Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held that a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) can be granted only upon the breach of an enforceable legal obligation, and not when the claimant has failed to comply with policy conditions.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi Case (2025). 

What was the Background of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (2025) Case ? 

• The case arose from land acquisition proceedings where the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) acquired lands from various landowners for the development of residential sectors. Under HUDA's 1992 policy, the displaced landowners (oustees) were entitled to rehabilitation through alternative plot allotments at 1992 rates, subject to compliance with specific procedural requirements. 
• The 1992 policy mandated that oustees must submit applications in the prescribed format and deposit 10% of the earnest money as mandatory conditions for claiming rehabilitation benefits. The policy specified that plots would be offered to oustees if 75% or more of their total land in that sector was acquired, with plot sizes determined based on the area of land acquired. 
• Multiple oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking mandatory injunctions to compel HUDA to allot plots under the 1992 policy. However, the respondent-oustees had failed to comply with the procedural requirements - they neither submitted applications in the prescribed format nor deposited the requisite 10% earnest money as mandated by the policy. 
• Some plaintiffs approached the courts approximately 15 years after the 1992 policy was announced, without having fulfilled the essential conditions of precedent. HUDA contested these suits, arguing that the oustees had no legal right to claim allotment since they had failed to comply with the mandatory policy conditions, thereby waiving their entitlement to rehabilitation benefits. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary and can only be granted upon breach of an enforceable legal obligation. The Court cannot grant mandatory injunction unless there exists a legal right and there is a breach of that legal right. 
• The Court emphasized that mandatory injunction is a discretionary and exceptional remedy, which should only be granted when there is a clear breach of duty or obligation, the plaintiff has fully complied with necessary conditions to claim the benefit, and the equities of the case favour the plaintiff. 
• The Court established that breach of obligation and performance of compulsion must be specifically established before granting mandatory injunction. The plaintiff must satisfy the court through appropriate pleadings and cogent evidence that the defendant is committing breach of a particular obligation binding upon them. 
• The Court summarized six essential conditions for granting mandatory injunction: (i) clear obligation on defendant's part, (ii) breach of that obligation, (iii) necessity to compel performance, (iv) enforceability by court, (v) balance of convenience favouring the applicant, and (vi) irreparable injury not compensable monetarily. 
• Applying these principles, the Court found that respondents had no enforceable legal right since they failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements of submitting prescribed applications and depositing earnest money. Consequently, HUDA had no corresponding legal obligation to allot plots. 
• The Court observed that when a scheme specifically mandates filing applications in specified format with requisite earnest money deposit, compliance becomes part of the oustee's obligation before calling upon the State for plot allotment. 
• The Court noted this litigation serves as an eye-opener for all States, cautioning that rehabilitation schemes over and above monetary compensation should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity, and are not mandatory in all land acquisition cases.

What are the Conditions for Mandatory Injunction by Supreme Court? 

• Obligation: There must be a clear obligation on the part of the defendant. 
• Breach: A breach of that obligation must have occurred or be reasonably apprehended 
• Necessity: It must be necessary to compel the performance of specific acts to prevent or rectify the breach. 
• Enforceability: The court must be able to enforce the performance of those acts. 
• Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience must be in favour of the party seeking the injunction. 
• Irreparable Injury: The injury or damage caused by the breach must be irreparable or not adequately compensable in monetary terms. 

What is Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? 

Legal Provisions and Requirements: 

• Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 empowers courts to grant mandatory injunctions to prevent breach of obligations and compel performance of requisite acts, subject to the court's discretion. 
• The provision requires the existence of a clear, specific, and legally binding obligation whose breach is to be prevented through judicial intervention. 
• There must be actual breach or reasonable apprehension of breach of the obligation, with the acts whose performance is sought being capable of enforcement by the court. 

Essential Conditions: 

• The performance of such acts must be necessary to prevent the complained breach, with direct nexus between the acts sought to be compelled and prevention of the obligation's breach. 
• A mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy granted only when ordinary legal remedies prove inadequate, and the plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with all condition's precedent. 
• The court exercises discretion based on established equitable principles including balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and adequacy of damages, making it not a matter of right but dependent upon judicial assessment of merits and equitable considerations.