Bhim Singh vs Sohan Lal (Since Died) Through Lrs And ... on 9 May, 2013

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhim Singh vs Sohan Lal (Since Died) Through Lrs And ... on 9 May, 2013

Bench: A.N. Jindal

Civil Revision No.3294 of 2011                                    1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                                 Civil Revision No.3294 of 2011
                                 Date of decision: 09.05.2013


Bhim Singh

                                              ......Petitioner


             Versus


Sohan Lal (since died) through LRs and others
                                           .......Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

Present:     Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate,
             for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

             Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,
             for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

             *****

A.N. Jindal, J.

The trial Court, vide order dated 11.12.2010, granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as 'respondent Nos.1 and 2') and restrained the defendants-petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 from converting the HT line from mark AB to mark BCDA, shown in red colour in the site plan or causing damage to the crop of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 till final decision of the case, against which, defendant No.3-petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner') preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 06.04.2011. Hence, this petition.

On 08.10.2012, this Court had passed the following order:- Civil Revision No.3294 of 2011 2

"Learned counsel for the respondents states that even though the alternate line has been installed, yet it is not at a 'safe distance' and seeks an adjournment.

Adjourned to 12.12.2012.

In the meantime, let the respondents get electric supply from the new line and supply from the old line be discontinued."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are getting electric supply from the new line, therefore, the petitioner has no objection, if this arrangement is continued.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has stated that Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (for brevity 'Nigam') should not draw/install any such electric line or poles near their tubewell or land comprised in Killa No.15, Rect. No.27. He has further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the Nigam has installed electric poles in the land of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and near their tubewell and residential house, which are constant trouble and danger to their lives and liberty.

Heard, the factum with regard to installation of the poles in the permissible area would be examined by the trial Court and if, any such pole has been raised in the land of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, without following the due process of law and close to their residential house or tubewell, then the Court would pass necessary orders for their removal at the time of decision of the suit. But, in the meantime, the present arrangement according to which, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are getting the electricity supply from the new line, would continue.

Disposed of accordingly.

(A.N.Jindal) 09.05.2013 Judge ajp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court