U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. IIAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This Second Appeal by the U. P. State Electricity Board is directed against the concurrent judgment of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff's suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant.

(2.) PLAINTIFF-respondent owns field No. 3300 and 3308 Mauja Lishar, is the bhumidhar of the said plots wherein numerous trees were standing. Respondent Nain Singh was the defendant in the original suit was tenant of plot No. 2381. He wanted to have electricity connection for the tub-well in his plot. Nain Singh applied for electricity connection from the U. P. State Electricity Board. The defendant wanted to take their electricity lines across the fields of the plaintiff, as well as fix electricity polls thereon. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendants have no right to take electricity wire across his fields. A temporary injunction was granted by the trial court restraining the appellant and Nain Singh, respondent laying any electricity line over the plaintiff's field. Nain Singh, defendant-respondent filed a Misc. Appeal before the appellate court and the operation of the interim injunction was suspended. In the meantime, the Electricity Board passed the electricity lines across the plaintiff' fields. The plaintiff thereafter got the plaint amended and instead perpetual injunction claimed the mandatory injunction for removal of the said electricity wire over his fields.

(3.) SRI H. P. Gupta, learned counsel for State Electricity Board sub mitted that the Electricity Board was competent to draw the supply line in question without the consent of the plaintiff-respondent. Admittedly, the plaintiff respondent never gave his consent in laying the electricity line over his fields, SRI H. P. Gupta placed reliance on AIR 1972 Ker 47-Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum. He placed Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and it was said to read Section 10 of the Telegragh Act alongwith Section 12 of the Electricity Act. He submitted that these two sections are enabling the provisions in a licensee under the Act to lay down or place electric supply- lines and other works. No doubt, this, however been made subject to the provisions in sub-section (2) of that section which says that sub-section (1) of Section 12 shall not be deemed to have authorised or empowered a licensee to place any supply-lines without the consent of ths owner or occupier of the property concerned. SRI Gupta relied para 12 of the Full Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court (supra) and submitted that the State Electricity Boards constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 have the power to draw up and sanction a scheme with, a view to rationalising the production and supply of electricity in any area. When such a scheme makes provision for the placing of supply-lines, the Boards shall have for that purpose the same power that a telegraph authority has under the Telegraph Act to place telegraph-lines.