SHANTI DEVI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Shanti Devi is owner in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 16 Marlas as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90 situated at Village Ramgarh Hadbast No. 232 Tehsil and District Panchkula mutated in her name through Mutation No. 1796 sanctioned on 29.2.91 without acquiring this land and without giving her any hearing and without framing any scheme as required under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 HYPNL started erecting high tension lines in her land. For erecting high tension line in her land, defendant Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited (herein after referred to be as Nigam) did not frame any scheme as required under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Earlier, the defendants made one basement i.e. 30'x 30' approximately for the purpose of erecting high tension lines and now they are diverting this line of the same size for that purpose to the disadvantage of the plaintiff. When she came to know about this illegal act and conduct on the part of the defendants, she approached the defendants and requested them not to erect the high tension line in her land. If this line is taken through this land, this land will be rendered useless. Plaintiff filed suit for permanent/mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to erect any pole over the basement and not to put any wire over the basement in the land till the decision of the suit on merits as otherwise the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss inasmuch as this land will become useless and she will not be able to put this land to any use for fear of electrocution. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff made prayer for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from erecting any pole over the basement prepared by them and not to put any wire in the land till the disposal of the suit. Defendant-Nigam opposed this prayer saying that the suit for permanent/mandatory injunction is not maintainable as statutory authority cannot be restrained from performing its statutory duty under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It was pleaded that Nigam is fully competent to construct tower line, transmission lines for supply of electricity. The Nigam is empowered under Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act to place wires, poles, wall brackets, stays, apparatus, appliances for transmission and distribution of electricity, for achievement of the public purpose upon or through any land. It was further pleaded that the very existence of the already existing and constructed power line under a sanctioned scheme at the cost of about nine crores under Section 28 of the Act known as Panchkula-Shahbad double circuit 220 KV which will supply electricity to entire Haryana being inter-State project the incoming supply from Himachal Pradesh via Panchkula of 220 KV Sub Station and to further connect the said line to Shahbad 220 KV Sub Station in order to supply and utilise both ways the power purchased and supplied between Haryana and Himachal Pradesh will be put to halt. It was further pleaded that in order to utilise the said power, the Nigam has to erect certain poles and to lay lines for the purpose in public interest. Line has almost been constructed by Panchkula Sub Division upto 155 towers but for a few towers line of No. 13 which is in the disputed property. The stubbing part or construction of tower had already been completed without any protest from the plaintiff. Nigam does not require any land but has only a right of user. Plaintiff can apply to District Magistrate for determination of compensation payable, if any, as per law. She has no right to stall the erection of poles etc. in this land. Proper scheme as required under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 was framed earlier. The minor deviation of the route was being carried out by the Nigam in the public interest due to the objection of TBRL Ministry of Defence because otherwise, the line would have been in danger of being blown out thus causing tremendous loss and injury to the Nigam and thereby misery to the general public. Even the deviation has been sanctioned by the competent authority. Plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit.

(2.) VIDE order dated 24.4.99, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panchkula declined this prayer of the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard both the sides and have gone through the record.