IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Hamsa. A.P., S/o.Muhammed @ Kunhapputty Haji – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. – Respondent
RSA No. 177 of 2022
Decided on : 15-11-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100, Order XLII Rule 1 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 10, 17(1), (2), 16, (1) - Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 41(h) - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 164, 145 - Property - Suit for injunction - Restrain from charging transformer erected - Plaintiffs filed present suit for injunction, restraining Electricity Board from charging transformer erected/placed on plaint schedule property – District Magistrate has power to consider a requisition for removal of telegraph line or post other than that of a local authority. (Para 26)
Finding of the Court :
Plaintiffs, who are aggrieved in matter of installation of transformer in their property and there is refusal of demand, at instance of plaintiffs, by Authority, they could very well make a requisition before District Magistrate for removal of same and said relief, couched in form of mandatory injunction in instant suit, civil court jurisdiction is barred as provided under Section 145 of Electricity Act - Finding of appellate court in this regard is correct and said finding does not require any interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Please provide the full legal document (including its content within
JUDGMENT :
This regular second appeal has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC), challenging the decree and judgment dated 29.01.2022 in A.S.No.35/2020 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Manjeri, arising out of the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2019 in O.S.No.430/2016 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri. The appellants herein are plaintiff No.2 and supplemental plaintiffs 3 to 11 in the above suit and the respondents herein are the defendants.
2. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Sri.Riji Rajendran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. in detail. Perused the records.
3. While admitting this appeal, my learned predecessor, as per order dated 25.03.2022, formulated the following substantial questions of law:
ii) Is not Sec.10, 17(1) and 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 confined to the installation of a telegraph line and post by a telegraph authority?
iii) Is not the prayer for removal of an electrical transformer from a private property outside the purview of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885?
iv) Is not the prayer for Prohibitory Injunction restraining the charging of electrical transformer outside the purview of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885?
v) Is the lower appellate court correct in law in readily inferring ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court under Sec.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and holding that the suit is not maintainable under Sec.41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? vi) Is the lower appellate court justified in not deciding all the issues in fact and law raised in the Appeal?”
4. I shall refer the parties in this regular second appeal as 'plaintiffs' and 'Electricity Board' for convenience.
5. The plaintiffs' case in brief:
The plaintiffs, who alleged to be the owners of the plaint A schedule property, filed the present suit for injunction, restraining the Electricity Board from charging the transformer erected/placed on the plaint schedule property and also for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove the transformer from the plaint schedule property.
6. The Electricity Board resisted the suit by filing written statement. The following contentions raised in the written statement. It was contended that the suit is not maintainable and the District Magistrate is the authority to decide the dispute which comes under Sec.16(1) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 read with Sec.164 of the Electricity Act. It was contended further that the plaintiffs have no right and possession over the property, where the transformer was installed and such installation was necessitated to adjust low voltage problem in Ward No.10 of Malappuram Municipality. According to the defendants, the Transformer was installed on the side of Moozhikal bypass Veluthedeathmanna road and the place where the Transformer installed was the property relinquished by the local people. Further, the erection of transformer was started on 20.10.2015 and finished on 30.04.2016. The second plaintiff had produced copy of his title deed before the Assistant Engineer, KSEB and claimed that the Transformer was installed in Resurvey No.606/3, the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the Taluk Surveyor measured the property and found that the Transformer was situated in Resurvey No.606/1. But no documents were produced by the plaintiffs to prove their ownership in the property situated in Resurvey No.606/1. The defendants charged the Transformer on 24.07.2006 and as such, the relief of prohibitory injunction restraining charging of the transformer and mandatory injunction to remove the transformer must fail.
7. Addressing the rival pleadings, the trial court raised necessary issues and tried the matter. PWs.1 to 4 examined and Ex
Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act deals with power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.
The jurisdiction to address disputes regarding unauthorized installations of electrical infrastructure lies with the District Magistrate, not the GRF, as per the provisions of the Electricity Act and....
The authority of the respondent to shift transmission towers under the Electricity Act and the entitlement of aggrieved parties to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act.
Statutory authorities can erect high-tension electricity towers on private land without prior consent, provided they ensure minimal damage and compensate affected parties, in adherence to public inte....
Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003, no land owner or person interested can seek for shifting or realigning of the route, on the premise that the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, has powe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transmission licensee, constituted as a Telegraph Authority, has the statutory power to determine compensation for laying transmission lines....
The conferment of powers of Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act does not require a hearing of objections from affected persons before exercising powers under the Telegraph Ac....
The court affirmed the legality of the procedures for erecting transmission towers and highlighted public interest in electricity provision over private landowner objections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.