Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

controverting all other allegations made in the plaint, defendants No. 2 and 3 also prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. In rejoinder, plaintiffs reiterated their claim. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court 6.1 The Learned Trial Court recorded that the Industrial Area in Jullundur was established in 1951 as per the original layout plan (Ex.PW- 3/A), which depicted a 120 ft. wide road with adjoining green belts on both of its sides. However, the said plan was revised by the State Government in 1979. The Court held that the State Government was competent to revise the layout plan and that the plaintiffs, having instituted the suit in 1980, could not maintain a simple suit for permanent injunction without challenging the validity of the revised plan. In the absence of any prayer for declaration that the revised layout plan was illegal or ultra vires, the suit for injunction was held to be infructuous.

11.5 It is contended that it is thus submitted that in absence of any prayer for setting aside the revised layout plan or the consequent allotments, the relief of injunction sought by the plaintiffs could not have been granted. Once the amendment of the layout plan had already taken place prior to the filing of the suit, and the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the same, the suit became infructuous.

11.6 It is further emphasized that the legality or illegality of the revised layout cannot now be adjudicated, as no declaratory relief was either sought or pressed at the appropriate stage, and the suit for mere injunction without challenging the underlying administrative action was inherently not maintainable. It is submitted that no relief can be granted 17 of 23 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054599 RSA-1086-2025 2025:PHHC: 054599 which has not been specifically prayed for, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, 2023(3) SCC 714.

Similar view has been taken by this Court in Dev Ram versus Swarna Ram 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 804 and in Desh Raj and others vs. Rohtash Singh (2023) 3 SCC 714.

15.3 It is thus clear that court cannot grant a relief, which has not been prayed for. In present case, the plaintiffs became aware of the revised layout plan and consequent allotments on 20.09.1980, when the State filed its written statement. However, the plaint was never amended to seek a declaratory relief challenging the validity of the revised plan or the consequent allotments. In the absence of such a prayer, the suit for injunction simpliciter was not maintainable, as what was sought to be restrained -- change in the layout -- had already occurred.

19.1 Passage of time and creation of third-party rights: The revised layout plan dates back to 1979, i.e., nearly 54 years ago. Government departments and third parties have acted on the revised plan, acquired allotments, made constructions, and altered their positions. As held in Welfare Society vs. State of Punjab and others, 2012(2) PLJ 500, belated challenges are impermissible, particularly when third-party rights have accrued.


19.2          Judgment cited by plaintiff in the case of Lal Bahadur Versus



                                   22 of 23

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:054599

RSA-1086-2025                                                 2025:PHHC: 054599