JUDGMENT

Verma, J. - This is an appeal by the defendant Board in a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining it from demolishing certain constructions of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it. The plaintiff-respondent applied to the Municipal Board for permission to make certain constructions and the Board granted the application and sanctioned the erection of the building proposed by the plaintiff. It is common ground that the plaintiff in making the constructions has not done anything which can be said to be in contravention of any directions made by the Board or in contravention of any provision of the law or of any bye-law. It is clear therefore that whatever the plaintiff, respondent has done is not within Section 185, Municipalities Act. It appears that some time after the plaintiff-respondent had completed his constructions, correspondence ensued between the Municipal Board and the Collector of the District, and ultimately on 14th June 1934 the Collector wrote to the Municipal Board saying that Habibullah had made an encroachment on "nazul land over a public well," and directed that the encroachment should be removed at once. On receipt of this letter a notice, purporting to be under Sections 186 and 211 of the Act, was issued by the Executive Officer of the Board on 20th June 1934 requiring Habibullah to demolish his constructions within four days from the receipt of the notice and saying that if Habibullah failed to comply with the notice, action would be taken u/s 307 of the Act. Habibullah thereupon filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal. The lower Appellate Court has held that the Board having sanctioned the application for building made by Habibullah and Habibullah having done nothing which was in contravention of the Sections of the Act dealing with Building Regulations, the Board had no power to issue any notice u/s 186. It has further held that the board had no power to issue any notice u/s 211 because here there was no 'street' involved.

2. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant before us is that the board had to issue the notice in obedience to the order of the Collector, and that therefore the suit was not maintainable against the Board. Reference is made to Paras. 4 and 11 of the "instructions regarding Nazul entrusted to the management of Municipal Board," and it is argued that these paragraphs have the force of law. In our opinion the Court below is right in holding that these "Instructions" have not the force of law. It is clear that these "Instructions" are not Rules made by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 296 of the Act. That being so, the argument of the learned Counsel has no force. The Court below, in our opinion, is right in holding that the plaintiff respondent is not bound by these "Instructions." They are merely departmental instructions and direct the Board to comply with the orders of the Collector. The Board however in complying with, the order of the Collector, must act according to law and the "instructions" do not authorize the Board to take any action which is beyond the powers conferred on it by the Municipalities Act. As an example of what the Board could do in accordance with law, it may be mentioned that it was open to the Board to bring a properly framed suit in the Civil Court for the demolition of the constructions made by Habib Ullah and if the allegations made by the Board satisfied the Court that the Board was entitled to a decree, the suit would no doubt be decreed. The Board cannot, by issuing a notice which is not authorized by Section 186 or by Section 211, Municipalities Act, threaten to demolish the plaintiff's constructions. The notice issued by the Board being clearly ultra vires, the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit claiming an injunction. It is well settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this character if it appe