Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Vidyut Prasharan Nigam ... vs Siyya Ram And Ors. on 18 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR91
Author: Iqbal Singh
Bench: Iqbal Singh
JUDGMENT Iqbal Singh, J.
1. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-Board) on the allegations that the plaintiff-respondents are owner in possession of the land in question and that the appellant-Board has no right to lay down any transmission line on the land of the plaintiff-respondents without their consent and in violation of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act.
2. The appellant-Board contested the suit on the ground that it is ready to pay the amount of compensation to the plaintiff-respondents as per the assessment made by the revenue authorities.
3. The trial Court framed the following issues besides that of relief:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP.
2. Whether the defendants have laid transmission line in the suit land illegally and forcibly, if so to what effect? OPP.
4. Both the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.1998.
5. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appellant-Board went in appeal before the District Judge, Sonepat, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.1999.
6. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Board to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellant Court.
7. After hearing Mr. Rajive Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Board and going through the records of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below, after relying on the revenue record, have returned a firm finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondents are owners in possession of the land in question. Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') lays down that a Scheme has to be prepared for laying down transmission line and under Section 29 of the Act, public notice of such a Scheme has to be given so that the interested persons may make representations on such Scheme. No such Scheme has been brought on the record of this case by the appellant-Board. There is also nothing on the record to show that any opportunity was given to the plaintiff-respondents to file objections against the Scheme. As such, the appellant-Board has not complied with the provisions of the Act. In these circumstances, I find that both the Courts below have rightly decreed the claim of the plaintiff-respondents.
8. Consequently, this appeal by the appellant-Board fails and the same is hereby dismissed.