Interim Injunction Protecting Proprietary Land Possession Cannot Be Refused Merely on General Claims of Public Interest

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming absolute ownership and possession of 11 kanals and 13 marlas of land under Survey No. 186/14 at Gund Balakh Hajin.

They alleged that the appellants (defendants), in collusion with officials, were forcibly attempting to carve a new road through their proprietary land.

The appellants contested, claiming a public road had existed on the spot for over thirty years and that the plaintiffs were encroaching upon it.

The trial court (Additional District Judge, Bandipora) granted an interim injunction on 16.10.2025, restraining the appellants from interfering with the suit land.

The appellants challenged this order, arguing it suppressed material facts and violated Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act by stalling a public infrastructure project.

1. Whether the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely in granting the interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 2 of the CPC.

2. Whether the existence of a purported public road bar the grant of an injunction in light of Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act.

3. Whether the proprietary rights of individuals can be overridden by claims of public interest without following due process of law.

The Court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which require the tripartite test of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

Regarding appellate jurisdiction, it relied on Seema Arshad Zaheer Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, holding that an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for the trial court’s unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

It further observed the Constitutional Right to Property, asserting that private land cannot be taken for public use except through due process of law.

Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act was considered regarding injunctions involving infrastructure projects.

The Court found that the respondents established a prima facie case through the Khasra Girdawari (revenue record), proving ownership and possession.

Conversely, the appellants' documents failed to prove the land was a public road or that they had an established right of way; instead, they indicated an attempt by officials to construct a road on what was prima facie proprietary land.

The Court noted that even if a road were in the public interest, the government must follow legal acquisition procedures rather than allowing private individuals to interfere with proprietary possession.

The Court highlighted that the trial court's order specifically protected the State's right to acquire the land through legal means, thereby balancing private rights with public interest.

A Commissioner’s report from a related proceeding further corroborated that the land was proprietary and that alternate routes were available.

The court affirmed that an injunction against private individuals to protect proprietary land is valid, even if it incidentally affects a proposed road, especially since the order did not bind the Government from proceeding via due legal authority.