Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN
State of Nagaland, represented by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Land and Revenue – Appellant
Versus
Tohuli, W/o. Late V. Atoshe Sumi, Hovukhu Village, Niuland , Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ROBIN PHUKAN, J.)
Heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, assisted by Ms. T. Khro, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. M. Kechi, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. P. Chetri, learned counsel for the proforma respondent No. 2.
2. This revision petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge, Dimapur, in Civil Appeal No. 25/2023.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 29.09.2023, the learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur ('Appellate Court', for short) had dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 25/2023, and thereby, upheld the order, dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur ('Trial Court', for short) in I.A. (Civil) No. 314/2019, arising out of Civil Suit No. 22/2019, wherein the learned Trial Court had granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, in respect of the land under Patta No. 45, Dag No. 40/100 and 117 of Dimapur Mouza No. 3 by directing
The amendment to Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act bars injunctions against infrastructure projects, emphasizing public interest over private claims in land disputes.
The court held that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction, emphasizing the balance between property rights and public interest in infrastructure projects.
The Court ruled that public authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, and failure to do so violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A temporary injunction cannot be granted without discussing essential principles, and a property owner cannot be restrained from using their property without a strong prima facie case.
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
