CR No. 1180 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1180 of 2010 Date of decision:- 10.11.2010 Davinder Singh ......petitioner vs. H.V.P.N. Transmission System and another ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Plaintiff is aggrieved against the order passed by learned first Appellate Court on 1.12.2009 whereby an application for grant of ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants from installing electric poll was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land measuring 2 kanal 6 marlas and 7 kanal 8 marlas and that without approval of scheme of the competent authority, the defendants are installing the electric pole and that too without acquisition of the land. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice has been issued to the petitioner before installation of the electric pole and transmission line for installation of high tension electric wires. In the written statement, it has been pointed out that the CR No. 1180 of 2010 -2- defendants are constructing 66 KV D/C lines for supply of power to defence authorities as per the gazette notification of Haryana Government dated 17.1.2006 wherein it is notified that 66 KV D/C line would be constructed from 220 KV Sub Station for supply of power to Air Force Station and MES Army, Ambala Cantt. The work of the project is in progress for the last 2½ years and the foundation for installation of electric tower on the suit land was laid in the year 2007. It was inter alia pointed out that the State has already spent crores of rupees on the project and the petitioner is trying to create hurdles in the essential services to be provided to the defence authority. Learned first Appellate Court found that the notification of the scheme was notified on 29.12.2005, also published in Dainik Bhaskar on 25.12.2005 and later in the Tribune on 2.1.2006. Learned first Appellate Court found that prima facie the defendants have placed on record the notification inviting the objections. The petitioner has neither produced any document nor any material that he has filed objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the publication of the scheme was vague as it only contemplated (i) the construction of S/C line from 220 KV Sub Station Tepla to 66 KV Sub Station MES, Ambala Cantt. (ii) construction of S/C line from 220 KV Substation Tepla to 66 KV Substation, Air Force, Ambala Cantt. (iii) construction of S/C line from 66 KV Substation MES (Army) Ambala Cantt. To 66 KV Substation, Air Force, Ambala Cantt., therefore, all the inhabitants of Ambala Cantt., cannot be deemed to be notified about the CR No. 1180 of 2010 -3- Scheme. It is not possible for all the inhabitants to comprehend that such scheme would relate to their land. I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Publication in newspaper was to the effect that the plans showing the indicative transmission line routes may be seen on any of working day in the office of Chief Engineer, Hissar. Since, the plans were open to inspection, therefore, to say that it was impossible for all the inhabitants in the locality to comprehend that transmission line is to be erected from their land is not tenable. The publication in the news papers was sufficient notice to all the effected persons. It is further contended that the general distance between two transmission poles is 200 feet whereas in respect of the pole which is being erected on the land of the petitioner, the distance is 175 feet. It is thus contended that such distance has been unjustly kept so as to deprive the petitioner of the optimum utilization of his land and to benefit the other land owners. I do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The distance between the two transmission pole depend upon the alignment of the transmission line. It is not necessary that all electrical poles of transmission lines have to be at equal distances. The distance would depend upon the angle at which the transmission lines have to be erected and keeping in view the feasibility of installation of the poles. There is nothing on record to show that the land of the petitioner has been chosen intentionally so as to deprive him of his land and to benefit somebody else. CR No. 1180 of 2010 -4- In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned first Appellate Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court . Revision stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.11.2010 preeti