Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 193286 (ALL)

SMT. VIKLA DEVI v. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (KDA) AND ANOTHER

FAFO/2321/2025 · 2025-10-06

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2321 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. The instant appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No.5 of 2025, Vikla Devi vs. Kanpur Development Authority and others, whereby the plaintiff's ad-interim injunction application 6C-2 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Heard Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Shri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Kanpur Development Authority and perused the record. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Lower Court for the following reliefs:- "a) Pass a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction directing the Defendants, their agents, servants, and anyone acting on their behalf to remove and cease any interference and obstruction in any form of the maintenance, repair and reconstruction work being carried out by the Plaintiff and her family at the suit property 13/6-7 Parmat Kanpur, ensuring that all actions taken by defendants are in strict compliance with Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Prakash Paul Smt. Vikla Devi .....Appellant(s) Kanpur Development Authority (Kda) And Another .....Respondent(s) due process of law, upholding the principles of fairness and justice inherent in due process. b) Direct the Defendants to provide police protection to the Plaintiff to ensure the smooth completion of the repair and reconstruction work. c) Declare that the Plaintiff and her family are entitled to repair and reconstruct the Suit Property 13/6-7 Parmat Kanpur without requiring any further permission, NOC or sanctioned plan etc., under applicable laws, affirming their rights as protected under due process, reinforcing their legal entitlement to maintain their home. d) Award damages for the harassment, mental agony, and financial losses caused by the Defendants' unlawful obstruction, recognizing the impact of unlawful interference on the Plaintiff's rights. e) Award costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs, ensuring that she and her family are fully compensated for expenses incurred as a result of actions contrary to due process, thereby promoting accountability for unlawful conduct. f) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 4. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the appellant in Court, which is taken on record. As per the affidavit, respondent no.1, Kanpur Development Authority, vide its letter dated 26.09.2025, has clarified that for reconstruction and repair work, no prior sanction of the Authority is required if, the same is permissible under the existing Building Bye-laws, 2025, as specified in para 2.5.1 (Kha). 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the Authority has no objection if the plaintiff undertakes repairs of the existing building in accordance with the prevailing Building Bye-laws, and that the Authority will object only if any new construction is raised by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that for raising any new FAFO No. 2321 of 2025 2 construction, the plaintiff has to first get the building plan sanctioned from the competent authority and only then can the plaintiff raise fresh construction in his house. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the plaintiff does not intend to raise any new construction in his house and he undertakes to get only the repairs done in the house. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant undertakes that no new construction will be raised by the plaintiff without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. October 7, 2025 Mayank FAFO No. 2321 of 2025 3 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad