THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. on 3 January 2019

[2019] 1 S.C.R. 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 – Suitseeking permanent injunction along with the application underO.XXXIX rr.1 and 2 for temporary injunction to restrain ElectricityBoard from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of suit property– Trial court dismissed the application under O.XXXIX rr.1 and 2holding that plaintiff-respondents 1 to 3 failed to describe thespecific area of suit property which was in their alleged possessionover which the construction of electricity sub-station was beingcarried out by the Electricity Board – First appellate court dismissedthe appeal – High Court allowed the writ petition and directed theparties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land – It heldthat the findings of the courts below with respect to there being noprima facie case in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was erroneous inview of finding in their favour in the previous round of litigation –On balance of convenience, the High Court directed that in caseappellant completes the construction of the Electricity sub-station,respondent nos.1 to 3 would be under a compulsion to acceptcompensation even if the title suit was decreed in their favour – Inthese appeals, by interim orders the appellant-Board was grantedpermission to draw the supply lines – During pendency ofproceedings, the Electricity sub-station was fully constructed – Held:The High Court granted an order of status quo with respect to theconstruction of the Electricity Sub-station even though respondentNos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce any documentary evidencewhatsoever to establish their title to the suit property – It wascategorically held in the earlier round of litigation that the motherof respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in title, had failed toestablish her title to the suit property – The said finding wasadmittedly not challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had attainedfinality – In this view of the matter, the respondents failed to make

25

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Aout a prima facie case, which would have justified the grant of aninterim injunction – Furthermore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failedto establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being constructedon their land – Respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specificarea which was in their alleged possession over which the ElectricitySub-station was being constructed – The balance of convenienceBwas entirely in favour of the appellant since the entire ElectricitySub-station was fully constructed, and was at the stage of beingenergised for supply of electricity – It is estimated to provideelectricity to approximately 1 lakh people – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3have failed to produce any evidence of their possession over theCvacant land, no undue hardship or prejudice would be caused tothem, in the event the appellant is permitted to proceed with theenergisation of the Electricity sub-station – In the event thatrespondents No. 1 to 3 are able to establish their title and possessionto any part of the property utilised for the Electricity Sub-station, they would be entitled to compensation for any damage, detrimentDor inconvenience caused, in accordance with s.67(3) of theElectricity Act, 2003, and/or any other law for the time being inforce – The overriding public interest of providing electricity to thelocal populace would far outweigh the alleged interest ofRespondent nos.1 to 3 – The impugned Judgment ordering theEmaintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property till thefinal disposal of the title suit is vacated – The findings given in thisjudgment are prima facie in nature given at the interim stage, andwill not influence the trial of the case – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.67(3)– Temporary Injunction – Compensation.

FAllowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

FAllowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The Single Judge granted an order of status quowith respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-station eventhough the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produceany documentary evidence whatsoever to establish their title toGthe suit property. The Additional District Judge in the earlierround of litigation had categorically held that the mother ofRespondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in title, had failed toestablish her title to the suit property. The said finding hasadmittedly not been challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Thesaid finding has attained finality. In this view of the matter, theHRespondents failed to make out a prima facie case, which would have justified the grant of an interim injunction. Furthermore,the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed to establish thatthe Electricity Sub-station was being constructed on their land.The Respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific areawhich was in their alleged possession over which the ElectricitySub-station was being constructed. [Paras 6.3, 6.4][37-C-F]

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to produce anyevidence of their possession over the vacant land, no unduehardship or prejudice would be caused to them, in the event theappellant is permitted to proceed with the energisation of theElectricity sub-station. In the event that Respondents No. 1 to 3are able to establish their title and possession to any part of theproperty utilised for the Electricity Sub-station, they would beentitled to compensation for any damage, detriment orinconvenience caused, in accordance with S. 67(3) of theElectricity Act, 2003, and/or any other law for the time being inforce. The Electricity Sub-station is complete in all respects andready to be energised, as per the documentary evidence placedbefore the Court. The overriding public interest of providingelectricity to the local populace would far outweigh the allegedinterest of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the said facts andcircumstances, the decision of the Civil Judge and the DistrictJudge in refusing to grant a Temporary Injunction in Title Suitwas justified, and is restored. The impugned Judgment orderingthe maintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit propertytill the final disposal of the Title Suit stands vacated. [Paras 6.6,6.7, 6.8 and 7][38-B-F]

Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC423 : [2015] 3 SCR 197; Meghmala & Ors. v. G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 : [2010]10 SCR 47; Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC769 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850 – referred to Case Law Reference[2015] 3 SCR 197[2010] 10 SCR 47[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850

referred toPara 4.1referred toPara 4.6referred toPara 4.6

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21 of2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2015 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2081 of 2015.

WITH

B

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2019.

Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka,Akshay Amritanshu, Aditya Singhal, Ashwarya Sinha, Advs. for theAppellant.

CSatpal Singh, M. B. Singh, V. S. Dubey, Pankaj Kr., AshwaryaSinha, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.D1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26645and 24684 of 2015 which have been filed to challenge the Judgmentdated May 19, 2015 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (C)No. 2081 of 2015. The Writ Petition had been filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to challenge the Order dated 07.04.2015 refusing to grantInterim Relief in an Application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2Eof the CPC in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated 21.04.2015 passedby the District Court.

2. A brief factual background of this case is set out herein below:

2. A brief factual background of this case is set out herein below:

2.1. According to the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3Fherein, their mother – late Smt. Shyal Devi had purchasedabout 3.61 acres of land[1] (“suit property”) from Raju Gourand Shatrughan Gour by way of two unregistered Sale Deedsdated 30.04.1958. According to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, late 1 Recorded in R.S. Khatian of 1937 under Khata No. 19 (Plot Nos. 3737, 3733, 3710,G3741, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755), Khata No. 21 (Plot No. 3742), KhataNo. 33 [Plot Nos. 3718, New Plot Nos. 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, a portion of 2650,2626(p), 2656(p), 2653(p), 2655(p) Thana No. 1198 and 1151]. The above-describedland was stated to be situated in mouza agricultural and bara, P.S. Sidhgora, DistrictSinghbhum East, and was incorporated in new Khatian No. 24 in the finally publishedrecord of rights of Jamshedpur Notified Area (1995-1996).H

STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Smt. Shyal Devi had raised a structure over a part of the suitproperty, and was cultivating the rest of it. The said land wassituated adjacent to the land belonging to the Bihar State RoadTransport Corporation.

2.2. In 1992, Smt. Shyal Devi filed Title Suit No. 153/1992 beforethe Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur alleging that the officials ofthe Bihar State Road Transport Corporation were disturbingher possession of the suit property since 1990.

The Additional Munsif vide Judgment and Decree dated18/27.02.1999 decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff – lateSmt. Shyal Devi, and confirmed her possession since 1958.The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was restrainedfrom interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt. ShyalDevi. The relevant extract of the findings of the AdditionalMunsif contained in the Judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

“11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I found thatplaintiff [Smt. Shyal Devi] has proved her possession ofthe suit land since 1958 and as such these issues aredecided in favour of the plaintiff and against thedefendant.”

2.3. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation filed Title AppealNo. 20/1999 to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated18/27.02.1999 before the Additional District Judge, EastSinghbhum, Jamshedpur.

The Title Appeal No. 20/1999 was dismissed by theAdditional District Judge on the ground of possession. However,the District Judge held that the Plaintiff had failed to establishher title, and it would be open for the Bihar State Road TransportCorporation to file a suit against late Smt. Shyal Devi fordeclaration of title over the land, and to seek her eviction.

2.4. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation preferred SecondAppeal No. 17509/2005 against the Judgment dated 29.08.2005passed by the Additional District Judge before the JharkhandHigh Court, which is currently pending adjudication.

2.5. It is relevant to mention that late Smt. Shyal Devi did notchallenge the finding that she had failed to establish her title A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abefore the High Court. Hence, the finding of the AdditionalDistrict Judge attained finality.

2.6. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the DeputyCommissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur sought aNo-Objection Certificate vide letter dated 13.10.2012 fromBthe Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand for the constructionof an Electricity Sub-station on the land comprised in KhataNo. 24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656, and 2657) in Jamshedpur,recorded in the name of the Bihar State Road TransportCorporation.

The Transport Commissioner vide letter dated04.03.2015 conveyed that it had no objection for transfer ofthe said land for the construction of an Electricity Sub-stationthereupon.

C

2.7. During the pendency of proceedings before the High Court,DSmt. Shyal Devi expired 24.02.2014 leaving behind three sonsi.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as her legal representatives andsuccessors.

2.8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 45/2015 beforethe Civil Judge (Junior Division – I), Jamshedpur seekingEpermanent injunction to restrain the Appellant –The GeneralManager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No.24684 of 2015] from interfering with their alleged possessionof the suit property, along with an Application for TemporaryInjunction.

2.9. The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) vide Order datedF07.04.2015 dismissed the Application for Temporary Injunctionfiled by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It was held that RespondentNos. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific area/portion of thesuit property which was in their alleged possession, over whichthe construction of the Electricity Sub-station was being carriedGout by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) concluded thatRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to make out a prima faciecase, and held that no irreparable loss would be caused, whichcould not be compensated in terms of money.

H

2.10. Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.04.2015, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of theCPC before the District Judge III-cum-MACT, East Singhbhum,Jamshedpur.

The Appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 21.04.2015whereby the District Judge affirmed the Order passed by theCivil Judge (Junior Division – I) dated 07.04.2015.

It was held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed todemarcate the suit property in the Plaint to show that theconstruction activity was taking place on their land. ThePlaintiffs had not placed on record the old Khatian, or the newKhatian.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were making a claim ofpossession with respect to 3.61 acres of land recorded in R.S.Khatian of 1937 under Khata No. 19 (Plot Nos. 3737, 3733,3710, 3741, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755), KhataNo. 21 (Plot No. 3742), Khata No. 33 [Plot Nos. 3718, NewPlot Nos. 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, a portion of 2650, 2626(p),2656(p), 2653(p), 2655(p) Thana No. 1198 and 1151]. Thesaid land stated to be situated in Mouza Baridih and Bara, P.S.Sidhgora, District Singhbhum East, in new Khatian No. 24 inthe finally published record of rights of Jamshedpur NotifiedArea (1995-1996).

On the other hand, the Counsel for the State ElectricityBoard stated that 1.47 acres of land recorded as Khata No.24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656 and 2657) was registered inthe name of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, asAnabad land. The Board placed reliance on trace map, and aletter dated March 4, 2015 addressed by the TransportCommissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand to the Deputy Commissioner,East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur making the land available for theJharkhand State Electricity Board.

The District Court held that the Plaintiffs had producedno rent receipts, or municipal receipts to corroborate their pleaof alleged possession over the disputed suit property.

The District Court found that Respondent No. 3 –Narendra Kumar Srivastava had concealed a material fact that A

BC

DE

F

G

H

Ahe had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking aninjunction from construction of a boundary wall and digging onthe suit property by the Appellant – The General Manager,Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of2015]. The Writ Petition came to be withdrawn on 24.04.2015.The suppression of a material fact warranted the drawing ofBan adverse inference against the Respondents. The grant ofinjunction being a discretionary relief, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3were found to not be entitled to the same.

2.11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge, RespondentNos. 1 to 3 filed W.P. (C) No. 2081 of 2015 before theCJharkhand High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quashthe Order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (JuniorDivision – I) in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated21.04.2015 passed by the District Court in Misc. Appeal No.5/2015.

D

2.12. The Electricity Board filed a Counter Affidavit along withphotographs of the construction of the Electricity Sub-station.It was submitted that almost 90% of the construction work ofthe Electricity Sub-station had already been completed. It wasfurther stated that the grant of an injunction would seriouslyEaffect public interest, and the welfare scheme for providingelectricity to the local populace at subsidised rates.

2.13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide theimpugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 allowed W.P. (C) No.2081 of 2015 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and directed theFparties to maintain statusquo with respect to the suit property.It was clarified, that the Appellant – The General Manager,Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of2015] was, however, at liberty to raise construction on anyother land, except the disputed suit property.

The learned Single Judge held that the findings of thecourts below with respect to there being no prima facie casein favour of Respondents No. 1 to 3 was erroneous in view ofthe judicial findings in their favour in the previous round oflitigation in Title Suit No. 153/1992, and Title Appeal No. 20/1999.

G

The Single Judge held that the courts below dismissedthe Application for Temporary Injunction filed by RespondentNos 1 to 3 on the ground that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Plaintiffs)had failed to specifically describe the disputed suit property,even though the description of the disputed suit property wasnot objected by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

On balance of convenience, the Single Judge held thatin case the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand StateElectricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] completesthe construction of the Electricity Sub-station, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would be under a compulsion to accept compensation,even if the Title Suit No. 45/2015 was decreed in their favour.

The Single Judge held that the photographs producedby the Appellant Electricity Board only indicated the raising ofelectricity poles, and no other construction had been raised onthe disputed Suit Land.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 passedby the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the State of Jharkhandfiled the present S.L.P. (C) No. 26645 of 2015, and the General Manager,Jharkhand State Electricity Board filed S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015.

3.1. This Court vide Interim Order dated 14.12.2015, granted libertyto the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand StateElectricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] to drawthe supply lines.

3.2. The Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand StateElectricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] in I.A.Nos. 91857 & 91859/2018, sought permission to energise theElectricity Sub-station, after depositing the costs of the suitproperty as assessed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur beforethe Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur.

3.3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Electricity Sub-station has been fully constructed having a capacity of 33/11K.V. As per the Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division,Jamshedpur approximately 1 lakh people residing in the nearbyareas would be benefitted by the supply of electricity, and itwould result in reduction of loss of load on other ElectricitySub-stations situated in the vicinity.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. The Appellants and Respondent No. 4 in both the Special LeavePetitions were represented by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate,while Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were represented by Mr. Satpal Singh,Advocate.

4.1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants,Binter alia submitted that Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015, seekinga writ of certiorari, was not maintainable, as it was filed tochallenge judicial orders passed by civil courts. LearnedCounsel placed reliance on the decision of a three-judge benchin Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.[2].

C4.2. On merits, it was submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 didnot have title to the disputed suit property. The Counsel reliedon the findings in the Judgment dated 29.09.2005 passed inTitle Appeal No. 20/1999 wherein the Additional District Judgehad clearly held that the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 hadfailed to prove her title with respect to the disputed suit property.DThe said finding attained finality, since late Smt. Shyal Devi, orher legal heirs and successors i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 hadnot challenged the finding any further.

4.3. It was further submitted that the State of Jharkhand was theowner of the suit property, which was evidenced from theErevenue records of the suit property recorded in the name ofthe Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that TISCO Ltd.had transferred 16.529 acres of land to the Bihar State RoadTransport Corporation. The suit property was recorded in theFname of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation in therecent survey (khatiyal). The Electricity Sub-station has beenconstructed on 1.47 acres of land registered as Khata No. 24(Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656 and 2657) made available to theJharkhand State Electricity Board by the Transport Department,GRanchi, Jharkhand vide letter dated 04.03.2015.

4.4. Pursuant to the interim Order dated 14.12.2015, the ElectricitySub-station had been completely constructed, and would provideelectricity to over 1 lakh people residing in the vicinity.

2 (2015) 5 SCC 423.H

4.5. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erredin allowing W.P. (C) No. 2081 of 2015 since Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour.They had also failed to demarcate the area in their allegedpossession, in the Plaint, on which the electricity Sub-stationwas being constructed.

The balance of convenience was in favour of theAppellant-Electricity Board, in view of the over-riding publicinterest in providing electricity to over 1 lakh people. Further,no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to RespondentNos. 1 to 3 as they could always be adequately compensatedunder Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if found entitled.

4.6. On the other hand, Advocate Mr. Satpal Singh supported thefindings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

It was submitted that the title to the disputed suit propertyvested in Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 since the issue pertaining totitle was decided by the Additional Munsif in favour of themother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Judgment dated18.02.1999. Title Appeal No. 20/1999 filed by the Bihar StateRoad Transport Corporation against the Judgment of theAdditional Munsif was dismissed by the Additional DistrictJudge, vide Judgment dated 29.08.2005. Although, SecondAppeal No. 17509/2005 had been filed by the Bihar StateTransport Corporation against the Judgment dated 29.08.2005passed by the Additional District Judge, it was pending finaldetermination before the High Court.

The learned Advocate contended that the mere pendencyof the Second Appeal No. 17059/2005 would not entitle theBihar State Road Transport Corporation to transfer the disputedsuit property to the Appellant – General Manager, JharkhandState Electricity Board [in SLP (Civil) No. 24684 of 2015].

The Appellant–State Electricity Board failed to establishits title or possession over the disputed Suit property, since ithad not produced any material except the letter of the TransportCommissioner dated 04.03.2015 and a map.

ABC

DE

F

G

H

A

AThe learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Courtin Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.[3] andRame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead)by LRs & Anr.[4] to submit that a person who is in settledpossession, even in case he is a trespasser, has the right to beprotected against forcible eviction, and can be evicted onlyBafter following the procedure prescribed by law.

5. The limited issue which arises for consideration in the presentCivil Appeals is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court wasjustified in directing the parties to maintain status quo during thependency of the Title Suit No. 45/2015 before the Court of Civil JudgeC(Junior Division – I), Jamshedpur.

6. DISCUSSIONANDANALYSIS

We have heard the Counsel for both parties at length, perused thepleadings, and the written submissions filed in the present Civil Appeals.

D

6.1. With respect to the first submission of the learned counsel forthe Appellants that the Writ Petition filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Plaintiffs for a writ of certiorari to quash the Orderdated 07.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)and the Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District JudgeEwas not maintainable in view of the judgment of the three-judge bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.[5], therecannot be any dispute to the law laid down by this Court inRadhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (supra), but in thefacts of the present case, we do not propose to unsettle thejudgment of the High Court on the above ground due to twoFreasons, firstly, in the High Court, the Appellants, who wereRespondents in the Writ Petition,did not challenge themaintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, and secondly, had the Appellants raisedthe above objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition,Gthe course open for Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was toamend the cause title of the writ petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution, and such a Writ Petition under Article 227would have been clearly maintainable.

3 (2010) 8 SCC 383, paragraphs 46-48.

4 (2004) 1 SCC 769.

H 5 (2015) 5 SCC 423.

6.2. The Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the orderspassed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction underOrder XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well bemaintainable, and the opportunity to amend the cause title byRespondent Nos. 1 to 3 by raising any objection to that effecthaving been denied to them, we, instead of setting aside thejudgment of the High Court on the above ground, proceed toexamine the contentions on merits.

6.3. The Learned Single Judge granted an order of status quowith respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-stationeven though the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein hadfailed to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever toestablish their title to the suit property.

The Additional District Judge in the earlier round oflitigation, in Title Appeal No. 20/1999 vide Judgment dated29.08.2005 had categorically held that late Smt. Shyal Devi,the mother of Respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor intitle, had failed to establish her title to the suit property. Thesaid finding has admittedly not been challenged by RespondentNos. 1 to 3. The said finding has attained finality. In this viewof the matter, the Respondents failed to make out a primafacie case, which would have justified the grant of an interiminjunction.

6.4. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failedto establish that the Electricity Sub-station was beingconstructed on their land. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 failedto describe the specific area which was in their allegedpossession over which the Electricity Sub-station was beingconstructed.

6.5. The balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of theAppellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State ElectricityBoard [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] since the entireElectricity Sub-station has been fully constructed, and is nowat the stage of being energised for supply of electricity interalia to four feeders viz. Bhuiyadih (BHU), Baridih (BRD),Vidyapatinagar (VPN). It is estimated to provide electricity toapproximately 1 lakh people. The Board is statutorilyempowered under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 toundertake all actions necessary for transmission or supply of A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Aelectricity, subject to the procedure under the Electricity Act,2003.

6.6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to produce any evidenceof their possession over the vacant land, no undue hardship orprejudice would be caused to them, in the event the AppellantB– The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [inS.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] is permitted to proceed with theenergisation of the Electricity sub-station.

6.7. In the event that Respondents No. 1 to 3 are able to establishtheir title and possession to any part of the property utilised forCthe Electricity Sub-station, they would be entitled tocompensation for any damage, detriment or inconveniencecaused, in accordance with S. 67(3) of the Electricity Act,2003, and/or any other law for the time being in force.

6.8. The Electricity Sub-station is complete in all respects andDready to be energised, as per the documentary evidence placedbefore the Court. The overriding public interest of providingelectricity to the local populace would far outweigh the allegedinterest of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, thedecision of the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) and the DistrictEJudge in refusing to grant a Temporary Injunction in Title SuitNo. 45/2015, was justified, and is restored.

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Appeals are allowed,and the impugned Judgment dated May 19, 2005 passed by the LearnedSingle Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ Petition No. 2081 ofF2015 is hereby set aside. The impugned Judgment ordering themaintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property till the finaldisposal of the Title Suit No. 45/2015 stands vacated.

The findings given in this judgment are prima facie in naturegiven at the interim stage, and will not influence the trial of the case.G

The pending applications be disposed of accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

Devika GujralH

Appeals allowed.