LACHMI DEVI Vs. H P S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 94/88 which was dismissed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sundernagar on 28-12-1991, she filed Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1992, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Mandi on 12-6-1998, now she has filed the second appeal.

(2.) The pleaded case of the appellant is that she is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 64, measuring 1-0-8 bigha, Muhal Kangu, Illaqua Dehar, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi. The respondents without any right had started laying 132 K. V. power line over Khasra No. 64 in which house, orchard of the appellant are situated. The said 132 K. V. line would pass over the house of the appellant and would be a constant threat to the appellant and her family members. The respondents were asked not to carry out any work of the power line over the land of appellant but they refused to oblige the appellant. On those facts, the appellant filed the suit.

(3.) The respondents contested the suit and took preliminary objections i.e. statutory notice was given inviting objections against the construction of 132 K. V. transmission line from Larji to Gagal, the appellant did not raise any objection, hence, now appellant cannot agitate for laying of 132 K. V. transmission line. She is estopped from questioning the laying of power line. The 132 K. V. transmission line was sanctioned by the Govt. of India at a costs of Rs. 16068/- lacs. A notification under Section 29 of the Indian Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was issued on 17-11-1986. The Board under Section 22 of the Electricity Act, 1910 has all the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The respondent No. 1 being a public utility organization is under legal obligation to install electricity appliances, apparatus and towers for the transmission of electricity. The respondents have proceeded under the statute for laying 132 K. V. transmission line in public interest. In addition to above objections of locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the suit were raised. On merits, the respondents denied the case of the appellant. They denied that transmission line would damage the house or other property of the appellant. It was pleaded that minimum prescribed horizontal and vertical distances were left from the property of the appellant. The line would be equipped with safety devices prescribed under law. The fear and apprehension of loss of life of appellant and her family members are misplaced.