ORDER : 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 summerised 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 saledeeds 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 Ist 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. 4. 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. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. 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 primafacie 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. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board submits that possession of only 1.47 acres has been delivered to the Electricity Board over which a Power Grid and Power Sub-Station would be constructed. Referring to counter affidavit, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that about 90% work is complete and therefore, interference in the matter by this Court would seriously impede the progress of the work. By cessation of work the petitioners would not be benefited rather, after finally succeeded they can be suitably compensated. A further plea has been taken by the respondent that neither the State of Jharkhand nor the BSRTC have been arrayed as defendants in Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 and therefore, the claim based on Judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 53 of 1992 cannot be tested. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice the earlier proceedings in relation to the suit schedule property. Title Suit No.153 of 1992 was filed by the mother of the petitioners for a declaration of confirmation of her possession and for permanent injunction against the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The trial court decreed the suit holding that, “plaintiff's possession over the suit land is hereby confirmed. Title Suit No.153 of 1992 was filed by the mother of the petitioners for a declaration of confirmation of her possession and for permanent injunction against the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The trial court decreed the suit holding that, “plaintiff's possession over the suit land is hereby confirmed. Defendant is restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.” The schedule of property in Title Suit No.153 of 1992 is the suit schedule property in the subsequent suit i.e. Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 filed by the petitioners, is not in dispute. The judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 153 of 1992 was affirmed in Title Appeal No.20 of 1999. The appellate court observed that the appellant BSRTC which claims to be real owner having title over the suit property can file a suit and evict the plaintiff after establishing its better title to possess the suit property. Subsequently, in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide, Misc. Case No.238 of 1991, the court has held that, “In view of the consideration so made, I hereby find and hold that the 1st party has been in possession of the disputed land on the date of order u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and he is declared to be entitled to retain such possession until evicted in due course of law through a competent court.” Thus, the possession of the petitioner no.3, at whose instance Misc. Case No.238 of 1991 was initiated, was affirmed. In the Demarcation Case No.1 of 1991-92, it was found that the Corporation was claiming possession over 3.611 acres land, which was in excess to its actual claim over 16.529 acres of land. It was also found that the house of the petitioner no.3 was not comprised within 16.529 acres in Thana No.1151, Ward No.16 over which the Corporation laid a claim. A map was also prepared, a copy of which forms part of order dated 23.09.1991 in Demarcation Case No.1 of 1991-92. 7. The trial court dismissed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the petitioners in Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 on the ground that no specific area and portion of the suit land has been described, over which the alleged construction has been raised by the defendant. 7. The trial court dismissed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the petitioners in Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 on the ground that no specific area and portion of the suit land has been described, over which the alleged construction has been raised by the defendant. I am of the opinion that the trial court having noticed that Title Suit No. 153 of 1992 was decreed in favour of the mother of the petitioners and the said order was affirmed in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1999 could not have recorded a finding that there is no primafacie case in favour of the plaintiff. In Title Suit No. 45 of 2015, the defendant took a plea that whether the title of the land belongs to the plaintiffs or the State Government is not within its knowledge. The stand of the defendant is that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand laid foundation stone and in pursuance of the direction of the district administration, it has started construction. The order dated 07.04.2015 does not indicate any claim by the defendant based on the title or possession over the suit land. I am of the opinion that the trial court has committed serious error in law in holding that the plaintiffs have no primafacie case in their favour. The appellate order dated 21.04.2015 also merely takes note that there is letter of transport department dated 04.03.2005, by which land was made available to the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. The appellate court has held against the plaintiffs on the ground that there is no specific description of the property in dispute. Title Suit No. 45 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners for, (a) for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant not to carry out any construction over the suit land, (b) for the cost of suit, (c) for any other relief or reliefs which the court deems fit and proper. As noticed above, the description of the suit schedule property has not been disputed by the defendant. In the written statement filed by the defendant Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the defendant has not laid any claim over the suit schedule property by virtue of its title or possession. In para no.10 of the written statement, the defendant has averred as under: 10. In the written statement filed by the defendant Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the defendant has not laid any claim over the suit schedule property by virtue of its title or possession. In para no.10 of the written statement, the defendant has averred as under: 10. “That by the Order of State Government, Electricity Board is directed to process the installation of Power Substation as per the land demarcated by them and any dispute regarding that is the look out of the State Government”. 8. A plea has been taken by the defendant that the State of Jharkhand has not been made a necessary party. I find that in Title Appeal No.20 of 1999 also, a similar plea was raised by the appellant BSRTC, which was negated by the appellate court. Moreover, whether State of Jharkhand is a necessary party or not is an issue which can be decided during the trial and the plaintiffs, if necessary, may file necessary application for adding the State of Jharkhand or the BSRTC as party defendant in the Title Suit No. 45 of 2015. The defendant has failed to disclose its title or possession over the suit schedule property by producing any material except, letter of B.S.R.T.C. and the map. Merely because Second Appeal preferred by the B.S.R.T.C. is pending, it would not give a right to B.S.R.T.C. to transfer the land in possession of the petitioners to the respondent. The finding recorded by both the courts that no specific description of the property, over which construction is raised, has been given, was not the issue for deciding the application seeking temporary injunction for the reason that, the specific prayer of the plaintiffs is for a decree for temporary injunction restraining the defendant “not to carry out any construction over the suit land”. Insofar as, contention raised on behalf of the defendant that balance of convenience does not lie with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs can be suitably compensated if any loss is caused to them, are not tenable. If the defendant completes the construction of power grid and power substation, the plaintiffs may be under a compulsion to accept compensation even after the suit is decreed in their favour and that would ultimately result in gross violation of the Constitutional right of the citizen guaranteed under Article 300A. 9. If the defendant completes the construction of power grid and power substation, the plaintiffs may be under a compulsion to accept compensation even after the suit is decreed in their favour and that would ultimately result in gross violation of the Constitutional right of the citizen guaranteed under Article 300A. 9. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that almost 90% of construction for power grid and substation is complete. The respondent has produced photographs of the construction raised by it. The photographs produced by the respondent only indicate raising of electric poles and no other construction has been raised by the Electricity Board. 10. Considering the above facts, the findings recorded by the courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a primafacie case is setaside. In view of the judicial findings recorded in favour of the plaintiffs and/or their mother, it is ordered that the parties shall maintain “statusquo” till final disposal of the Title Suit No.45 of 2015. However, the respondent is at liberty to make construction over the land except, the suit schedule land. The parties are directed to take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of Title Suit No. 45 of 2015.