- (1.)
"I will not stop cutting down trees. Though there is life in them. I will not stop plucking out leaves. Though they make nature beautiful. I will not stop hacking off branches. Though they are the arms of a trees. Because- I need a but. "
Quoting the above couplet of a Telugu poet, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usman Gani, J. Khatri v. Cantonment Board (19921 3 SCC 455 observed that the slogan of the builders and land owners of utilising the maximum area for construction of high rise buildings for fulfilling the need of houses in big urban cities should always be subservient to the building restrictions and regulations made in the larger interest of the whole inhabitants of PUNE and keeping in view the influx of population, environment hazards, sanitation provision for supply of water, electricity and other amenities.
(2.)But in the present case though the petitioner have not cut the branches of the trees but they obviously need a "hut" and in order to fulfil their need they raised construction on the basis of "deemed sanction' of maps by the Municipal Council whereas the case of Municipal Council is that "the maps should not he deemed to have been sanctioned and construction raised by the petitioner was unauthorised and deserves to be demolished.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case may be summarised thus :
(i) Plaintiff-petitioners (for short the plaintiffs) instituted a civil suit in the trial Court against the defendant non-petitioner (for short defendant). Along with the suit an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with S. 151, C.P.C. was also filed stating therein that plaintiffs purchased a property bearing A.M.C. No. 221/25 situated at Beawar Road, Ram Ganj, through four sale deeds. The plaintiffs decided to re-erect the property and for that purpose they submitted four different plans for Sanction to the defendant on May 19, 1992. The plans were returned back on September 23, 1992 by the defendant observing that without sub-division of the property, the plans could not be sanctioned. The plaintiffs thereafter, submitted one new map on November 16, 1992, receipt of which was received on November 18, 1992. A notice was then sent by the plaintiffs on May 17, 1993 informing the defendant that in the event of non-sanctioning of map within fifteen days, the construction work will be started. Again on July 27, 1993 the plaintiffs handed over another similar letter to the defendant, in its 'city development camp.' Thereafter the plaintiff started raising construction treating the silence of the defendant as "deemed sanction" on being threatened by the defendant to demolish the construction, the suit along with interim application was filed praying that defendant be restrained from demolishing the construction.

(ii) The defendant refuting the allegations and stated that maps were returned to the plaintiff on September 23, 1992 with certain objections which were not complied with by the plaintiffs. No notice bearing date May 17, 1993 was ever received by the defendant. The demand made through letter dated July 27, 1993 by the plaintiffs was an administrative demand which was being scrutinised. Therefore map should not be deemed to have been sanctioned and construction raised by the plaintiffs was unauthorised and plaintiffs were not entitled for interim injunction.

(iii) The trial Court vide order dated September 16, 1993 restrained the defendant from demolishing the construction already raised. Simultaneously the plaintiffs were also restrained from raising further construction which was against the Municipal bye-laws.

(iv) The defendant challenged the said order by preferring appeal, which was allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated October 10, 1996, whereby the order of the trial Court was set aside.

(v) Against the said order of the appellate Court present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.