MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. NATTHOOLAL JOHARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20th April, 1983, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Balaghat in Civil Appeal No. 60-A of 82, affirming the judgment and decree, dated 24-8-1982 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Waraseoni in Civil Suit No. 7-A/80 and issuing an injunction against the appellants to remove their poles and high tension electric line from the land of the respondent as shown in the plaint map.

(2.) THE respondent Natthoolal filed his suit complaining that the appellants and their officers have unauthorisedly fixed two iron poles over his land and erected 3300 KV high tension line over it without his permission and without the authority of law. His case was that he was the owner and occupier of the land and was intending to build a residential house on it. According to him, though the land, at the present, is used for agricultural purposes, it is fit for Abadi. He had, therefore, put a barbed wire boundary around. According to him, on 18-12-1979 the officers and servants of the appellants illegally and unauthorisedly destroyed a part of the boundary and committed trespass into the land for purposes of putting poles arid drawing high tension electric line. He further asserted that the appellants or their officers did not give any information to him before entering into his land nor did they obtain his consent. According to him, on 18-12-1979 his son met the Divisional Engineer and requested him not to put electric poles over his land. The Divisional Engineer is alleged to have visited the spot on 19-12-1979 and told the respondent that the poles and electric line would be erected as proposed and he was tree to do whatever he wanted. It was, thereafter that the respondent informed the appellant Electricity Board by telegram, Ex. P-5 to desist from putting the poles and drawing the high tension line. Since no one in the appellants did anything to redress his grievance, he filed the present suit praying for the permanent injunction, as aforesaid. The defence of the appellants was that they were not aware that the land belonged to the respondent or that it was suitable for Abadi. They also denied having broken over the fencing and fixed poles. According to them they are statutory corporation and are entitled to fix poles and draw electric lines on and over the private land. The appellants denied having caused any loss to the respondent. The respondent produced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case but the appellants remained satisfied by filing their written-statement only. No oral and documentary evidence was produced by or on their behalf. Indeed, the learned Advocate appearing for them made the statement before, the trial Court on 24-6-1982 that they do not want to adduce any evidence. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence on record, held that the respondent was the owner of the suit land and the said land was fit for being used as Abadi site. The court further held that on 18-12-1979 the officers and servants of the appellants illegally and unauthorisedly dug two pits over the said land and had erected poles and high tension electric line. The Judge also held that on 19-12-1979, the Divisional Engineer inspected the spot and told the respondent to do whatever he liked and that the poles and line would be erected, as proposed. Learned Judge also found no right whatsoever in favour of appellants to construct the line, as aforesaid. That is how the suit was decreed and permanent injunction granted. The learned lower appellate Court affirmed these findings in appeal and hence this second appeal.

(3.) THE facts of the case disclose not only the executive excesses but also almost a total indifference to the judicial process. The manner in which the appellant's officers and servants entered into the land of the respondent, dug pits, erected poles and drew wire for constructing high tension line indicates that they in an island of their own and not in this democratic social order govern by the rule of law. The manner in which the appellants participated in the proceedings before the trial court indicates that they do not recognize the principle of public accountability and therefore, ignored the process of the Court which wanted them to explain the legality and validity of their action. The appellants also do not seem to have any regard to the legal rights of the citizens of the country or their convenience. This case should, therefore, establish that the appellants and its officers and servants have to be educated in democratic discipline and taught not only the laws but also the mannerism expected of the officers and servants of a statutory corporation, the respect to law and legal rights being the minium of it. Unless the appellants and more particularly the Divisional Engineer representing them, falls within the aforesaid national discipline, both of them would fall out of the national life-stream deserving condemnation not only by this Court but by every other agency of the State.