Summary
The Supreme Court vacated a status-quo order preventing energisation of an electricity substation on disputed land. The claimants had not established a prima facie case or identified the area allegedly possessed, while the completed facility would serve about one lakh people. The Court restored refusal of interim injunction, preserved compensation if title and possession were established, and made clear that its findings would not influence trial.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s status-quo order was justified on the prima facie evidence and balance of convenience.
- Whether the civil-court challenge should fail solely because it was framed under Article 226.
- What protection remained for the claimants pending final adjudication.
Provisions considered
- Section 67(3), Electricity Act, 2003Compensation for damage, detriment or inconvenience remained available if the claimants established title and possession over property used for the substation. (¶ 6.7)
Held
- The Court accepted that civil judicial orders were not amenable to certiorari, but did not dispose of this case on that ground: the objection had not been raised below and the claimants could have amended the proceeding to invoke Article 227. It instead considered merits. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
- The claimants had not established a prima facie entitlement in light of the earlier unchallenged adverse title finding and failure to identify the allegedly possessed portion on which construction occurred. (¶¶ 6.3, 6.4)
- The completed substation and overriding public interest in supplying electricity placed the balance of convenience with the Board. The evidentiary deficiencies and available compensation meant the claimed hardship did not justify interim restraint. (¶¶ 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8)
- The status-quo order was vacated and the civil courts’ refusal of temporary injunction restored. All findings were prima facie and would not influence the trial; compensation remained conditional on establishing the necessary rights. (¶¶ 6.7, 6.8, 7)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court status-quo order set aside and refusal of temporary injunction restored. Findings confined to the interim stage; conditional compensation rights preserved.