Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted if they impede infrastructure projects, especially when the party lacks ownership or lease rights to the property in question.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the order dated 31.05.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of interim stay has been declined.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the plot in question. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the property from the time of his forefathers and had been staking fooder etc. and had also been keeping cow cakes and bricks etc. in the property in question. It is argued that the respondent had issued a notice dated 12.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 24(1) of the HARYANA GRAM PANCHAYATI RAJ ACT , 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1994 Act”), which was illegal, null and void and the said notice had been issued without demarcation and was thus liable to be set aside. It is further argued that in response to the notice (Annexure P- 1), the petitioner had gone to file reply to the said notice but defendant no.2 had refused to accept the same and thus, the petitioner had a cause of action to file the present suit. It is submitted that since the petitioner is in possession of the property, thus, he is entitled to the injunction prayed for.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the present suit which is a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction is not maintainable as no prayer for declaration had been made. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property or there is any lease deed or licence deed in his favour. It is argued that the respondents had initiated a project for the renovation of the village Johar/pond and had been setting up a filtration plant and on account of the encroachment made by the petitioner/plaintiff upon the property in question, the said project had been partly stalled. It is further argued that in the said circumstances, as has been provided under Section 41 (ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 1963 Act”), no injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner as grant of injunction in his favour would impede or delay the progress and completion of the infrastructure project. It is submitted that as per schedule (1) of the 1963 Act, the provision for water and sanitation would come in the category of infrastructure projects and thus, no injunction could be granted regarding the same.

4. It is further submitted that even as per Section 14 of the Haryana Pond and Waste Water Management Authority Act , 2018, no person shall raise any construction or structure on pond land, green belts and catchment areas or occupy any pond land. It is stated that under the SVAMITVA Scheme, the property in question has been show as Johar/Pond, the ownership of which is in the name of the gram panchayat and the same bears I.D. 859 whereas the plaintiff has a plot having I.D. 965 registered in his name under the same SVAMITVA Scheme. It is argued that the plaintiff/petitioner had never approached the office of defendant No.2 to file reply and has highlighted para 6 of the written statement filed by the defendants in which it had been stated that in case the petitioner/plaintiff wanted to file his reply, then, the same could also be sent through email or registered post, but the plaintiff had not done the same, which also clearly shows that only object o