Stretching the Boundaries: HC Rejects Injunction Plea Against Demolition of Illegal Construction

In a significant ruling regarding property rights and the limits of judicial intervention, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a lower court’s decision to lift a temporary injunction. The case centered on a dispute between an allottee of a housing unit and the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad over alleged unauthorized construction.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The petitioner, Smt. Kusum Mishra, was allotted a house (No. 75-EWS) measuring 42.21 square meters in Awas Vikas Colony, Lakhimpur Kheri, in 1994. While she remained in possession of the unit, the housing board sought to demolish certain constructions—specifically a parapet—contending it occupied land beyond the specified 42.21 square meters allotted to her.

The petitioners filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction to halt the demolition and prevent the board from allotting adjacent land to others. While the trial court initially granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners, the Additional District Judge later set aside this order, noting that the petitioners had no right to occupy land beyond their allotment.

Arguments in the Courtroom

The petitioners, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi , argued that the appellate court overstepped its bounds by re-evaluating factual findings during the injunction stage. They maintained that the appellate court erred by admitting a new site plan without formal documentation under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ).

Conversely, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad argued that the petitioner had no legal title to the land beyond the 42.21 square meters. They highlighted that the construction of the parapet on non-allotted land was illegal and hindered the legitimate allotment of the area to other residents.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of Discretion

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the settled principles of law regarding temporary injunctions. Referencing the landmark Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and the recent Ramakant Ambalal Choksi judgment, the Court emphasized that while an appellate court should not substitute its discretion capriciously, it holds the power to intervene when a trial court ignores the fundamental requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The Court dismissed the argument regarding Order XLI Rule 27, noting that those provisions govern the admission of additional evidence in final appeals, which did not apply to this interlocutory stage where the petition was already failing on its own merits.

Key Observations

• "The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well-settled principles."
• "In the present case, the plaintiff no. 1 has been allotted EWS House No.75... she has not been granted any right, title or interest in respect of the property exceeding 42.21 square meters."
• "Demolition of construction which covers an area beyond the area allotted to the plaintiff would not cause any legal injury to the plaintiffs."
• "Although the trial Court is not required to record any finding of fact at the stage of deciding an application for temporary injunction, it has to record a prima facie satisfaction of the plaintiffs' claim."

Implications of the Verdict

By dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced that judicial protection against demolition cannot be sought for properties built in clear violation of allotment agreements. The ruling serves as a reminder to allottees that the court's equitable jurisdiction, particularly under Article 227, is not a mechanism to insulate encroachment. The decision effectively empowers the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to proceed with the removal of structures built beyond original allotment boundaries, affirming the necessity of adhering to sanctioned development plans.