Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. vs Nirmala Devi

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 the breach – Court must be able to enforce the performance of those acts – Balance of convenience must be in favour of the party seeking the injunction – Injury or damage caused by the breach must be irreparable or not adequately compensable in monetary term. [Paras 75, 76]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.2(a), 39 – Term ‘obligation’ as used in the Specific Relief Act – Interpretation: Held: Specific relief may, in brief be explained as relief in specie – It is the remedy which aims at the exact fulfilment of the obligation – Term ‘obligation’ as used in the Specific Relief Act in its wider juristic sense covers duties arising either ex-construction or ex-delicto – Every duty enforceable at law is obligation – Definition clause of the Act of 1963 does not allow narrow interpretation of the word ‘obligation’ to restrict it to a contractual duty alone – Definition of the word ‘obligation’ as used in the Act of 1963 is wide enough and the definition cannot be equated with the definition of the word ‘obligation’ used in the English Law – Obligation’ may be said to be a bond or tie, which constrains a person to do or suffer something, it implies a right in another person to which it is corelated, and it restricts the freedom of the obligee with reference to definite acts and forbearance; but in order that it may be enforced by a Court, it must be a legal obligation – Definition of ‘obligation’ in s.2 is so wide that any breach of legal obligation may give a cause to the affected party – Definition of the word ‘obligation’ in s.2 should be interpreted in a way which may serve the cause of the society. [Paras 77]

Judgment/order – Principles of Ratio Decidendi – Test for determination of Ratio Decidendi – Invocation of Wambaugh’s Test/Inversion Test, Halsbury’s test and Goodhart’s Test: Held: Not every observation in a judgment of this Court is binding as precedent – Only the ratio decidendi or the propositions of law that were necessary to decide on the issues between the parties are binding – Wambaugh’s Test/Inversion Test can be invoked to determine whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of a case – Test mandates that to determine whether a particular proposition of law is part of the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed – Furthermore, the mind of the Court should be clearly reflecting on the material in issue with regard to the facts of the case – Reason and spirit of case make law and not the letter of a particular precedent – As per the Halsbury’s test, it is by the choice of material facts that the Court create law – As per Goodhart’s Test, the ratio of a case must be found in the reasons for the decision and that there is no necessary connection between the ratio and the reasons – Ratio decidendi is whatever facts the judge has determined to be the material facts of the case, plus the judge’s decision as based on those facts – It is by his choice of the material facts that the judge creates law – Any court which considers itself bound by precedent would come to the same conclusion as was reached in a prior case unless there is in the case some further fact which it is prepared to treat as material, or unless fact considered material in the previous case is absent. [Paras 47, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62] Land acquisition – Rehabilitation and compensation – Entitlement:

Held: When land is acquired for any public purpose the person whose land is taken away is entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law – It is only in the rarest of the rare case that the Government may consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money – It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must – Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners – Ordinarily, rehabilitation should only be meant for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition, for people whose lives and livelihood are intrinsically connected to the land. [Para 95]