JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---This Revision Application arises from order dated 26th June, 1998 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/96/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim. By the impugned Order, the trial Court has answered the following issue in negative:-

"Whether the defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the working of 110 KV S.C. Tower line is being done under Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 under which only the District Magistrate i.e. the Collector, North Goa has jurisdiction."

2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein has filed a suit seeking to restrain the petitioners and the respondents No. 2 to 4 from "taking proposed supply of electricity and/or from carrying any work in that regard to the suit property belonging to respondent No. 1". The contention of the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioners and the other respondents proposed to provide electricity supply of 110 KV through and/or even the suit property without the consent of the respondent No. 1 and without following the due process of law. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners and the other respondents that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit since according to them they are doing the work of 110 KV/SC Tower Line under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 under which only District Magistrate i.e. Collector, North Goa has jurisdiction to entertain the grievances of the public and that the grievances of the respondent No. 1 had been dealt with by the District Magistrate and the petitioners and the other respondents are ready to pay compensation as may be decided by the District Magistrate or the Court.

3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings had framed the above quoted issue and after hearing the parties has answered the same in the negative by the impugned order.

4. Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that sections 19 and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 impliedly ousts jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such suit since the appropriate remedy is available under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the said statute clearly provides necessary remedy complete in itself and, therefore, the Civil Court could not have proceeded with the suit. Drawing my attention to section 12 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the learned Advocate submitted that sub-section (2) thereof clearly provides that in case of any objection being raised by the owner of the land for the work contemplated under sub-section (1) of the said section, it is for the District Magistrate to decide about the grievances and fix the compensation. According to the learned Advocate, the owners right is confined to compensation alone and, therefore, the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit of the nature filed by the respondent No. 1. He sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. M/s. Vijaya Timber Company)1, reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2364 and in the matter of (Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Ashwani Kumar)2, reported in 1997(5) S.C.C. 120 in support of his submission.

5. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the point for consideration before the trial Court was the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in question on the ground that the acts of the petitioners and the other respondents were under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The sole contention of the petitioners is that the jurisdiction in such matters exclusively vests with the District Magistrate of the conc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document