C.R. No.7094 of 2010 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7094 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2010 Subhash ....…Petitioner Versus UHBVNL through its Chairman and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Subhash-plaintiff has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 11.10.2010 Annexure P-6 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4 filed by the plaintiff for appointment of Local Commissioner. Plaintiff has filed suit to restrain the defendants from installing foundation tower of electricity transmission line in center of land of killa No.26/17 belonging to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendants threatened to lay the electricity transmission line through the plaintiff's land without framing any scheme. The plaintiff alleged in application Annexure P-4 that respondents' official made false statement Annexure P-3 that the tower had been installed in the land of plaintiff so as to save village Abadi and Government school. The plaintiff alleged that no Government school exist in the village and the transmission line has been diverted to save the land of one Sub-Divisional Officer of Irrigation Department. The plaintiff, therefore, sought appointment of C.R. No.7094 of 2010 (O & M) 2 Local Commissioner to bring the actual state of affairs. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the defendants have diverted the transmission line to save the land of Sub-Divisional Officer. The contention merits rejection because no such plea has been taken in plaint Annexure P-1 and, therefore, this plea for the first time taken in application Annexure P-4 cannot be accepted being beyond pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that no Government school exists as falsely stated by the defendants' official and in fact there is a private school. However, even it be so, appointment of Local Commissioner is not required when the factual position that a school exists is not disputed. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for appointment of Local Commissioner. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is completely bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 29.10.2010. A. Kaundal