As per case facts, plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Punjab, challenging a revised layout plan for an industrial area that reduced road width and ... eliminated green belts. The original 1951 plan included a 120-foot road and green belts, which plaintiffs claimed they had easementary rights over for 20 years. The State argued it had the right to modify the plan, which was done in 1979 to accommodate essential services. The lower courts dismissed the suit, noting the State's competence to revise the plan and the plaintiffs' failure to challenge the revised plan through a declaration. The appeal challenged these concurrent findings. The question arose whether the plaintiffs had an enforceable right over the greenbelt/road, if an injunction could be sought without challenging the revised layout plan, and if the lower courts erred in their dismissal. Finally, the High Court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the lower courts' dismissal. It held that plaintiffs had no enforceable rights, the suit for injunction was not maintainable without a declaration, the easementary claim was unsustainable (requiring 30 years vs. claimed 20), and modifying the layout plan was a policy decision beyond judicial review.