LexSHRIDEVI AND ANR. versus MURALIDHAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ _,. _,_ SHRIDEVI AND ANR. A v. MURALIDHAR AND ANR. OCTOBER 12, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Land Acquisition: c Acquisition of portion of land in Survey No. I 51 I by Government- Filing of suit by owner of Site No.434 & 435 in the Survey against appellant No.I and others, owners of Site Nos. 432 and 433 alleging· that lands in question not acquired by Government-Filing of application for injunction in the Suit for not allowing appellant No. I D to raise construction and not to use bore well in the site for any purpose-Rejected by trial Court-Appeal allowed by High Court holding that a triable case has been made out-On appeal, Held: Prima fade, it appears that the land in question not acquired by the Government-While considering an application for injunction, E requirement of existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience of parties, irreparable injuries to other party have to be considered by the Court-However, grant of relief and extent thereof will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case-On facts and in the circumstances of the case, High Court rightly held that arguable case F has been made out-Trial Court failed to consider the relevant question as to whether the authority had acquired the site in question or not- Thereby, it misdirected itself-Omission on the part of trial Court to consider respective cases ofparties, therefore, deserve inte1ference by the appellate Court-Conduct of appellant No. I to complete the G construction to make situation irretrievable must be deprecated-Jn such circumstances, in(erest of justice would be sub served if the order dated 21.6.2007 of Division Bench of this Court, recalling the interim 375 H I 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. '~. A . order permitting construction of the site, is made absolute-Directed 1-- accordingly. Engaging common advocates by the Appellant and Respondent- Implication of-Discussed-Practice and Procedure. B Respondent No. 1 is said to be in possession of site Nos. 434 and 435 appurtenantto Survey No.15/1 situate in a Village in the Bangalore ~ district. Appellant No.1 purchased Site Nos . .433 and 432 in the same Survey by registered sale deeds. Allegedly, her name was also mutated "f c in the record of rights. A building plan was submitted by her, which was sanctioned by the authority concerned for construction of a residential house on the said plots. Respondent No.1 having apprehended that Appellant No. 1 would raise constructions on Site No. 433, he filed a suit against Appellant Nos.1 and 2, Respondent No. 2 and the Authority D in the Civil Court inter alia praying for directions to the respondents not to use the Borewell put up in site No. 433 for any purpose for all time to come; and also not to put up any compound wall construction in >-. site No. 433 and also not to change the nature of site in any manner. The Authority sought to acquire 2 Acres 20 Gunthas ofland of Survey E No.15/lby a notification dated 28.10.1971. The land in question was said to be belonging to two persons, namely, V' and 'B', and accordingly an award was made in their favour. In the said award again, the northern boundary was shown as part of Survey No.15/1. Later, respondent No.1 filed an application for grant of temporary injunction in the said suit F The Trial Court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction in the said suit. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 ftled an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, however, opining that a triable case i- has been made out by respondent No.1, directed maintenance of status quo. Hence the Special Leave Petition. While admitting SLP, this Court G vide its order dated 8.3.2007, stayed the impugned order that any construction raised on the site in question will be subject to the result of the appeal and at the risk and cost of the petitioners. Later, a Vacation Bench of this Court by an order dated 21.06.2007 directed maintenance .. l.\ of status quo and the orde~ dated 8.03.2007 permitting construction was recalled. I H \ \ f SHRIDEVI v. MURALIDHAR 377 ,._ Appellants contended that the High Court committed a serious A error in reversing a well-considered judgment of the Trial Court; th~t the respondents, even as far back in 1992, having not claimed any ownership in respect of Site No. 433, were not entitled to an order of injunction; that the Trial Court had found as of fact that the pl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.