ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PYARI MOHAN PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs' suit is for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing the latter to remove the electric poles and electric lines fixed by them on and over the plaintiffs' land

(3.) The plaintiffs' case, in short, is that plot No. 108 under Khata No. 119 of mouza Jagamara and plot No. 6 under Khata No. 238 of mouza Dum Duma described in the suit plan Ext. 1 attached to the plaint belong to the plaintiffs. Those plots are included in the Town Planning Scheme as per Ext. 6 and the plaintiffs had reserved the same for construction of residential buildings. The defendants framed schemes for transmission of electric lines for distribution of electricity, and under the said scheme the electric line was not to pass over the plaintiffs' lands. But to their surprise the defendants started fixing the electric poles on the suit lands and placed electric lines over the same completely disregarding the said scheme. The said electric supply lines over the suit lands were laid without taking the consent of the plaintiffs and against the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'I. E. Act') and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'E. S. Act') and the rules made thereunder. The plaintiffs all along opposed the construction of the said supply lines over their lands, and by notices dated 19-10-67, 29-l-68 and 20-9-68, served by the plaintiffs on the defendants, the defendants were asked to refrain from taking the said transmission lines over the plaintiffs' lands. The defendants disregarded all objections of the plaintiffs to the above effect and illegally diverted the original alignment of the electric supply line framed under the Scheme. It is also alleged that the electric supply line as per the scheme was to pass over the land belonging to M/s. Khandagiri Service Station but the defendants in collusion with the said service station illegally and forcibly diverted the supply line over the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. Hence the suit