2005 (1) TMI 720 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the judgment of the High Court dismissing second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( the CPC ) - section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act ) - benefit of the appellant was fenced off by barbed wire - award made u/s 11 of the Act and possession of the acquired land taken, the land would vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances - HELD THAT - In the first place, it is difficult for us to read the judgment in Tarsem Singh case 2001 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT as taking a view contrary to and differing from the law laid down by a larger Bench in Collector of Bombay 1955 (2) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT ). Secondly, we notice that the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) is not in respect of an easementary right arising out of necessity. There does not seem to be any discussion on the said aspect of the matter in this judgment. The view taken in Collector of Bombay (supra), therefore, appears to hold the field, particularly where the nature of easementary right claimed is not capable of being evaluated in terms of compensation and arises out of sheer necessity. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the distinction drawn by the High Court about non extinguishment of the right of easement arising out of necessity appears to be justified both on principle and precedent. In any event, we do not think that the present is a fit case where it is necessary for us to go deeper into this larger issue of law for we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court under appeal is not one which is required to be interfered with in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Thus, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the judgment of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board regarding access rights to land acquired for a public purpose.

Summary:

The appellant-Board purchased land from Rikhi Ram, with the sale deed granting access rights to the respondents. After the State Government acquired land for a sub-station, the appellant blocked access to the respondents' land. Respondents filed a suit for injunction, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge ruled in favor of the respondents, acknowledging their right of access through the appellant's land. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the respondents' necessity of passage through the acquired land.

The appellant argued that post-acquisition, the land vested absolutely in the Government, extinguishing any encumbrances, including easementary rights. Citing legal precedents, the High Court distinguished between ordinary easements and rights of necessity, holding that the latter, such as the respondents' right of passage, were not extinguished by the acquisition. The court referenced relevant judgments to support its stance on the non-extinguishment of easements arising out of necessity.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It noted that the judgment did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution, as the distinction made by the High Court regarding easements of necessity was justified based on legal principles and precedents. Therefore, the appeal was deemed meritless and was consequently dismissed, with no costs imposed.