2019 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26645 of 2015] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015]
Decided On : 03-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ of certiorari challenging order passed by the District Judge is not maintainable.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of certiorari challenging order passed by the District Judge – Not maintainable – However, not interfered in view of the appellant not raising question of maintainability before High Court – Petitioners were entitled to amend the petition on such objection making the writ petition maintainable. (Para 6)

       (2015) 5 SCC 423 – Relied upon

       (b) Property law – Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failing to produce any documentary evidence to establish their title to the suit property – Such judgment attaining finality – Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failing to establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed on their land – Entire Electricity Sub-station fully constructed, and ready to be energized – Electricity Board permitted to energise the Electricity sub-station – Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – Directed to pay compensation to Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 provided they establish their title over any part of suit property. (Para 6)

       (2010) 8 SCC 383 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Mother of the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein – late Smt. Shyal Devi had purchased about 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), Khata No. 21 (Plot No. 3742), Khata No. 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-described land was incorporated in new Khatian No. 24 in the finally published record of rights of Jamshedpur Notified Area (1995-1996).] from Raju Gour and Shatrughan Gour by way of two unregistered Sale Deeds dated 30.04.1958. Late Smt. Shyal Devi had raised a structure over a part of the suit property, and was cultivating the rest of it. The said land was situated adjacent to the land belonging to the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.

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

       The Additional Munsif decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff – late Smt. Shyal Devi, and confirmed her possession since 1958. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt. Shyal Devi.

       The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation filed Title Appeal No. 20/1999 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on the ground of possession. However, the District Judge held that the Plaintiff had failed to establish her title, which has attained finality, and it would be open for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to file a suit against late Smt. Shyal Devi for declaration of title over the land, and to seek her eviction.

       Bihar State Road Transport Corporation preferred Second Appeal No. 17509/2005 against the Judgment dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge before the Jharkhand High Court, which is currently pending adjudication.

       During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur sought a No-Objection Certificate vide letter dated 13.10.2012 from the Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand for the construction of an Electricity Sub-station on the land comprised in Khata No. 24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656, and 2657) in Jamshedpur, recorded in the name of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation which was granted.

       Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 45/2015 seeking permanent injunction to restrain the Appellant –The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] from interfering with their alleged possession of the suit property, along with an Application for Temporary Injunction.

       The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) dismissed the Application for Temporary Injunction filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

       Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the CPC which ws dismissed.

       The District Court held that the Plaintiffs had produced no rent receipts, or municipal receipts to corroborate their plea of alleged possession over the disputed suit property.

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

       Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 3 – Narendra Kumar Srivastava seeking an injunction from construction of a boundary wall and digging on the suit property by the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand. The Respondents were found to not be entitled to grant of injunction.

       Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed W.P. (C) No. 2081 of 2015 before the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District Court in Misc. Appeal No. 5/2015.

       The Single Judge held that in case the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] 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 No. 45/2015 was decreed in their favour.

       Finding of the Court:

       Balance of convenience lies in favour of appellant Board.

       Result: Appeals allowed.