Present Address v. M/s Shambhunath Properties Pvt. Ltd

Judgment

1. M/s Shambhunath Properties Pvt. Ltd. Having its: Registered Office At: 144/2, Mathura Road, Ashram, New Delhi- 110014.

2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Tapukda, District Khairthal- Thijara, Rajasthan- 301411.

3. Varinder Kumar Authorized Officer Neemrana II Kotputli Transmission Ltd. Address Ward No. 17, Army Canteen Alwar Road Behror, Rajasthan. Present Address: Varinder Kumar Authorized Officer, R/o V-173, Upwan Chandan Kesar City, Behror District- Kotputli Behror-

301701. For Petitioner(s) ----Respondents

: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Pranav Mundra, Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Ms. Rashi Srivasttava For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/02/2025

1. By means of filing instant civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has raised grievance against [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (2 of 7) [CW-2198/2025] action/orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapukda, District Khairthal-Tijara, entertaining a revenue suit for prohibitory injunction along with an application for temporary injunction and granting an ex-parte ad-interim stay order dated 01.01.2025 therein, restraining the parties to the revenue suit for not raising any construction and directing to maintain the status-quo of the revenue record. For ready reference, prayer made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is being reproduced hereunder:- "That in view of the facts and grounds stated hereinabove, the petitioner respectfully prays as under: i. That the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, direction or order to set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.01.2025 [Annexure-12] issued by the Respondent No.2 granting ex-parte ad- interim injunction to Respondent No.1; ii. That this Hon'ble Court may hold declare that no injunction can be granted in the present circumstances in a Project of national importance; iii. That this Hon'ble Court may hold and declare that Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to decide this issue as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the Electricity Act, 2003 and dismiss the Revenue Suit No.3/2025 along with Revenue Application. iv. That this Hon'ble Court may pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the circumstances of the case may warrant in the favour of the Petitioner." [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (3 of 7) [CW-2198/2025]

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was incorporated by the Power Finance Corporation, Ministry of Power, Government of India, to set up overhead transmission scheme for evacuation of power from Rajasthan REZ Ph.-IV (Bikaner Complex) and the project is duly approved under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It has been submitted that for installation of such project, overhead transmission lines are required to be installed through the agriculture lands of respondent no.1, for which, at the most he can claim damages.

3. The respondent No.1 instituted a revenue suit for prohibitory injunction along with an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner, before the Revenue Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapukda, District Khairthal-Tijara, to restrain the petitioner (defendant in the revenue suit) not to dig and install poles in his agriculture lands and not to disturb his possession in the agriculture lands of Khasra Nos.201, 202 & 137 situated at Village Mithiyavas, Tehsil Tapukda, District Khairthal-Tijara and to maintain the status-quo.

4. It has been submitted that learned Sub-Divisional Officer, entertained the revenue suit and issued notices to petitioner- defendant vide order dated 01.01.2025 as also granted ex-parte injunction order, restraining the parties from raising any construction in the lands in question and to maintain the status- quo of the revenue record.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the ex-parte injunction order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, is against the principle of 'audi alteram [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (4 of 7) [CW-2198/2025] partem' and indeed, the remedy of grant of injunction in Power Generation and Transmission Project is expressly barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, his submission is that at most, respondent No.1 (plaintiff in the revenue suit) can claim compensation for damages, caused due to installing the project through his agriculture lands and in that connection, petitioner sent a notice dated 14.11.2024 to respondent No.1 offering compensation to him.

6. It has also been pleaded by the petitioner in Para Nos.26 & 27 of the writ petition that the concerned District Collector & Magistrate granted indulgence in the matter and wrote a letter dated 11.12.2024 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to undertake appropriate proceedings to resolve the issue and in furtherance thereof, the petitioner also sent a letter dated 20.12.2024 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapukda, District Khairthal-Tijara and requested him to review the injunction order and pass suitable directions so that the project of national importance may not be stalled rather to ensure its completion without any obstruction.

7. It is also an undisputed fact that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, to set aside/vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 01.01.2025, has also been filed by the petitioner on

23.01.2025 before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, but the same has yet not been considered and decided by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner before this Court seeking above-mentioned relief.

8. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments in cases of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.: (2017) 5 [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (5 of 7) [CW-2198/2025] SCC 143, Nanchi Devi Versus RRVPNL, Jaipur: 2009 SCC OnLine Raj 1267, Madan Dan Arha Versus RRVPNL (Division Bench): 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 1001, Madan Dan Arha Versus RRVPNL: 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 872, National High Speed Rail Corporation Versus Montecarlo Ltd. & Anr.: (2022) 6 SCC 401, Gurmukh Singh Versus Punjab Stat Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.: 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6677, Additional Executive Engineer, Auda Vahini Project Versus Kishor & Ors.: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1816, NG Projects Limited Versus Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors.: (2022) 6 SCC 127, Mangi Lal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17570/2022 and Century Rayon Limited Versus IVP Ltd.: (2021) 20 SCC 758.

9. Having considered the grievances of the petitioner and the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, this Court finds that admittedly, petitioner has already filed an application dated

23.01.2025 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC before SDM, to set aside/vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and such application is still pending for consideration before the Court of SDM, so the similar prayer of petitioner made in the instant writ petition is uncalled for and it would not be appropriate for High Court to usurp the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court of SDM, moreso when the final order is appeallable under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,

1955. The contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the injunction in the matters of Power Generation/ Transmission Project is expressly barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is to be considered by the Sub-Divisional [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (6 of 7) [CW-2198/2025] Magistrate while hearing and deciding the application for vacation of ex-parte injunction order.

10. As far as maintainability of the revenue suit before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate is concerned, the petitioner is always at liberty to move an appropriate application in the revenue suit before the Court of SDM, inviting his attention to the relevant provisions of law. It appears that instead of filing such an application in the judicial proceedings, petitioner pursued the matter in administrative side by moving applications before the concerned District Magistrate and the SDM.

11. Thus, the petitioner has remedy, at first instance, for redressal of grievances raised by him to take steps before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tapukda, District Khairthal- Tijara itself and at this stage, exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

12. In addition to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that by virtue of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the Board of Revenue is entrusted with the supervisory jurisdiction over all the Courts and Authorities subordinate to it, hence, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any arbitrary action/inaction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or for not providing hearing in the pending revenue suit expeditiously and urgently, it is open for the petitioner to approach before the Board of Revenue instead of directly approaching the High Court.

13. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on merits at this stage and the same is hereby disposed of in limine, with the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:8604] (7 of 7) [CW-2198/2025] observations/liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps for redressal of its grievances, in accordance with law.

14. Since, this Court has declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction on merits in the matter, the contentions raised by counsel for petitioner and judgments referred are left open to be submitted before the appropriate Forum.

15. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. SUNIL SOLANKI /2 (SUDESH BANSAL),J