Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2011 M/s Shiva Card Board .....Petitioner v. U.H.B.V.N. through its Secretary .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.8.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal, and judgment dated 11.3.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which application filed by petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondents from installing/laying down or carrying out any works in the shape of fixing any support of overhead electricity lines above in the suit land belonging to petitioner during pendency of the suit, has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondents-defendants are laying the new 33 KVA line Siwan Gate Kaithal from 132 KVA Sub Station Village Khurana, as per the route plan attached with the reply filed by respondents-defendants and the work of erection of the poles is in progress. The electricity line under construction is parallel to Kaithal-Chheka road in straight line. Plea of petitioner-plaintiff is that as per `Work License Rules 2006' the department can carry out its work of laying down electricity Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -2- supply lines with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of the building and land and in case any objection is raised by the owner or occupier of the land, then the matter would be referred to District Magistrate or other higher authorities and that permission of the District Magistrate is required to be taken. Hence, he has contended that no such notice was given to him before carrying out the work. The said objection was fully met by Courts below and while dismissing the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff, learned trial Court observed as under:- “5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant no.3 submitted that in this case survey was duly carried out and he himself visited the spot alongwith SDO. There was no boundary wall and there was one room which is about 100 yard away from the line. The entire land is vacant which is meant for agriculture purpose as evident from revenue record placed on file. He submitted that plaintiff was well aware of it and moreover, no objection has been raised by the plaintiff so far. He simply filed the suit. He further submitted that only relief available to the plaintiff is to seek compensation and as per Section 10 Electricity (supply) Act, 1855, they can lay the electric lines for transmission and distribution. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon Dr.Mohan Lal vs. the Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 1989(2) PLR 380. With this submission he prayed that application may be dismissed. 6. I have heard and considered the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file very carefully. From perusal of jamabandi placed on file, it transpires that the land falling in rect.no.140 Killa no.18 is gair mumkin straw Board Mill. However, the plaintiff has not placed any site plan in order to show that the Straw Board Mill is having the boundary wall. During arguments the learned counsel for the defendant has specifically stated that he had seen the suit property having no boundary wall and the land is lying vacant and open. The room is existing which is about more than 100 yard away Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -3- from the line. Moreover, the plan for laying the line was sanctioned after proper survey. Till date plaintiff has not raised any objection before any authority. At the same, the defendants department has not obtained any consent from the plaintiff. Moreover, the project being implemented, is for the benefit of public at large. In case injunction is granted then line which is otherwise completed by the authority, would become useless. The plaintiff would not suffer any loss as no construction of the mill is existing. The plaintiff can use his land as is being used by him. However, in view of ratio of law in case of Dr.Mohan Lal (supra), the plaintiff is having efficacious remedy to seek damages for the loss suffered by him if any and the general remedy for issuance of injunction is not available. Since the plaintiff has not raised any objection before the authorities there was no need to take permission of the District Magistrate as provided in the Rules.” Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- “8.There is a Jamabandi of the year 2006-07 of the land comprising in khasra no.140 killa no.18. It is a `gair mumkin land measuring 8 kanals'. The jamabandi reveals that it is a land of a straw mill. In the ownership column, the name M/s Shiva cardboard has been mentioned. It is so apparent from khasra girdawari of the year 2009-2010 as well. Over and above these two documents, nothing has been shown on record from which it could be gathered prima facie, that straw board mill is in fact, in operation. Concededly, the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to show that any objection was filed by it at any point of time before any authority of the electricity Nigam. In these circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant cannot urge that its prior consent in terms of `work License Rules 2006' was required. Even otherwise, the provision of Section 3 of the Work License Rules is not mandatory. The counsel for the appellant has Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -4- tried to provide momentum to his argument by urging that the proviso appended to Rule 3 casts a mandatory obligation on licensee (Electricity Nigam in the present case) to obtain permission in writing from District Magistrate or Commissioner of police or any other officer authorised by the Government in this behalf for carrying out the work. This argument of learned counsel is bereft of credence. The proviso of Rule 3 is attracted only when the owner or occupier of the building or land, raises any objections with respect to the works to be carried out under rules. In the case in hand, the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to show that any such objections had been filed by it before the Electricity Nigam, prior to the institution of this suit. It would certainly be a novice way of projecting the state of affairs, if the argument of the plaintiff-appellant is accepted that it had raised oral objections before the competent authority. 9. There has been no replication filed by the plaintiff- appellant, to the plea of the defendant-respondent no.3 to the effect that the plan for electricity line has been duly approved by the competent authority and it is in the interest of the State and its inhabitants. Also, there is no necessity to acquire the line from where the line is to pass. Also, there is no replication that no preliminary inspection of the land was carried out and the work is in progress since long. Also, there is no replication to the plea of defendant/respondent that the plaintiff-appellant has not obtained permission for change of land use from any competent authority. Thus, prima facie it is apparent that a proper preliminary survey was conducted by the Electricity Nigam before implementing its plan of laying down the electricity line, parallel to Kaithal-Cheeka road in straight elevation. The plaintiff-appellant has not raised any objection before any authority till date, or even at time when the preliminary survey was being conducted. It was always at liberty to raise objections before the competent authority, should it have any grievance. In any case, the Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -5- plaintiff-appellant has always an efficacious remedy available at its helm to seek damages for loss suffered by it, if any. Definitely, the project under implementation is for the benefit of general public at large. Keeping that aspect in mind, the injunction cannot be granted which could create impediment in the way of culmination of the project. This is particularly when the learned counsel for defendant/respondent has urged that the new 33 KV line will not pass over any building etc., as per the stand taken in the written statement. In these circumstances, the learned lower court has rightly observed that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff- appellant and also it will not suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case injunction is not granted to it. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.8.2010. It is accordingly affirmed. Nothing stated herein above, be deemed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Present appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly and copy of this judgment be remitted to the learned lower court alongwith its record. The appeal file be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.” Perusal of impugned orders passed by learned courts below shows that sufficient reasons have been given by Courts below while passing the impugned orders. Respondents-defendants are having right to erect and lay down the electricity wires under Electricity Act, 2003. No objection in writing was filed by petitioner-plaintiff before any authority under the Act and the Rules. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that respondents were not required to obtain prior consent of District Magistrate under `Work License Rules 2006'. It has also been observed by learned appellate court that application for the electricity line was duly approved by the authority, which is in the interest of State and all the inhabitants and that the pleas taken by respondent-defendant in his written statement have not been controverted by filing rejoinder by present petitioner-plaintiff. He has not obtained requisite permission for change of land use from any competent authority. He has also not been able to show Civil Revision No.2409 of 2011(O&M) -6- that there is any building at the place, where electricity line will pass. Both the Courts have rightly placed reliance upon Dr.Mohan Lal v. The Haryana State Electricity Board and others, 1989(2) PLR 380, while declining request of petitioner-plaintiff for ad interim injunction order. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned both the Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of the case on merit by learned trial Court. 8.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge