IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 707 OF 2006 (MS) Uttaranchal Shiksha Sanksriti Evem Partan Samiti, Dehradun, a registered Society, having its office at 17, New Survey Road, Dehradun, through its Chariman Shri Narendra Bansal, son of Shri J.N. Bansal, R/o 12, D.A.V. College Road, Dehradun. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. M.D.D.A. Dehradun, through its Secretary, 12, Pritam Road, Dehradun. 2. Doon Technical & Education Society, A registered Society having its office at 17, New Survey Road, Dehradun through its President. 3. Sri Neeraj Bansal, S/o Sri J.N. Bansal, R/o 30 Arvind Marg Dehradun. …………Respondents. Dated: 14.06.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the part of impugned order dated 30.05.2006 passed by the District Judge Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2006 and order dated 25.05.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun in O.S. No. 125 of 2005 and the application of the petitioner for interim injunction may be allowed. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondent not to demolish the structure standing on the property in dispute on the ground that the defendants no. 2 and 3 have leased out the property for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- and 2,000/-, he having paid the rent up to March, 2005, the defendant no. 2 has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the property in dispute forcibly and aggrieved from it petitioner preferred an injunction suit being Suit No. 674 of 2004 against the Doon Technical and Educational society in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.)., Dehradun and the court was pleased to grant the interim injunction order which is still effective. Petitioner has submitted that on 24.03.2005, employees of the defendant no. 1 came on the spot and demanded the map of the property in suit and as such there is a great apprehension that without complying the provisions of Section 27, 28 of the Urban Planning and Development Act, the structure of the petitioner shall be demolished. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the MDDA. In paragraph no. 5, it has been denied that the employees of the defendant no. 1 has threatened in any way to the plaintiff for the demolition of the structure. Paragraph no. 5 of the written statement is quoted below:- “5. That contents of para 5 of the plaint are wrong and are denied. All allegations against the defendant No. 1 are not admitted. Defendant No. 1 being statutory authority has to ensure that all constructions are made after getting plan sanctioned and in consonance with law and any contravention of the law calls for action as per the provisions of UP Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. It is wrong to state that in case the plaintiff fails to show the map, they will demolish the structure. Rest of the para does not concern the answering defendant.” After taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) has refused to grant the injunction on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, injunction was refused. The plaintiff went in Appeal. The appeal is still pending and has not yet been disposed of and only notices have been issued. From the record, it is evident that the injunction order has already been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court in another Suit No. 674 of 2004. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is premature as appeal is already pending and there is nothing on record that any proceedings have been initiated under Sections 27 and 28 of the Urban Planning and Development Act. Sri Vipul Sharma has also submitted that the proceedings have not yet been initiated under U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act and as such there is no occasion to the petitioner to file present writ petition. In view of the aforesaid statement, there should not be any apprehension on the part of the petitioner as there is no notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act. However, remedy is available to the petitioner in case such notices are issued. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for his grievances. Subject to the aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed at this stage as being premature. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 14.06.2006 Rathour