Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1061

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Nirmala Devi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15148 of 2017) With Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 2025 (@SLP Civil No. 25549 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7709 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20604 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7710 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20614 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7711 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20608 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7712 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20640 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7713 of 2025 (@SLP Civil NO. 18218 of 2025) (@Diary No. 9756 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7714 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15152 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7715 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15306 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7716 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15273 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15146 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7718 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 25553 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7719 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20617 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7720 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20642 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7721 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15274 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7722 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 25547 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7723 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 25555 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7724 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20616 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7725 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 20607 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7726 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 15147 of 2017) Civil Appeal No. 7727 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 949 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 4787 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 30437 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7730 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 30436 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7731 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 30438 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7732 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 30439 of 2018) Civil Appeal No. 7733 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 12014 of 2021) Civil Appeal No. 7734 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 12015 of 2021) Civil Appeal No. 7735 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 12016 of 2021)
Decided on : 14-07-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. B.k. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit K. Nain, AOR Mr. V. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. Mr. J K Bhola, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Raheja, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Umang Shankar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv. Mr. Vidyut Kayarkar, Adv. Mr. Shalender Singh Negi, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj N. Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Mr. Aditya Soni, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. S.K. Pabbi, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivendu Gaur, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Adv.

Oustees must comply with specific application procedures and timelines to claim allotment of plots. Non-compliance with policy requirements, including earnest money deposits, invalidates claims under previous policies.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 39 - Disputes regarding allotment of plots under the oustee policy - Appellants challenged denial of plots based on non-submission of applications as per policy - Court held that eligible oustees must apply following proper procedures including earnest money deposit - Rights of oustees to claim benefits under older policy contingent on compliance with proper application processes - Court directed eligible respondents to apply for plots under the newer policy - Acknowledged the complexity and timelines of previous applications, emphasizing procedural compliance for entitlements. (Paras 1-96)

(B) Appeal - Pressing Need for Compliance - Courts upheld that the basic requirement of applying as per prescribed formats and timely submissions warranted denial of claims for relief under the earlier policy. Eligibility for allotment based on the policy in place at application submission. (Paras 21, 47, 88)

Facts of the case:
This judgment arises from civil appeals concerning land oustees in Haryana, whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State's policy required them to apply for allotment under specific conditions and timelines, including the payment of earnest money; plaintiffs claimed plots without following these steps, which led to litigation. Histories of litigation, previous court rulings affirming necessity of applications as per policy were pivotal points in the judgment.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court emphasized that entitlement to allotment depends upon adherence to application processes as mandated by policy, highlighting the obligations on oustees regarding application completeness, timing, and earnest money deposits. Where claims were not timely submitted according to announced policies, relief under the regulations was not granted.

Issues: The main issues addressed included eligibility criteria regarding entitlement of oustees under the specific allotment policies, the necessity of compliance with policy stipulations, and the procedural irregularities affecting the integrity of the claims made by the oustees.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court adjudicated that for entitlement to benefits under the oustee policy, compliance with the outlined procedures, including timely application submissions and deposit of earnest money, is essential. The interpretation of policy entitlements deferred in favor of those meeting requisite conditions under the applicable exercise of policy under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

Result: Appeals partially allowed; respondents are granted opportunity to apply under the updated policy.

Judgement Key Points

This judgment provides a detailed explanation of the concept of mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It states that a mandatory injunction is a discretionary remedy that compels the performance of specific acts to prevent a breach of obligation or to enforce a duty enforceable by law (!) (!) .

The court emphasizes that for a mandatory injunction to be granted, certain conditions must be satisfied: there must be a clear obligation, a breach or imminent breach of that obligation, necessity to perform specific acts, the enforceability of those acts by the court, and the presence of a balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favor of the applicant (!) .

Furthermore, it elaborates that the obligation must be a legal duty, and the breach must be established with cogent evidence. The court also highlights that the grant of such an injunction is a matter of judicial discretion and should only be issued when the four conditions—obligation, breach, necessity, and enforceability—are met (!) (!) .

The judgment clarifies that the scope of Section 39 includes cases where the breach of an obligation needs to be prevented or rectified, and the acts to be performed are capable of enforcement by the court. It underscores that the relief is in the nature of an order in specie, aimed at the exact performance of the obligation, and not merely a direction to do something beneficial or desirable (!) (!) .

In summary, the judgment states that a mandatory injunction is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy that requires strict satisfaction of specific legal conditions, primarily the existence of a clear, enforceable obligation, a breach or threat thereof, and the necessity and practicability of court-ordered performance of acts to prevent or rectify the breach.

Table of Content
1. introduction and overview of litigation history (Para 1 , 3 , 6)
2. court's key observations regarding policies and application procedures. (Para 2 , 41 , 78)
3. policy background and application requirements (Para 4 , 5 , 11)
4. arguments presented by appellants regarding application and entitlement. (Para 12 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. respondents arguments asserting their entitlement to the policy of 1992. (Para 32 , 33 , 36)
6. precedential value of brij mohan decision (Para 44 , 46)
7. conditions for granting mandatory injunction under section 39 (Para 70 , 79 , 80)
8. final directives for plot allotment (Para 95 , 96)

JUDGMENT :

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

A. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

i. Few Salient Features of the Policy of 1992

ii. Institution of the Suits under Section 39 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for Enforcement of The Policy

iii. Impugned Judgment of the High Court

iv. Filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

C. ANALYSIS

i. Dictum as laid by this Court in Brij Mohan (Supra) and the Ratio Decidendi

a. Wambaugh’s Test/Inversion Test

b. Halsbury’s Test

c. Goodhart’s Test

ii. Maintainability of the Suit filed under Section 39 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for Enforcement of the Obligations in terms of the Scheme of 1992.

a. Conditions for granting a Mandatory Injunction.

D. CONCLUSION

1. Delay condoned in Diary No. 9756 of 2017. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. Since the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. This batch of appeals arises from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.08.2016 by which the Second Appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the decrees passed by the trial court in favour of the respondents herein.

A. HISTORY of THE LITIGATION

4. Our order dated 05.03.2025 by itself would give more than a fair idea as regards the history of this litigation and the issues involved in the matter. Our order dated 5.03.2025 reads thus:

1. We heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Haryana Urban Development Authority i.e. the petitioners – herein and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents in each of the petitions before us.

2. Having heard the matter for quite some time, we have been able to understand the controversy involved in this litigation. What we have been able to understand prima facie is that in the State of Haryana, there is a very unusual policy with respect to land acquisition. If the Government wants to acquire land for public purpose, it proceeds in accordance with the provisions of LAND ACQUISITION ACT . However, it has its own policy of even providing alternate plots of land to the oustees. It all started in the year 1989 with the issue of Notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT . In 1990, the Section 6 Notification came to be issued. In the year 1992, the awards were passed.

3. We were taken through the relevant features of the policy relating to allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees. The same is at Annexure `P1’ in the first matter before us.

4. Thereafter, we were taken through the various pleadings in the plaint which is at Annexure `P6’.

5. Prima facie, it appears that the suits filed by the individuals/oustees are one invoking Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1061

Oustees must comply with specific application procedures and timelines to claim allotment of plots. Non-compliance with policy requirements, including earnest money deposits, invalidates claims under previous policies.

Cases Referred (12)

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546