1  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  21 OF 2019  

[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26645 of 2015]  

The State of Jharkhand                …Appellant  

Versus  

Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.         …Respondents  

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2019  [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015]  

J U D G M E N T  

INDU MALHOTRA, J.  

Leave granted.  

1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26645  

and 24684 of 2015 which have been filed to challenge the  

Judgment dated May 19, 2015 passed by the Jharkhand

2  

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 grant  

Interim Relief in an Application filed under Order XXXIX  

Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and  

Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District Court.  

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

below:  

2.1. According to the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1  

to 3 herein, their mother – late Smt. Shyal Devi had  

purchased about 3.61 acres of land1 (“suit property”)  

from Raju Gour and Shatrughan Gour by way of two  

unregistered Sale Deeds dated 30.04.1958. According  

to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 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  

                                                                 1 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 stated to be  

situated in mouza agricultural and bara, P.S. Sidhgora, District  Singhbhum East, and was incorporated in new Khatian No. 24 in the  

finally published record of rights of Jamshedpur Notified Area (1995-

1996).

3  

situated adjacent to the land belonging to the Bihar  

State Road Transport Corporation.  

2.2. 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 vide Judgment and  

Decree dated 18/27.02.1999 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 relevant extract of the findings of the  

Additional Munsif contained in the Judgment is  

reproduced hereinbelow:  

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

4  

2.3. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation filed  

Title Appeal No. 20/1999 to challenge the Judgment  

and Decree dated 18/27.02.1999 before the  

Additional District Judge, East Singhbhum,  

Jamshedpur.  

The Title Appeal No. 20/1999 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, 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.  

2.4. The 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.  

2.5. It is relevant to mention that late Smt. Shyal Devi did  

not challenge the finding that she had failed to

5  

establish her title before the High Court. Hence, the  

finding of the Additional District Judge attained  

finality.  

2.6. 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.  

The Transport Commissioner vide letter dated  

04.03.2015 conveyed that it had no objection for  

transfer of the said land for the construction of an  

Electricity Sub-station thereupon.  

2.7. During the pendency of proceedings before the High  

Court, Smt. Shyal Devi expired 24.02.2014 leaving  

behind three sons i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as her  

legal representatives and successors.

6  

2.8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 45/2015  

before the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I),  

Jamshedpur 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.   

2.9. The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) vide Order dated  

07.04.2015 dismissed the Application for Temporary  

Injunction filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It was  

held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to describe  

the specific area/portion of the suit property which  

was in their alleged possession, over which the  

construction of the Electricity Sub-station was being  

carried out by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.  

The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I)  

concluded that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to  

make out a prima facie case, and held that no  

irreparable loss would be caused, which could not be  

compensated in terms of money.

7  

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 the CPC before the District Judge  

III-cum-MACT, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.  

The Appeal was dismissed vide Order dated  

21.04.2015 whereby the District Judge affirmed the  

Order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I)  

dated 07.04.2015.  

It was held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had  

failed to demarcate the suit property in the Plaint to  

show that the construction activity was taking place  

on their land. The Plaintiffs had not placed on record  

the old Khatian, or the new Khatian.  

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were making a claim  

of possession 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), 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),

8  

2656(p), 2653(p), 2655(p) Thana No. 1198 and  

1151].  The said land stated to be situated in Mouza   

Baridih and Bara, P.S. Sidhgora, District Singhbhum  

East, in new Khatian No. 24 in the finally published  

record of rights of Jamshedpur Notified Area (1995-

1996).  

On the other hand, the Counsel for the State  

Electricity Board stated that 1.47 acres of land  

recorded as Khata No. 24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652,  

2656 and 2657) was registered in the name of the  

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, as Anabad  

land. The Board placed reliance on trace map, and a  

letter dated March 4, 2015 addressed by the  

Transport Commissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand to the  

Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum,  

Jamshedpur making the land available for the  

Jharkhand State Electricity Board.  

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.

9  

The District Court found that Respondent No.  

3 – Narendra Kumar Srivastava had concealed a  

material fact that he had filed a Writ Petition before  

the High Court seeking an injunction from  

construction of a boundary wall and digging on the  

suit property by the Appellant – The General  

Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in  

S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015]. The Writ Petition came  

to be withdrawn on 24.04.2015. The suppression of  

a material fact warranted the drawing of an adverse  

inference against the Respondents. The grant of  

injunction being a discretionary relief, Respondent  

Nos. 1 to 3 were found to not be entitled to the same.  

2.11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge,  

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed W.P. (C) No. 2081 of  

2015 before the Jharkhand 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.

10  

2.12. The Electricity Board filed a Counter Affidavit along  

with photographs of the construction of the Electricity  

Sub-station. It was submitted that almost 90% of the  

construction work of the Electricity Sub-station had  

already been completed. It was further stated that the  

grant of an injunction would seriously affect public  

interest, and the welfare scheme for providing  

electricity to the local populace at subsidised rates.  

2.13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the  

impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 allowed W.P.  

(C) No. 2081 of 2015 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,  

and directed the parties to maintain status quo 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 of 2015]  

was, however, at liberty to raise construction on any  

other land, except the disputed suit property.  

The learned Single Judge held that the  

findings of the courts below with respect to there  

being no prima facie case in favour of Respondents  

No. 1 to 3 was erroneous in view of the judicial

11  

findings in their favour in the previous round of  

litigation in Title Suit No. 153/1992, and Title  

Appeal No. 20/1999.  

The Single Judge held that the courts below  

dismissed the Application for Temporary Injunction  

filed by Respondent Nos 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  

was not objected by the Jharkhand State Electricity  

Board.  

On balance of convenience, 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.

12  

The Single Judge held that the photographs  

produced by the Appellant Electricity Board only  

indicated the raising of electricity poles, and no other  

construction had been raised on the disputed Suit  

Land.  

3. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015  

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the  

State of Jharkhand filed 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 liberty to the Appellant – The General  

Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P.  

(C) No. 24684 of 2015] to draw the supply lines.  

3.2. The Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand  

State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of  

2015] in I.A. Nos. 91857 & 91859/2018, sought  

permission to energise the Electricity Sub-station,  

after depositing the costs of the suit property as

13  

assessed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur before the  

Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur.  

3.3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the  

Electricity Sub-station has been fully constructed  

having a capacity of 33/11 K.V. As per the Executive  

Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Jamshedpur  

approximately 1 lakh people residing in the nearby  

areas would be benefitted by the supply of electricity,  

and it would result in reduction of loss of load on  

other Electricity Sub-stations situated in the vicinity.  

4. The Appellants and Respondent No. 4 in both the Special  

Leave Petitions 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, inter alia submitted that Writ Petition No.  

2081 of 2015, seeking a writ of certiorari, was not  

maintainable, as it was filed to challenge judicial  

orders passed by civil courts. Learned Counsel placed

14  

reliance on the decision of a three-judge bench in  

Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.2.  

4.2. On merits, it was submitted that Respondent Nos. 1  

to 3 did not have title to the disputed suit property.  

The Counsel relied on the findings in the Judgment  

dated 29.09.2005 passed in Title Appeal No. 20/1999  

wherein the Additional District Judge had clearly held  

that the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed  

to prove her title with respect to the disputed suit  

property. The said finding attained finality, since late  

Smt. Shyal Devi, or her legal heirs and successors i.e.  

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had not challenged the  

finding any further.  

4.3. It was further submitted that the State of Jharkhand  

was the owner of the suit property, which was  

evidenced from the revenue records of the suit  

property recorded in the name of the Bihar State  

Road Transport Corporation.  

                                                                 2 (2015) 5 SCC 423.

15  

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that  

TISCO Ltd. had transferred 16.529 acres of land to  

the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The  

suit property was recorded in the name of the Bihar  

State Road Transport Corporation in the recent  

survey (khatiyal ). The Electricity Sub-station has  

been constructed on 1.47 acres of land registered as  

Khata No. 24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656 and 2657)   

made available to the Jharkhand State Electricity  

Board by the Transport Department, Ranchi,  

Jharkhand vide letter dated 04.03.2015.  

4.4. Pursuant to the interim Order dated 14.12.2015, the  

Electricity Sub-station had been completely  

constructed, and would provide electricity to over 1  

lakh people residing in the vicinity.  

4.5. It was further submitted that the learned Single  

Judge erred in 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 alleged possession, in

16  

the Plaint, on which the electricity Sub-station was  

being constructed.  

The balance of convenience was in favour of  

the Appellant-Electricity Board, in view of the over-

riding public interest in providing electricity to over 1  

lakh people. Further, no irreparable loss or injury  

would be caused to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as they  

could always be adequately compensated under  

Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if found  

entitled.  

4.6. On the other hand, Advocate Mr. Satpal Singh  

supported the findings of the learned Single Judge of  

the High Court.  

It was submitted that the title to the disputed  

suit property vested in Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 since  

the issue pertaining to title was decided by the  

Additional Munsif in favour of the mother of  

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Judgment dated  

18.02.1999. Title Appeal No. 20/1999 filed by the  

Bihar State Road Transport Corporation against the

17  

Judgment of the Additional Munsif was dismissed by  

the Additional District Judge, vide Judgment dated  

29.08.2005. Although, Second Appeal No.  

17509/2005 had been filed by the Bihar State  

Transport Corporation against the Judgment dated  

29.08.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge,  

it was pending final determination before the High  

Court.  

The learned Advocate contended that the  

mere pendency of the Second Appeal No.  

17059/2005 would not entitle the Bihar State Road  

Transport Corporation to transfer the disputed suit  

property to the Appellant – General Manager,  

Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in SLP (Civil) No.  

24684 of 2015].  

The Appellant–State Electricity Board failed to  

establish its title or possession over the disputed  

Suit property, since it had not produced any material  

except the letter of the Transport Commissioner  

dated 04.03.2015 and a map.

18  

The learned Counsel relied on the decisions of  

this Court in Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha  

Reddy & Ors.3 and Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M.  

Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs & Anr.4 to submit  

that a person who is in settled possession, even in  

case he is a trespasser, has the right to be protected  

against forcible eviction, and can be evicted only  

after following the procedure prescribed by law.  

5. 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.  

6. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS  

We have heard the Counsel for both parties at  

length, perused the pleadings, and the written  

submissions filed in the present Civil Appeals.  

                                                                 3 (2010) 8 SCC 383, paragraphs 46-48.  4 (2004) 1 SCC 769.

19  

6.1. With respect to the first submission of the learned  

counsel for the Appellants that the Writ Petition filed  

by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Plaintiffs for a writ of  

certiorari to quash the Order dated 07.04.2015  

passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the  

Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District Judge  

was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the  

three-judge bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath &  

Ors.5, there cannot be any dispute to the law laid  

down by this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath  

& Ors. (supra), but in the facts of the present case, we  

do not propose to unsettle the judgment of the High  

Court on the above ground due to two reasons, firstly,  

in the High Court, the Appellants, who were  

Respondents in the Writ Petition, did not challenge  

the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article  

226 of the Constitution of India, and secondly, had  

the Appellants raised the above objection regarding  

maintainability of the Writ Petition, the course open  

for Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was to amend  

                                                                 5 (2015) 5 SCC 423.

20  

the cause title of the writ petition under Article 227 of  

the Constitution, and such a Writ Petition under  

Article 227 would have been clearly maintainable.  

6.2. The Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the  

orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant  

interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2  

of the CPC could very well be maintainable, and the  

opportunity to amend the cause title by Respondent  

Nos. 1 to 3 by raising any objection to that effect  

having been denied to them, we, instead of setting  

aside the judgment of the High Court on the above  

ground, proceed to examine the contentions on  

merits.  

6.3. The Learned 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 herein had failed to produce any  

documentary evidence whatsoever to establish their  

title to the suit property.  

21  

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. In this view of the matter, the  

Respondents failed to make out a prima facie case,  

which would have justified the grant of an interim  

injunction.  

6.4. 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.  

6.5. The balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of  

the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand  

State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of

22  

2015] since the entire Electricity Sub-station has  

been fully constructed, and is now at the stage of  

being energised for supply of electricity inter alia to  

four feeders viz. Bhuiyadih (BHU), Baridih (BRD),  

Vidyapatinagar (VPN). It is estimated to provide  

electricity to approximately 1 lakh people. The Board  

is statutorily empowered under Section 67 of the  

Electricity Act, 2003 to undertake all actions  

necessary for transmission or supply of electricity,  

subject to the procedure under the Electricity Act,  

2003.  

6.6. 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 – The General  

Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P.  

(C) No. 24684 of 2015] is permitted to proceed with  

the energisation of the Electricity sub-station.  

6.7. 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

23  

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.  

6.8. 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.  

In view of the aforesaid facts and  

circumstances, the decision of the Civil Judge  

(Junior Division – I) and the District Judge in  

refusing to grant a Temporary Injunction in Title Suit  

No. 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 Learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High  

Court in Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015 is hereby set aside.  

The impugned Judgment ordering the maintenance of

24  

status quo with respect to the Suit property till the final  

disposal of the Title Suit No. 45/2015 stands 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.  

The pending applications be disposed of accordingly.  

Ordered accordingly.  

…..……...........................J.  (ASHOK BHUSHAN)  

..….……..........................J.  (INDU MALHOTRA)  

New Delhi;  January 03, 2019