Supreme Court Upholds Right of Access Through Acquired Land; Distinguishes Between Ordinary and Necessary Easements.

The SC dismissed the appeal by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, affirming the HC's decision that the respondents retained their right of access through the acquired land. The SC agreed with the HC's distinction between ordinary easements and easements of necessity, ruling that the latter were not extinguished by land acquisition. The appeal was found meritless and dismissed without costs.

---

---

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.

---