An electricity board cannot install a transmission line on private land without the consent of the landowner and without following the mandatory procedure under the IE Act. An ex post facto sanction granted by the electricity board after the completion of the unauthorized construction is not valid and does not legalize the construction.

JUDGMENT :- The unsuccessful defendants in both the courts below have preferred this appeal.

2. The plaintiffs suit is for mandatory injunction against the defendants directing the latter to remove the electric poles and electric lines fixed by them on and over the plaintiffs land

3. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that plot No. 108 under Khata No. 119 of mouza Jagamara and plot No. 6 under Khata No. 238 of mouza Dum Duma described in the suit plan Ext. 1 attached to the plaint belong to the plaintiffs. Those plots are included in the Town Planning Scheme as per Ext. 6 and the plaintiffs had reserved the same for construction of residential buildings. The defendants framed schemes for transmission of electric lines for distribution of electricity, and under the said scheme the electric line was not to pass over the plaintiffs lands. But to their surprise the defendants started fixing the electric poles on the suit lands and placed electric lines over the same completely disregarding the said scheme. The said electric supply lines over the suit lands were laid without taking the consent of the plaintiffs and against the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as I. E. Act ) and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as E. S. Act ) and the rules made thereunder. The plaintiffs all along opposed the construction of the said supply lines over their lands, and by notices dated 19-10-67, 29-l-68 and 20-9-68, served by the plaintiffs on the defendants, the defendants were asked to refrain from taking the said transmission lines over the plaintiffs lands. The defendants disregarded all objections of the plaintiffs to the above effect and illegally diverted the original alignment of the electric supply line framed under the Scheme. It is also alleged that the electric supply line as per the scheme was to pass over the land belonging to M/s. Khandagiri Service Station but the defendants in collusion with the said service station illegally and forcibly diverted the supply line over the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. Hence the suit

4. The Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) represented through its Chairman is defendant No. 1 and the Board, again represented through its Secretary, is defendant No. 2. In the written statement filed by the Board through its Secretary the plaint allegations have been denied. In the written statement it is, inter alia, stated that the transmission line was drawn in accordance with the scheme which was duly sanctioned as per the provisions of the E. S. Act read with Part III of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as I. T. Act ). Some deviation from the approved scheme had to be made for public safety as a petrol pump was installed on the original alignment by M/s. Khandagiri Service Station and some buildings were constructed in that locality, and the owners thereof did not permit the transmission line to be drawn in accordance with the sanctioned original alignment. It is admitted that the plaintiffs orally, physically and by notice obstructed the drawing up of the transmission line over their land, but the defendants had to take the said transmission line as it exists at present with police help only in the interest of the general public.

5. The trial court held that the complained-of transmission line passing over the suit land is a deviation from the original alignment and the sanctioned scheme; the said line over the suit land was taken without the consent of the owners or the occupiers of the said land, and the Board s act in this regard was illegale and without jurisdiction. On the above findings, the plaintiffs prayer for mandatory injunction was decreed and the defendants were directed to remove the electric transmission line over the plaintiffs land and the poles fixed thereon within 3 months from the date of the decree.

6. The appellate Court, on a re-assessment of the evidence on record