SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties the case is heard afresh for disposal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that against the order of demolition dated 13.10.2006 and demolition seizure dated 28.11.2006 prepared by the Vice Chairman of Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Development Authority') under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973) the petitioner has instituted suit for permanent injunction and also moved application therein for temporary injunction. The temporary injunction application has been rejected by the Trial Court after hearing the parties on merit and appeal preferred against which by the petitioner has also been dismissed, hence this petition.

(3.) CONTRARY to it, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the repair work undertaken by the petitioner was not required any prior permission or approval or sanction by the officer of Development Authority, therefore, the provisions of the Act, 1973 would not be attracted in view of saving clause provided under Section-52 of the Act, 1973 thus impugned order passed by Vice Chairman referred above is nullity and non-est, as such can be ignored by Civil Court while granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioner. In my opinion the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misplaced and has to be rejected.