JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a defendant’s appeal against affirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit claiming damages of Rs.8,000/- for unauthorised removal of construction over plot no.1301. The case of the plaintiff is that she purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1977. After purchase, she applied to the defendant for transferring the holding in her name. Defendant transferred the holding in her name. She constructed a house in the front portion. In the backyard, she constructed a compound wall, kitchen, bathroom and latrine by spending Rs.8,000/-. In the settlement record, the front portion of the house has been mentioned as plot no.178 and the back portion as plot no. 1301 as ‘Devasthali Meladina’. It was further pleaded that the defendant demolished the compound wall, kitchen, bathroom and latrine standing over plot no.1301 in March, 1984 causing total loss of Rs.8,000/-. No notice was issued by the defendant before demolition of existing structure. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 3. Defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the area in question measuring 18 cents stood recorded as municipal stone rock. The encroachment by one Yosodamma was detected in the year 1952-53. Encroachment Case no. 63/52-53 was initiated against her. Encroached portion measuring 27 ft. 131/2 ft. out of the entire plot was withdrawn from the defendant and assigned in favour of the encroacher. The plaintiff purchased only the encroached portion of plot no.178. The same has been assigned to the plaintiff. The rest portion of plot no.1301 belonged to the defendant. The entry made in the R.O.R. is wrong. The plaintiff made the construction over the encroached portion plot no.1301 without any valid authority from the Municipality and as such, the defendant demolished the same under the Orissa Municipal Act after giving due notice to her. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court held that plot no.1301 does not belong to the municipality. The same belongs to the Government. No notice was served on the plaintiff before demolishing the structure. Held so, it decreed the suit. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court held that plot no.1301 does not belong to the municipality. The same belongs to the Government. No notice was served on the plaintiff before demolishing the structure. Held so, it decreed the suit. The unsuccessful defendant filed an appeal in the court of the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ganjam and renumbered as T.A. No. 28/90 (T.A. No. 20/89 GDC). The appeal was eventually dismissed. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages under Section 254 (2) of the Orissa Municipal Act ?” 6. Heard Mr. Debasis Nayak, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Nayak, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has made unauthorised construction over a piece of Government land. The defendant-municipality issued notice to the plaintiff to demolish the unauthorised construction. The notice was received by the plaintiff. The courts below fell into error in holding that the notice was not served on the plaintiff. He further submits that the courts below awarded the damages of Rs.8,000/- on surmises and conjectures. There is no basis in awarding the damages. Further, Sec.254 of the Orissa Municipal Act does not contemplate to award the damages for unauthorised construction. 8. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the plaintiff has constructed compound wall, kitchen, bathroom and latrine. The municipality has not issued notice to the plaintiff before demolition. Rightly the court below has awarded Rs.8,000/- towards damages. 9. Sec.254 of the Orissa Municipal Act is the hub of the issue. The same is quoted below:- "254. Removal of encroachment – (1) The Executive Officer may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any road. The same is quoted below:- "254. Removal of encroachment – (1) The Executive Officer may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any road. (2) If the owner or occupier of the premises, as the case may be, proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or that it was erected or made with the permission or licence of any Municipal authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the permission or licence is valid, has not expired, the municipality shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same.” 10. On a conspectus of the said provision, it is evident that the notice is a sine qua non for removal of encroachment. Both the courts below concurrently held that notice was not served on the plaintiff before demolition. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 11. The next question crops up as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages ? 12. Admittedly, the plaintiff has made unauthorised construction over a piece of Government land. No person can encroach upon the Government land and make construction. Any construction made over the Government land encroaching upon the same is illegal. An encroacher has no right to approach the common forum seeking damages. On mere surmises and conjectures, the courts below awarded damages. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the impugned judgments are set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequentially, the suit is dismissed. No costs.