JUNIOR ENGINEER Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE delay of 105 days in refiling is hereby condoned. This is a defendants' appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 4.11.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Satya Narain, and the first Appellate Court granted a decree as prayed for in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellants, and the defendants were restrained from installing any electricity pole in the land of the plaintiff and also from providing electricity supply to transformer at point 'A' from the main line at point 'C'.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :- Satya Narain-plaintiff owns agricultural land comprised of Rect. No. 44, Killa Nos. 11, 20/1 and 21 and some other land situated in the revenue estate of village Noorgarh, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon. There runs heavy voltage electricity line shown by letters CB in the site plan attached with the plaint. According to the plaintiff, as per sanctioned plan of the defendants, an electricity transformer was to be installed at point 'A' from point 'B' for supplying electricity over the land belonging to Bakhtawar Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of village Noorgarh. The distance between points 'B' and 'A' is 625 feet. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants in collusion with Bakhtawar Singh now threatened the plaintiff to provide electricity supply to the transformer at point 'A' from point 'C' by erecting poles in the land belonging to the plaintiff. The distance between points 'C' and 'A' is 750 feet. The grievance of the plaintiff was that crops of wheat and mustard are standing in his land and by erecting of poles his crops would be damaged and he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Moreover, the distance between points 'B' and 'A' being less than that in between points 'C' and 'A', it would be convenient and beneficial for the defendants to provide electricity supply to the transformer at point 'A' from the main line at point 'B'. The defendants were called upon to rectify their mistake, but to no effect. Hence, the suit. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants and they pleaded that in furtherance of a sanctioned plan to provide improved voltage electricity supply to the existing tubewells, one pole in the land belonging to the plaintiff and two poles in the adjoining land for placing a transformer over there have already been installed and only the work of laying wires on these poles from the existing 11 KV line remains. They denied the other allegations of the plaintiff regarding collusion with Bakhtawar Singh. They further pleaded that the poles have been erected rightly in correct position and any deviation of these poles would result in interference in four-Karam Rasta causing great inconvenience. It was also pleaded by the defendants that under Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') they are full empowered to do the act done and required to be done and the plaintiff has no right to challenge the same.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases and for the reasons contained in paras No. 13 to 19 of the judgment dated 4.11.1997, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the reasons adopted by the learned trial Court are reproduced as follows :-