THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 03-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
25
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
v.
SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2019)
JANUARY 03, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 – Suit
seeking permanent injunction along with the application under
O.XXXIX rr.1 and 2 for temporary injunction to restrain Electricity
Board from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of suit property
– Trial court dismissed the application under O.XXXIX rr.1 and 2
holding that plaintiff-respondents 1 to 3 failed to describe the
specific area of suit property which was in their alleged possession
over which the construction of electricity sub-station was being
carried out by the Electricity Board – First appellate court dismissed
the appeal – High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the
parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land – It held
that the findings of the courts below with respect to there being no
prima facie case in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was erroneous in
view of finding in their favour in the previous round of litigation –
On balance of convenience, the High Court directed that in case
appellant completes the construction of the Electricity sub-station,
respondent nos.1 to 3 would be under a compulsion to accept
compensation even if the title suit was decreed in their favour – In
these appeals, by interim orders the appellant-Board was granted
permission to draw the supply lines – During pendency of
proceedings, the Electricity sub-station was fully constructed – Held:
The High Court granted an order of status quo with respect to the
construction of the Electricity Sub-station even though respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce any documentary evidence
whatsoever to establish their title to the suit property – It was
categorically held in the earlier round of litigation that the mother
of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in title, had failed to
establish her title to the suit property – The said finding was
admittedly not challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had attained
finality – In this view of the matter, the respondents failed to make
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 25
25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
out a prima facie case, which would have justified the grant of an
interim injunction – Furthermore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed
to establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed
on their land – Respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific
area which was in their alleged possession over which the Electricity
Sub-station was being constructed – The balance of convenience
was entirely in favour of the appellant since the entire Electricity
Sub-station was fully constructed, and was at the stage of being
energised for supply of electricity – It is estimated to provide
electricity to approximately 1 lakh people – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
have failed to produce any evidence of their possession over the
vacant land, no undue hardship or prejudice would be caused to
them, in the event the appellant  is permitted to proceed with the
energisation of the Electricity sub-station – In the event that
respondents No. 1 to 3 are able to establish their title and possession
to any part of the property utilised for the Electricity Sub-station,
they would be entitled to compensation for any damage, detriment
or inconvenience caused, in accordance with s.67(3) of the
Electricity Act, 2003, and/or any other law for the time being in
force – The overriding public interest of providing electricity to the
local populace would far outweigh the alleged interest of
Respondent nos.1 to 3 – The impugned Judgment ordering the
maintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property till the
final disposal of the title suit is vacated – The findings given in this
judgment are prima facie in nature given at the interim stage, and
will not influence the trial of the case – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.67(3)
– Temporary Injunction – Compensation.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.   The Single Judge granted an order of status quo
with respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-station even
though the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce
any documentary evidence whatsoever to establish their title to
the suit property. The Additional District Judge in the earlier
round of litigation had categorically held that the mother of
Respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in title, had failed to
e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.