TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Right of Access Through Acquired Land; Distinguishes Between Ordinary and Necessary Easements.</h1> <h3>H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. Versus shiv k. Sharma & ors.</h3> H.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. Versus shiv k. Sharma & ors. - 2005 AIR 954, 2005 (1) SCR 209, 2005 (2) SCC 164, 2005 (1) JT 169, 2005 (1) SCALE 150 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.
TaxTMI 