- (1.) Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/respondents for demolition of structure in question. As per version of the plaintiff/appellant, the structure in question has been constructed according to sanctioned map plan No. 471/92-93. In respect to the same, a complaint case No. 2524 of 1998 was filed by the defendant/respondent under section 25 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, rejected by order dated 11.5.1999. In spite of the said fact, defendant/respondent has given letter/order dated 5.10.2001 to plaintiff/appellant. Accordingly for redressal of his grievance, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff, registered as Suit No. 467 of 2001, Praveen Kumar Garg v. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad. The Trial Court in order to decide the controversy involved in the suit has framed five issues and on the basis of material evidence oral as well as documentary on record, by means of judgment and decree dated 16.5.2011, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said fact, plaintiff-appellant filed a Civil Appeal, registered as Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2011, Praveen Kumar Garg v. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad, before the Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Moradabad and by means of judgment and decree dated 26.4.2014 dismissed the appeal.
(2.) In view of the said factual background, present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant before this Court under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has pressed the second appeal on the following substantial question of law: "(a) Whether the action of the defendant/respondent is barred by the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973? (b) Whether before initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 against the plaintiff, the defendants complied with the mandatory provisions of law?";