Infrastructure suit under Section 20A Specific Relief Act, 1963: What Delhi HC held

The Delhi High Court has held that for the purpose of Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which restrains a Court from granting an injunction in a suit involving an infrastructure project, the existence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not mandatory..The Court, while dealing with a suit involving one such infrastructure project, also found that the counsel for the government were not aware of incorporation of Section 20A, 20B and 20C in the Specific Relief Act..It thus asked the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice to consider familiarising advocates appearing for government authorities with the legislative amendment..The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in a suit by four plaintiffs, seeking a declaration that they were the true legal owners of a piece of land. The plaintiffs thus sought a permanent injunction against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Union of India, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, restraining them from disturbing the peaceful and settled possession of the plaintiffs over the land..It was the plaintiffs’ case that out of the total area of 18 bighas of their land, only “7 bighas and 5 bighas was acquired in the year 1971″. The plaintiffs continued their possession on the remaining land, on which they had built their houses..It was further contended that in the absence of any notice to the plaintiffs, DDA wrote to the Delhi Police to provide help for demolition action against the plaintiffs’ houses..In view of these facts, the Court perused Sections 20A, 20B and 20C, which came into effect from August 1, 2018, to ascertain if the present suit would fall in the category of suits involving contracts relating to infrastructure projects..Once a suit falls with the ambit of Section 20A, no injunction can be granted by the Court in a suit involving an infrastructure project..On being informed by the counsel for DDA that the land was required for extension of a hospital, the Court opined that the present suit would fall within the ambit of Section 20A inasmuch as the Schedule to Specific Relief Act, 1963, while prescribing the category of projects which constitute infrastructure projects, included hospitals within its ambit..The Court further clarified that although Section 20A spoke of “a suit……. involving a contract……”, it did not require the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants to be contractual..“The words “involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project” are of wide magnitude and would also, in my opinion cover a suit under the Specific Relief Act, to stall an infrastructure project, but by a plaintiff who has no contractual relationship with the defendants.”.The stalling of an infrastructure project would also involve a contract, the Court said..“Judicial notice can be taken of, invariably all infrastructure projects being executed by entering into contracts, either on a turnkey basis or of other nature. Any stalling of an infrastructure project at the behest of anyone would certainly affect the contract under which the said infrastructure project is being executed and would thus involve a contract.”.The Court stated that while interpreting Section 20A, it chose the purposive interpretation rather than a literal interpretation, as the latter would defeat the efficacy of the Section..“Had the legislature intended otherwise, Section 20A would have provided for, “suits by a party to a contract to execute an infrastructure project” and which the legislature chose not to do so…The intent behind Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the CPC is to ensure that infrastructure projects are not delayed on account of pendency of Court proceedings with respect thereto and/or on account of orders in such Court proceedings.”.In view of the above, the Court ordered that the present suit be treated as an infrastructure suit..The Court further observed that it was for the plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case and to show that the land acquired for the infrastructure project was distinct from the land with respect to which an urgent relief was being claimed..“The infrastructure project cannot be stalled in such a casual manner, without even establishing where the acquired land is, especially when acquisition is admitted.”.Refusing to grant any stay on any action planned/intended by the DDA, the Court directed the DDA to depute a Senior Officer to the Court who would be aware of all the facts, including the purpose for which the land was intended to be used..The plaintiffs were represented by Advocates Surat Singh, Ashutosh Mishra, and Ravi Nagar..DDA was represented by Standing Counsel Dhanesh Relan with Advocate Gauri Chaturvedi..Read the Order: