( 1 ) SHRI D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. Y. Kogje, learned AGP for the respondents. The parties are finally heard.

( 2 ) SOMEWHERE in the year 1980, the petitioners could secure permission under the hands of the Collector under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 for raising residential construction on the plot in their possession. Even at this stage, it is to be noted that the petitioners had made joint application and had secured joint order in their favour. The plot in dispute was admeasuring 562 meters but the Collector granted permission to raise one single construction to the tune of 160. 60 sq. mts. The petitioners thereafter made separate applications to the Municipality for sanction of the plans, two separate permissions were sought and instead of one joint construction, two separate residential constructions were made. The total area, according to the respondents exceeded by 21. 90 meters. After learning about the fact, the Collector issued a notice dated 14. 8. 99 to each of the petitioner asking them to show cause as to why construction was made beyond the permission granted, the construction was illegal as the marginal land, which was required to be kept open was not left and if permission was for one single construction, why two separate constructions at a distance of 3/5 meters have been raised.

( 3 ) EACH of the petitioner appeared before the Collector and submitted that they did not raise any extra construction and if ultimately any construction in excess of the said permission is found, the same be regularised, they admitted that the land to be left as marginal open land was not available in accordance with the permission granted by the Collector but submitted that the land was left as marginal open land in accordance with the municipal byelaws and the plans sanctioned by the Municipality. It was lastly submitted that each of the petitioner made separate application to the municipality for sanction of the plans and as the separate applications were sanctioned, construction of two separate units was not illegal. After hearing the parties, the collector, by his order dated 29. 10. 90 made in vashi. 23-B 2384/exemption final registration no. 22/89 No. CH/n. A. /breach of condition/reg. 3/90-91, directed that the illegal construction beyond

the permission of the collector be removed. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, took up the matter before the Additional Secretary, Revenue department [disputes), the matter was registered as SRD/bkhp/vls/790. 5/95 and as the said matter came to be dismissed on 21. 6. 95, the petitioners are before this Court.

( 4 ) SHRI D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the construction was not contrary to the municipal byelaws and the municipal sanction therefore the Collector could not direct demolition. So far as this argument is concerned, it would run contrary to the permission granted by the Collector and the provisions of Section 65/65a read with Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Section 65 and Section 65a provide that with the permission of the Collector, a particular type of the land can be used for raising construction etc. The Collector, after being satisfied, may grant such permission. The permission is an authority conferred upon the said applicant to raise construction. If anybody violates that condition or raises any construction without sanction or permission, then, an action under Section 66 may be taken against such person.

( 5 ) PRESENT is not a case where the municipality was taking some action against the petitioners, present is a case where the permission/sanction granted by the Collector has been violated. Section 66 of the Code reads as under:-

"66. Penalty for using land without permission. If any land referred to in section 65 or section 65-A be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which such land is assessed or held without the permission of th