M. P. Electricity Board Vs. Bali Baba and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1997
Petitioner: M. P. Electricity Board
Respondent: Bali Baba and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1997
Judges: V.N. Khare & Ruma Pal, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 2001
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 39, rules 1 & 2 – Injunction – Land belonging to a trust – Acquisition completed – Award made – Compensation received – No objection made by anybody at any time – Later, defendant raising construction – Injunction granted by the trial court – Same vacated by High Court – If acquisition of land belonging to trust is not permissible. Held the assumption of law by High Court was incorrect. Hence, setting aside of injunction order was uncalled for. Orders set aside and interim injunction granted by the trial court confirmed. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The land allegedly belonging to Radhakrishna Sarvajanik Nyas was sought to be acquired for the purpose of setting up a 400 KV sub-station in the village Turari in the district of Gwalior. Consequently, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 7th March, 1991, which was followed by issue of notification under section 6 on 3rd April, 1991. The land acquisition officer thereafter, gave an award. According to the appellant, the possession of the land was taken by them and compensation for acquisition of 2.20 hectares of land, allegedly belonging to the trust, was given to one Bhagwan Das Gupta, who claimed himself to be a trustee. It appears that after the appellant had taken possession of the disputed land, the defendant-respondents interfered with the appellant’s possession by setting up some construction on the said land. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also moved for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with the possession of the board. The trial court granted an interim injunction, as prayed for. Aggrieved, the defendant-respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court. The said appeal was admitted. In the said appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved for permitting the defendant-respondents to complete the alleged construction. During the pendency of the said appeal, the High Court permitted the defendant-respondents to complete the construction at their own risk. Subsequently, the appeal came up for hearing and the same was allowed with the modification that any construction made by the defendant-respondents shall be completed at their risk and further no permanent construction shall be raised on the disputed land, thereby injuncting the board from making any construction on the land. It is against the said order and judgment, the board has preferred this appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and looked into the records. It appears that the learned judge of the High Court was influenced by its prima facie view that it is not permissible for the board to acquire the land belonging to a trust. The said assumption of law by the High Court is not correct. It may be noted that either during the land acquisition proceedings or after the award was delivered, none objected to the acquisition of the disputed land. Further, Sri Om Prakash Gupta claiming himself to be a trustee having accepted the compensation for acquisition of the disputed land, has ceased to have any locus standi to give any authority to the respondents to make any construction on the disputed land. Under such circumstances, the view taken by the High Court in setting aside the injunction order was wholly uncalled for and is not sustainable in law. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the High Court dated 10th May, 1996 and 18th April, 1996.
3. The appeal is allowed. The interim injunction granted by the trial court is affirmed and it will be open to the appellant to remove the construction which has been made on the disputed land during the pendency of appeal before the High Court.
1. The land allegedly belonging to Radhakrishna Sarvajanik Nyas was sought to be acquired for the purpose of setting up a 400 KV sub-station in the village Turari in the district of Gwalior. Consequently, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 7th March, 1991, which was followed by issue of notification under section 6 on 3rd April, 1991. The land acquisition officer thereafter, gave an award. According to the appellant, the possession of the land was taken by them and compensation for acquisition of 2.20 hectares of land, allegedly belonging to the trust, was given to one Bhagwan Das Gupta, who claimed himself to be a trustee. It appears that after the appellant had taken possession of the disputed land, the defendant-respondents interfered with the appellant’s possession by setting up some construction on the said land. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also moved for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with the possession of the board. The trial court granted an interim injunction, as prayed for. Aggrieved, the defendant-respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court. The said appeal was admitted. In the said appeal, an interlocutory application was also moved for permitting the defendant-respondents to complete the alleged construction. During the pendency of the said appeal, the High Court permitted the defendant-respondents to complete the construction at their own risk. Subsequently, the appeal came up for hearing and the same was allowed with the modification that any construction made by the defendant-respondents shall be completed at their risk and further no permanent construction shall be raised on the disputed land, thereby injuncting the board from making any construction on the land. It is against the said order and judgment, the board has preferred this appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and looked into the records. It appears that the learned judge of the High Court was influenced by its prima facie view that it is not permissible for the board to acquire the land belonging to a trust. The said assumption of law by the High Court is not correct. It may be noted that either during the land acquisition proceedings or after the award was delivered, none objected to the acquisition of the disputed land. Further, Sri Om Prakash Gupta claiming himself to be a trustee having accepted the compensation for acquisition of the disputed land, has ceased to have any locus standi to give any authority to the respondents to make any construction on the disputed land. Under such circumstances, the view taken by the High Court in setting aside the injunction order was wholly uncalled for and is not sustainable in law. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the High Court dated 10th May, 1996 and 18th April, 1996.
3. The appeal is allowed. The interim injunction granted by the trial court is affirmed and it will be open to the appellant to remove the construction which has been made on the disputed land during the pendency of appeal before the High Court.
