1. These two second appeals i.e., Second Appeal No.10/2009 (M/s Mangilal Pagariya Builders and Contractors Vs. Nagar Palika Nigam, Raipur) and Second Appeal No.73/2009 (Municipal Corporation, Raipur Vs. Mangilal Pagariya and another) have been preferred by respective appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008 passed Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.2-A/2008.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2008 passed by the trial Court decreeing the suit preferred by the plaintiff M/s. Mangilal Pagaria Builders and Contractors. The appellant of Second Appeal No. 10/2009, M/s. Mangilal Pagariya Builders and Contractors (hereinafter referred as the 'Plaintiff') has challenged the dismissal of his suit whereas the appellant in Second Appeal No.73/2009 Municipal Corporation, Raipur (hereinafter referred as 'Defendant No.1') has preferred the appeal inter alia praying that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court with regard to issue Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of Mangilal Pagaria Builders and Contractors be set aside, meaning thereby the First Appeal preferred by the said appellant be allowed on merits after deciding issue Nos. 1 to 5 in its favour and against the Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff Mangilal Pagariya Builders and Contractors preferred a suit inter-alia claiming decree for declaration that the entire construction of new bus-stand to be legal and in accordance with the sanctioned building plan; for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing any part of the building and to restrain them from disturbing the plaintiff with regard to property/saleable area granted to the plaintiff from being transferred/ alienated to any other person.

4. According to the plaintiff, the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (in short "MPSRTC") which was in existence prior to 01.11.2000 i.e., prior to creation of the State of Chhattisgarh decided to construct a new bus-stand in Raipur town at Pandri on plot ad-measuring 7.20 acres bearing Khasra Nos. 517, 138, 139 & 149. The said plot was handed-over to MPSRTC by the then State of M.P., through its Nazul Department. The MPSRTC, thereafter, invited tenders under BOT Scheme (Built, Own and Transfer Scheme) from eligible tenderers for construction of new bus-stand at Pandri. The plaintiff being engaged in construction work of all types viz., road projects, buildings, hotel etc., participated in the tender process and being the most suitable tenderer his tender was allowed and the contract was awarded to him on 06.01.1994.

5. The MPSRTC, thereafter, executed Power of Attorney in plaintiff's favour. Under the Scheme, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as premium to MPSRTC and to construct the entire bus-stand complex including bus terminal, passengers rest house/restaurant, office block, ticket counter etc. In lieu of the said construction, MPSRTC agreed to provide the saleble area in the ratio of 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the complex. The layout was approved by the Town and Country Planning, Department of Government of Chhattisgarh.

6. It has been specifically stated in Para 9 of the plaint that the approved map was handed over by the MPSRTC to the plaintiff for construction in accordance with the sanctioned map. According to the plaintiff, feeling practical difficulty in execution of work in accordance with the sanctioned plan it decided to revise the plan and requested the MPSRTC for submitting the revised map which was sent to Municipal Corporation, Raipur, for approval. The Town and Country Planning approved the revised map on 20.06.2000 and was forwarded to Municipal Corporation for necessary action. Since the MPSRTC or for that matter the plaintiff did not receive any communication from the Municipal Corporation, it proceeded with th