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma deserves to be demolished and the erring officials of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and the State Government deserve to be suitably prosecuted by this Court. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. O.P. Boob appearing for the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and the learned counsel Mr. C.S. Kotwani appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur submitted that since the Compounding Rules of 1966, as aforesaid, provided for such compounding of illegal construction raised by the defendant and the decision for compounding such illegal construction was taken by the Compounding Committee by majority in accordance with the prevalent Rules and the Guidelines framed by the State Government on 30.05.2000, therefore, in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the limited scope conferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present second appeal, the concurrent judgments and the findings recorded by the learned two Courts below do not deserve any disturbance by this Court and the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra, who unfortunately expired during the pendency of the litigation and now represented by his legal representatives deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsels relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors. The learned counsels relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors. : AIR 2006 SC 1975 , Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari : AIR 2001 SC 965 , Sir Chuni Lal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314 , Muni Suvrat Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh Vs. Arun Nathu Ram Gaikward & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 38 , Kewal Krishan Gupta Vs. Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2578 and State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal, AIR 2008 SC 2594 in support of their contentions. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below including the judgments cited at bar, this Court has little doubt that even though the construction in question was illegal and irregular on the own showing and admission of the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and despite the dissent note and objection raised by the Executive Officer of the concerned Municipal Corporation in the meeting of the Compounding Committee held on 05.02.2001, such illegal construction was compounded by the Members of the Compounding Committee and the same was also approved by the State Government. It is noticed that such illegal construction was apparently and obviously beyond the approved sanction/permission and in the set-back area of the residential house of the Prof. K.P. Sharma, the defendant herein. The said illegal construction was raised in the set-back area of 15 ft. wide lane by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma which apparently blocked the light, air and view of north-east side from the house of the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra which was clear from the photographs produced before this Court. 11. The Courts below have only expressed helplessness and affirmed such regularisation on the basis of the compounding decision taken by the concerned Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur despite the dissent note and objection rightly raised by the concerned Executive Officer in the meeting held on 05.02.2001 and even the approval of the State Government was also made in the matter with proper application of mind. Since the said compounding and approval was done, in the present suits filed in the year 1999, in the year 2001 after the suitable order granted by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the dissent note and objection raised by the concerned Executive Officer, the Compounding Committee ought not to have proceeded further in the matter for compounding such illegal construction but since the Rules of 1966 permitted the same and that was done by the majority of the Members of the concerned Committee and even the approval of the State Government was given. Even though this Court seriously doubts whether such approval by the concerned authority was given with due application of mind to the relevant facts and could not have been so given but since it was given somehow in the present suit for injunction, the Courts below felt bound and did not grant orders for demolition of such illegal construction raised by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and even the cross-suit filed by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma for not interfering with his construction and possession of the plot in question, even though the impugned construction raised thereon in the set-back area was admitted before the learned Trial Court. Thus apparently, the defendant-Prof. K.P.Sharma walked away with regularisation of his illegal construction under the Rules of 1966 which were applied and the illegal construction was regularised in favour of the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma by taking a decision by the majority of the concerned Committee of the Municipal Corporation by payment of a paltry sum of Rs.1539/-towards compounding charges leaving a trail of pain, frustration and dejection with the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra. 12. K.P. Sharma by taking a decision by the majority of the concerned Committee of the Municipal Corporation by payment of a paltry sum of Rs.1539/-towards compounding charges leaving a trail of pain, frustration and dejection with the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra. 12. But looking to the other side of the coin's view, this Court is of the opinion that because of the so-called illegality in regularisation of the illegal construction in accordance with the lax Rules of 1966 and undue application of the same by the interested State authorities, at this belated stage of the impugned construction raised in the year 1998-1999 and now we are in the year 2015, should this Court take a very strict action and view against the said illegal construction and direct the demolition of the same, while fixing the responsibility for such compounding on the erring Members of the concerned Compounding Committee of the Municipal Corporation concerned while disturbing the findings of the two Courts below or without interfering with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, should this Court allow to pass it without taking such an extreme view, as aforesaid, on the substantial question of law framed by this Court today, as quoted herein above. 13. The problem of illegal construction is not new in our country and it has been bothering the courts of law and fills the large space of Court's dockets. Sometimes, the courts take a serious and strict view in such matters by directing the demolition of illegal constructions, while fixing the responsibility on the erring officials of the Government and by whom such illegal construction was regularised by the Authorities, who obviously join their hands for extraneous considerations in such cases but while on some occasions looking to the lesser gravity of the impugned construction, the courts may allow it, as it is, with the imposition of additional fiscal fine and penalty on such authorities, who commit such illegality. 14. In the present case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the later view because many years have passed by since the impugned construction was raised in the year 1998-1999 and the plaintiff Virdi Chand Bohra has also expired during the pendency of the litigation and also that the ends of justice would be possibly met by imposition additional fiscal liability on the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma and the erring members of the Compounding Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur present in the meeting dated 05.02.2001, who despite the dissent note and objection raised by the concerned Executive Officer not to proceed with the compounding, put their seal of approval and regularised such illegal construction admittedly raised by the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma in the set-back area. 15. Therefore, while holding that the authorities viz., members of the Compounding Committee except the Executive Officer of the of the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur as well as the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma were not justified in raising the impugned construction in the set-back area of the plot in question and the members of the Compounding Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur were not justified in considering and approving such illegal and irregular construction in their meeting dated 05.02.2001 despite the dissent note and objection raised by the concerned Executive Officer, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff-Virdi Chand Bohra is disposed of with a direction to the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma as well as the members of the concerned Compounding Committee, who passed the said resolution by majority on 05.02.2001 except the concerned Executive Officer, who gave his dissent note, to pay and deposit additionally a sum of Rs.50,000/-each person within a period of two months from today with the Legal Aid Committee of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority in this Court at Jodhpur. The recovery of the said fiscal fine of Rs.50,000/-for each of the Members of the concerned Compounding Committee will be paid by the respondent-defendant-Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur within the aforesaid period of two months and if the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur fails to recover the said amount of Rs.50,000/-from each of the Members of the concerned Compounding Committee then, it will be the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur itself to deposit the said amount of Rs.50,000/-for each member, as aforesaid, and the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur will be at liberty to recover the said amount of fiscal fine of Rs.50,000/-from the said members of the concerned Compounding Committee, who passed the questioned Resolution dated 05.02.2001 in favour of the defendant-Prof. K.P. Sharma. 16. Upon the said deposition of the amount in question of the fiscal fine, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant Virdi Chand Bohra, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, shall be treated as having been disposed of in the aforesaid terms. K.P. Sharma. 16. Upon the said deposition of the amount in question of the fiscal fine, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant Virdi Chand Bohra, since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives, shall be treated as having been disposed of in the aforesaid terms. If the said fiscal fine aforesaid not not deposited within the stipulated time by the defendant Prof. K.P. Sharma and the members of the Compounding Committee, the Resolution dated 05.02.2001 passed in favour of defendant as well as the State approval thereof shall be treated as non-est and the plaintiff LRs of Virdi Chand Bohra will be free to seek remedy for demolition of the impugned construction from the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and also apply to this Court for taking appropriate action in the matter. A copy of this order be sent to both the Courts below and to all the parties concerned forthwith.