( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant, State of Madhya Pradesh, against a decree for injunction restraining it to demolish certain constructions of the plaintiff in pursuance of an order passed by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur.

( 2. ) THE facts are that the plaintiff Haji Abdul Gafoor Khan was granted nazul land measuring 680 sq. ft. out of plot No. 77 Block No. 43 situated in hanumantal area, Jabalpur. The plaintiff held this land under two licences which are Exs. P-1 and P-2. The first licence, Ex. P-1, was executed on 30th october 1957 and the second licence, Ex. P-2, was executed on 13th June 1959. The parties to these documents are the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, called the grantor, and Haji Abdul Gafoor Khan, the plaintiff, called the licensee. The terms of the two licences are identical. The plaintiff was authorised under these licences to make constructions upon the land. The grantor, however, had reserved the power to terminate the licences under certain conditions. The relevant clauses in that respect arc clauses (i) and (iv) (a) which read as follows : " (i) The said construction shall be maintained and permitted to remain over / above upon the said land only so long as the said land is not required by the grantor for his own or a public purpose. (iv) (a) When the said land is required by the grantor for his own or a public purpose, of which the grantor shall be the sole judge, the grantor may require the licensee to remove the said construction within thirty days of the receipt by him of a notice in that behalf and thereupon the licensee shall remove the said construction and this licence shall terminate. If within the period allowed by the notice the licensee fails to remove the said construction, it shall be lawful to the grantor to have the same removed at the cost of the licensee in accordance with the provisions of section 219, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, section 64, Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928. "

The aforesaid two licences were signed by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, on behalf of the grantor. It appears that on 20th June 1960 the Additional collector issued an order terminating the licences and for demolition of the constructions on the ground that the plaintiff had made permanent constructions contrary to the terms of the licences. An appeal against this order was preferred by the plaintiff which was decided by the Divisional Commissioner, jabalpur, on 9th December 1960. The Commissioner held that the appeal was not maintainable under the Land Revenue Code and so he dismissed it. But in exercise of his power of superintendence as an administrative superior he gave certain directions. One of the directions was that the Additional collector was wrong in construing the licences that they were meant to authorise only temporary structures and not permanent constructions that were made by the plaintiff. It was also observed that the site could be vacated only in case the Additional Collector found that it was required for a public purpose or for bona fide use by the Government. The Commissioner also stressed the necessity of giving a specific finding to that effect after taking evidence and enquiring into the matter whether the land was required for any of the above purposes. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the Additional Collector on 22nd October 1962 to the plaintiff terminating the licences and directing him to remove all constructions within a month on the ground "that the lands are immediately required for public purpose. " This notice is Ex. P-5.

( 3. ) THE plaintiff then commenced the suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that the aforesaid order of the Additional Collector was illegal and void and not binding on him. He also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-State from giving effect to that order. The plaintiffs case was that after the order of the Commissioner the Additional Collector did not make any inquiry whether the land