LexESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus NIRMALA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 777 : 2025 INSC 843 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025) 14 July 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the Oustees-respondents pursuant acquisition of their land for the purpose of development of the residential sector. The issue arose whether the respondents entitled to claim plots as oustees at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or at the rate prescribed by the revised policy of 2016. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978 – rule 5 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.39 – Allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or the revised policy of 2016 – Acquisition of land in the year 1992 by the Government for the public purpose-development of residential sector – Policy of 1992 in force, governing the resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees and same got revised in 2016 (Policy of 2016) – Failure of allotment of plots to the oustees-respondents – Suits by the oustees u/s.39 seeking mandatory injunction against the appellant – Appellant’s case that the oustees failed to deposit 10 per cent of the earnest money along with an appropriate application addressed to the authority concerned in accordance with the Policy of 1992, and in the absence thereof, the benefits of the Policy of 1992 could not have been extended – In some of the cases, the trial court dismissed the suits whereas few came to be allowed – First appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court – High Court dismissed the Second Appeal – Special Leave Petition thereagainst, wherein while issuing notice, * Author 778 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports submission by the appellant that it would abide by the 2016 Policy and every single oustee would be accommodated as per the said policy – Correctness: Held: Respondents not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of Brij Mohan that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy – Respondents entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees – Right from the inception case of the appellant that none of the oustees, at least the respondents, had applied in the requisite format for allotment of plots with the deposit of the earnest money – If this part of the obligation would have been performed or discharged by the oustees in accordance with the scheme then perhaps HUDA could have been called upon to perform its part of the obligation – It is only if the plaintiff would have performed its part of the obligation according to the scheme, then s.39 could have been invoked to compel the HUDA as defendant to perform its part of the obligation – When the scheme in question specifically provides that an oustee shall file an application in a specified format with deposit of the requisite amount towards earnest money then it is a part of the obligation on the part of the oustee to do so before he calls upon the State to allot the plot in accordance with the terms of the scheme – No explanation worth the name why it took 14-20 years for the plaintiffs to institute their respective suits for mandatory injunction u/s.39 of the Act 1963, when the land of respective oustees came to be acquired in 1992 – However, there is an inclination to grant the benefit of the scheme of 2016. [Paras 63, 86, 95] Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.39 – Suit filed u/s.39 for seeking mandatory injunction for enforcement of the obligations – Maintainability – Conditions for granting mandatory injunction: Held: Mandatory injunction by its nature embodied u/s.39 is discretionary – Granting of mandatory injunction is a matter of judicial discretion of the court and it can be granted only in a case which falls strictly within the four corners of the provision, s.39 of the Act 1963 – It should be amenable for exercising discretion by the Court – There must be a clear obligation on the part of the defendant – Breach of that obligation must have occurred or be reasonably apprehended – It must be necessary to compel the performance of specific acts to prevent or rectify [2025] 7 S.C.R. 779 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Develop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.