Orissa HC Upholds Interim Restraint On Buyer Completing House On Disputed Land, Finding No Irreparable Loss To Justify Altering It

The dispute concerned Schedule-B property, including Consolidation Plot No. 896, over which the plaintiffs and petitioner No. 1 claimed through competing chains of title.

Petitioner No. 1 purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 19.04.2024 and began construction; the plaintiffs’ civil suit sought a permanent injunction, with an interlocutory application to restrain construction.

The trial court found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs but permitted petitioner No. 1 to complete the existing construction to roof level, subject to conditions and an undertaking. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside that permission and restrained construction changing the property’s nature and character pending the suit.

Petitioner No. 1 challenged the appellate order under Article 227.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error, disregard of fundamental legal principles, or perverse findings, not merely to reweigh evidence or substitute conclusions (Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel).

Temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience; a prima facie case is not proof of title (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh).

Appellate interference with an injunction order is ordinarily limited to cases where the trial court exercised discretion arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or ignored settled principles (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.; Skyline Education Institute v. S.L. Vaswani).

A court should generally preserve disputed property and not permit a change in its nature absent a demonstrated case of irreparable loss; an undertaking to restore the property does not necessarily justify construction (Maharwal Khewaji Trust v. Baldev Dass).

Mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title (Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh; Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner).

The trial court had found a prima facie case for the plaintiffs and recognised that the plot on which construction was occurring was disputed.

Its permission to build to roof level rested principally on the hardship of leaving the structure unfinished, but the record did not establish that completion was necessary to prevent irreparable injury, such as deprivation of an existing residential occupation.

Further construction would alter the physical condition of the disputed property, and the petitioner’s undertaking did not remove the risk of further disputes or multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellate court therefore applied a permissible preservation-based approach under Maharwal Khewaji Trust; its order did not determine title, and the competing claims, Section 51 objection and effect of the consolidation proceedings remained open for adjudication.

The CMP was dismissed, the appellate order restraining further construction was left undisturbed, and any earlier interim order was vacated.