Khushal Chand v. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Panchkula & Ors.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * * Present : Mr. Moti Lal Saini, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.6447-C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 55 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main Case The application stands allowed accordingly. Plaintiff Khushal Chand has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal, having been non-suited by both the courts below. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that he along with proforma defendants is owner in possession of the suit land. However, defendants No.1 to 3 (Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited and its officers) in collusion with defendants No.4 to 6 were threatening to lay electricity RSA NO.2344 OF 2011 (O&M) - 2 - transmission lines by erecting poles in suit land without acquiring the same. Plaintiff sought injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 6 from doing so.

Defendants No.1 to 6 contested the suit and controverted the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 are laying electricity transmission line in accordance with law by erecting poles in the suit land in public interest. It was pleaded that land is not required to be acquired for this purpose. On the contrary, the plaintiff claim compensation for the damage, if any, that may be suffered by him. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellant contended that without acquiring the suit land, defendants have no right to erect poles and to lay transmission line through the suit land.

It was also contended that there is Municipal land adjacent to the suit land and transmission line can be laid through the Municipal land. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. The suit was instituted on 05.08.2002 i.e. before coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003. At that time, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) was applicable. Section 42 of the Act provided that Electricity Board shall have, for laying transmission lines or erecting poles etc., all the powers which Telegraph Authority possesses RSA NO.2344 OF 2011 (O&M) - 3 - under part III of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to telegraph line of the Government. Under part III of the Telegraph Act, Telegraph Authority has power to place and maintain telegraph line in or upon any immovable property. Provision for compensation has also been made for the same for the damage, if any, that may be suffered by owner of the immoveable property.

Consequently, defendants No.1 to 3 in the instant case also have power to lay transmission lines and erect poles in the suit land without acquiring the same in view of Section 42 of the Act read with part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In view thereof, plaintiff is not entitled to injunction prayed for. The contention that defendants No.1 to 3 may lay transmission lines through adjacent Municipal land is also not acceptable because it is for defendants No.1 to 3 to decide the route of the transmission line. Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of defendants No.1 to 3. Court cannot decide as to through which land it would be suitable to lay the transmission line. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. There is no perversity or illegality in impugned judgments of the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal in view of the above mentioned legal provisions. The appeal is meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 20th July, 2012 ‘raj’ (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE