TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. R PANDIAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No. 267 of 1977, District Munsif's Court, Thirumangalam, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. THE respondent herein instituted that suit praying for a mandatory injunction against the appellants for the removal of electric wires drawn across and over the lands of the respondent in Survey Nos.32/1 and 38/1 in Solaikuruchi village and for compensation for wrongful trespass and for causing damage. THE facts giving rise to the Second Appeal may now be briefly set out. THE respondent owns an extent of 1.63 acres in survey Nos.38/1 and 32/1 in a single plot. About a furlong west of the lands of the respondent one Pari-sutharajan owns 1.38 acres in survey No. 106/4 and he, after putting up a house in survey No. 106/4, applied for electric service connection. According to the case of the respondent, though electric posts and transformer and service connections for a petrol bunk and coir factory, west of Parisutharajan's house, at a distance of about 200 feet, are already there and service connection for the house of Parisutharajan could easily be given by extending the lines from the electric post, at the instance of Parisutharajan and with a view to cause damage to the respondent, the third appellant attempted to trespass upon the lands of the respondent to draw wires from east to west. THE respondent appears to have sent telegrams, registered letters and petitions on coming to know about the attempt of the third appellant to draw lines on the lands of the respondent. Despite this, the third appellant is stated to have trespassed upon the lands of the respondent and drew electric lines across his lands from east to west on 27.10.1977 and also caused damage to the paddy crops of the respondent. THE respondent claimed damages in a sum of Rs.100/- towards the trespass and compensation of Rs.300/- for the loss caused to the paddy crops. THE respondent put forth a plea that the appellants had no authority to trespass upon his lands and as the existence of electric wires across the lands of the respondent materially affected the value and utility of the lands and constituted a hindrance for the development of the lands into a coconut tope, the respondent prayed that the electric lines have to be removed.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the first appellant and adopted by appellants 2 and 3, they contended that the petrol bunk and the coir factory are situate faw away from Parisutharajan's house and six poles are required for drawing the electric lines between Parisutharajan's house and the coir factory, while the distance between the lands of the respondent and Parisutharajan's house is only about 845 feet and the lines had been drawn as per the shortest route with four poles observing economy in selecting the routes for drawing of lines as per the provisions of the Electricity Manual. Adverting to the existence of a number of coconut trees west of Parisutharajan's house in the east as well as in the west, the appellants contended that they would be a hindrance to the drawing of lines from the coir factory. The appellants further stated that the drawing of lines was over in May, 1977 and two poles were placed on the site on 17.10.1977 and on the next morning, that is, 18.10.1977, two more poles were erected and all the poles were erected when there were no crops in the lands of the respondent and the respondent also did not raise any objection. The telegrams, registered letters, etc., sent by the respondent were, according to the appellants, only attempts to delay the energisation of the service connection. The trespass attributed to the appellants as well as the loss of crops and damages for trespass were all denied. No damage was at all done by the appellants to the lands of the respondent, as according to the appellants, they had a right to enter into the lands of the respondent for installation of poles and drawing of electric lines.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, relying upon Sec. 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), contended that inasmuch as electric supply-lines or work had already been lawfully laid down or placed by the Electricity Board upon the lands of the respondent, though for giving a service connection to him, for erecting other poles or for giving connection over the lands of the respondent to other persons, the consent of the respondent was not necessary and the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the statutory requirements had not been followed by the appellants justifying the grant of a decree for mandatory injunction. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that what had been already provided for the respondent would only be a 'service line' as defined in Sec2(1) and that would not be comprehended within the definition of 'electric supply-line' occurring in Sec.2 (f) of the Act and, therefore, without the consent of the respondent, the appellants had no authority to erect or plant additional poles in the lands of the respondent and, therefore, the grant of mandatory injunction directing the removal of electrical wires is quite in order.