S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 07.04.2015 in Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 and order dated 21.04.2015 in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 2015, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are summarized thus, The mother of the petitioners purchased about 2.72 acres of land from one Raju Gaud on 30.04.1958 and about 1.62 acres of land from Shatrughan Gaud on the same day. Both the sale -deeds were not registered. When the officials of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC) started interfering with right, title and possession of the mother of the petitioners, she filed Title Suit No. 153 of 1992 for declaration of her right, title and possession over the land mentioned above. The suit was decreed on contest vide judgment and order dated 18.02.1999 and the appeal preferred by BSRTC vide Title Appeal No. 20 of 1999 was dismissed on 29.08.2005. The mother of the petitioners died on 24.02.2014. A proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Misc. Case No. 238 of 1991 in which vide order dated 12.02.1992, possession of the petitioner No. 3 was declared. Demarcation Case No. 1 of 1991 -92 was initiated at the instance of BSRTC in which after due enquiry a map was prepared by the Circle Officer showing land belonging to the BSRTC, separate from the property of the petitioners. However, in the 1st Week of March, 2015, the officials and labourers came to the petitioners' land and started constructing boundary wall. The petitioners raised objection to such illegal construction however, they were informed that, on the instruction of the Deputy Commissioner for construction of Electric Power House and Electric Grid, the said construction has been started. Constrained, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The suit was decided by the trial court against the petitioners vide order dated 07.04.2015 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners has also been dismissed on 21.04.2015.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court and the appellate court have committed serious errors in law in ignoring the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 153 of 1992. A prima -facie case in favour of the petitioners is evident. The respondent -Jharkhand State Electricity Board being an instrumentality of the State is required to act in a manner sanctioned by law. However, action on the part of the respondent -Electricity Board in encroaching upon the land of the petitioners is a violent violation of the constitutional provision under Article 300A. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to and relied upon the decisions in "M. Kallappa Setty Vs. M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao", reported in : AIR 1972 SC 2299 and "Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and Anr.", reported in : 2004 SAR (Civil) 107.;