JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. The State has preferred these petitions against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Una, allowing the appeal of the respondents herein preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, declining the prayer of the respondents herein for grant of interim injunction. 2. The plaintiffs approached the learned trial Court with the prayer that the interim injunction be granted in their favour and against the respondents, who are petitioners in these petitions taking forcible possession of the land or raising construction etc. on the suit land as also changing its nature. It was urged that the petitioners herein were trying to encroach on the land of the plaintiffs and the Swan (seasonal stream) was causing lot of damage including industries and in these circumstances; the construction work was urgently required pursuant to a sanctioned scheme to tame the fury of floods etc. and large amount of money has already been expended on the work/scheme. 3. The learned trial court holds that in case this being a scheme where general public would be benefited, no interim injunction could be granted. 4. The plaintiffs appealed and the learned appellate Court holds that the plaintiffs-respondents are the co-sharers/co-owners of the suit land and their rights cannot be interfered with except in due course of law. The order of the learned trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the State shall not take forcible possession by raising any construction or changing the nature of the suit land without the consent of the respondents-plaintiffs or in due course of law. 5. The State has now preferred these petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it is the larger public interest that is at stake and the respondents cannot be allowed to thwart public good for their personal gains. 6. It is also submitted that a scheme of Rs. 235.52 crores has been sanctioned for channelisation of the Swan (seasonal stream). Out of which a sum of Rs. 178 crores has already been spent on the project and in case the injunction order is not vacated, irreparable loss will be caused to the public property. 7. 6. It is also submitted that a scheme of Rs. 235.52 crores has been sanctioned for channelisation of the Swan (seasonal stream). Out of which a sum of Rs. 178 crores has already been spent on the project and in case the injunction order is not vacated, irreparable loss will be caused to the public property. 7. It is undisputed as urged by the learned Additional Advocate General that in cases involving developmental schemes for public benefit, Court should not lightly interfere in the development works and injunctions are an exception. But at the same time, what I find from the judgment of the two Courts below is that there are no details of the completion of work of the project detailed in the order. What was required to be considered by both the Courts below is the fact that the development work could not be hindered but at the same time, the State does not have a license to interfere in the property of a citizen. If the property of the respondent was causing a hindrance to further development work etc. surely nothing prevented the State from acquiring his land in accordance with law. 8. These petitions are disposed of with these observations and further direction that the suits of the plaintiffs shall be disposed of in expeditious manner and on day-to-day basis if possible considering that it is the development work of the State which is involved. The learned trial Court will ensure that no un-necessary adjournments are granted. Both these petitions are disposed of. This order does not pronounce on the finality of the rights of the parties and is confined solely to these proceedings.