Supreme Court Upholds Electricity Project, Vacates Status Quo in Land Dispute: State of Jharkhand vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 03 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 1

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a High Court order a status quo on construction of an electricity sub-station when the plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case of title or possession over the disputed land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal. The core issue revolved around a land dispute where the Jharkhand State Electricity Board was constructing an electricity sub-station, and the respondents claimed ownership and sought a stay on the construction. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, overturned the High Court’s order for status quo, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case in seeking injunctions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Indu Malhotra.

Case Background

The dispute began when the respondents’ mother, Smt. Shyal Devi, claimed to have purchased 3.61 acres of land in 1958. She initiated a suit in 1992 against the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, alleging disturbance of her possession. The Additional Munsif ruled in her favor in 1999, confirming her possession since 1958. However, the Additional District Judge, in an appeal, upheld the possession but stated that Smt. Shyal Devi failed to prove her title, allowing the Corporation to file a suit for declaration of title and eviction. This decision was not challenged by Smt. Shyal Devi.

Later, the Deputy Commissioner sought a No-Objection Certificate from the Transport Commissioner for constructing an electricity sub-station on the land, which was granted. After Smt. Shyal Devi’s death, her sons, the respondents, filed a suit in 2015 seeking an injunction against the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, which was constructing the sub-station. The Civil Judge and the District Judge dismissed their application for temporary injunction, citing lack of specific description of the land and failure to establish a prima facie case. The High Court, however, ordered a status quo, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents initially filed a suit in 2015 seeking a permanent injunction against the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) dismissed their application for temporary injunction, citing their failure to describe the specific area in their possession and the lack of a prima facie case. The District Judge affirmed this decision, noting the respondents’ failure to produce relevant land records and the concealment of a prior writ petition.

Aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court, which allowed the petition and ordered the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the application for temporary injunction, given the findings in favor of the respondents’ mother in previous litigation. This order was challenged by the State of Jharkhand and the Electricity Board before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily refers to Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers the electricity board to undertake actions necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity. The section also provides for compensation to be paid to any person who suffers damage or inconvenience due to such actions.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). These rules require a party seeking an injunction to establish a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in their favor, and the likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

The Court also discussed the scope of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which deal with the High Court’s power to issue writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Jharkhand and the Electricity Board):

• The writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court was not maintainable as it challenged judicial orders passed by civil courts.
• The respondents did not have title to the disputed property. The Additional District Judge had held that the mother of the respondents had failed to prove her title, and this finding had attained finality.
• The State of Jharkhand was the owner of the suit property, as evidenced by revenue records in the name of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
• The Electricity Sub-station was constructed on land made available to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board by the Transport Department.
• The respondents failed to establish a prima facie case and failed to demarcate the area in their possession.
• The balance of convenience was in favor of the Electricity Board, given the public interest in providing electricity to over 1 lakh people.
• No irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents, as they could be compensated under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Arguments by the Respondents (Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.):

• The title to the disputed property vested in the respondents as the Additional Munsif had decided the issue of title in favor of their mother.
• The mere pendency of a second appeal by the Bihar State Transport Corporation would not entitle the Corporation to transfer the property to the Electricity Board.
• The Electricity Board failed to establish its title or possession over the disputed property.
• A person in settled possession, even if a trespasser, has the right to be protected against forcible eviction.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423: The Court discussed the law laid down in this case regarding the maintainability of a writ petition against the orders of the Civil Court. The Court noted that although the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226, it could have been under Article 227, and therefore, the court decided to examine the case on merits.
• Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 383: The respondents relied on this case to argue that a person in settled possession, even if a trespasser, has the right to be protected against forcible eviction.
• Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 769: The respondents relied on this case to argue that a person in settled possession, even if a trespasser, has the right to be protected against forcible eviction.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003: This section empowers the Electricity Board to undertake actions necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity, subject to the procedure under the Act. It also provides for compensation to be paid to any person who suffers damage or inconvenience due to such actions.
• Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): These rules govern the grant of temporary injunctions, requiring a party to establish a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable harm.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the High Court’s power to issue writs.
• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the High Court’s power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court discussed the law laid down in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423* regarding the maintainability of a writ petition against the orders of the Civil Court. The Court noted that although the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226, it could have been under Article 227, and therefore, the court decided to examine the case on merits.
• The Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the cases of Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 383* and Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 769*, as the respondents had failed to establish their possession over the disputed land.
• The Court relied on Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003* to emphasize the powers of the Electricity Board to undertake actions for the transmission of electricity and the provision for compensation.
• The Court considered Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)* to analyze the requirements for granting temporary injunctions, finding that the respondents had failed to meet these requirements.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The respondents’ failure to establish a prima facie case of title to the disputed property.
• The respondents’ failure to establish their possession over the land where the electricity sub-station was being constructed.
• The overriding public interest in providing electricity to a large population.
• The availability of compensation under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in case the respondents established their title and possession.
• The fact that the electricity sub-station was almost complete and ready to be energized.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments of both sides, the findings of the lower courts, and the relevant legal provisions. It rejected the High Court’s view that the respondents had a prima facie case, emphasizing that the respondents had failed to establish their title or possession over the disputed land. The Court also considered the public interest in providing electricity and concluded that the balance of convenience favored the Electricity Board. The Court also noted that the respondents could be compensated if they established their title and possession in the future.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the final outcome.

The Court stated, “The Additional District Judge in the earlier round of litigation, in Title Appeal No. 20/1999 vide Judgment dated 29.08. 2005 had categorically held that late Smt. Shyal Devi, 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 has admittedly not been challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The said finding has attained finality.”

The Court further stated, “Furthermore, the Plaintiffs /Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed to establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed on their land. The 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 Court also observed, “The Electricity Sub-station is complete in all respects and ready to be energised, as per the documentary evidence placed before the Court. The overriding public interest of providing electricity to the local populace would far outweigh the alleged interest of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.”

Key Takeaways

• A party seeking an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in their favor, and the likelihood of irreparable harm.
• Public interest considerations can outweigh private interests in cases involving essential infrastructure projects.
• Failure to specifically describe the disputed property can be fatal to a claim for an injunction.
• A finding of fact in a previous litigation, if not challenged, attains finality and is binding on the parties.
• The Electricity Board has the power to undertake actions necessary for the transmission or supply of electricity, subject to the procedure under the Electricity Act, 2003.
• Compensation is an adequate remedy for any damage or inconvenience caused by the construction of electricity infrastructure.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than setting aside the High Court’s order for status quo and restoring the orders of the Civil Judge and the District Judge.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a party seeking an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience must be in their favor. The case also clarifies that public interest considerations can outweigh private interests, especially in cases involving essential infrastructure projects. This judgment reinforces the established principles of granting interim injunctions and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and set aside the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, which had ordered the parties to maintain status quo. The Court held that the respondents had failed to establish a prima facie case of title or possession over the disputed land and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Electricity Board, given the public interest in providing electricity. The Court emphasized that the respondents could be compensated under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if they established their title and possession in the future. The Supreme Court restored the orders of the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) and the District Judge, who had refused to grant a temporary injunction.