The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual and public interests in cases involving electricity transmission lines, considering the legal provisions under the Electricity Act, the Specific Relief Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Das, J. - This second appeal has been flied against the confirming Judgment passed in a suit flied by the Respondent for permanent injunction against the Defendant-Appellants to injunct them from raising a High Tension Tower for drawing the transmission line of 220 K.V. (D.C.) from Budhipadar to Bolangir over the disputed property which admittedly belongs to the Respondent. The appeal has been admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the Learned Courts below are competent & having jurisdiction to decide the disputes involved in the case & to grant permanent injunction in view of the clear bar in this regard u/s 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 & Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that over & above the substantial questions of law framed by this Court during admission of the appeal, another substantial question of law arises for determination, such as:

Considering the facts involved in this case, where the dispute relates to the general interest of the public, who are to be supplied with electricity vis-a-vis the individual interest of the Plaintiff, whether the Learned Courts below have gone wrong in holding that a decree of permanent injunction can be passed in favour of the Plaintiff & in not taking the aid of Section 89 C.P.C. to arrive at a just decision in this case?

3. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the Learned lower Appellate Court while confirming the Judgment of the Trial Court took note of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed that the suit land is a homestead land & she has raised construction of a house for which the Tahasildar under Ext. 3 authorized to convert the status of the suit land. The Learned lower Appellate Court also observed that no documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the Defendants (Appellants) to prove such fact that the scheme was notified in the gazette & the copy of the notification does not reflect the details of the land over which the proposed transmission line was to be taken. The Learned lower Appellate Court has relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Susama Patel Vs. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Others, in support of its finding that the proper notification & publication must indicate the areas over which the transmission line is likely to go & in absence of indication of the area in the publication or notification, it is not a proper notification.

4. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has filed the gazette notification before this Court to accept the same as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. the xerox copy of which was filed before the Trial Court.

5. Considering the fact that the said gazette notification, which is a public document, would be necessary for just adjudication of the appeal even though admission of the same was objected to by the Respondent, the same is admitted into evidence, waiving its formal proof & is marked as Ext. B. In the case of Smt. Susama Patel (supra), this Court on verifying the notification, which was published under Sub-Section 3 of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 observed as follows:

...In our opinion, this is not a proper publication of the draft scheme as it did not indicate the areas over which transmission line was likely to go.

6. In that view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court held that the sanctioned scheme was not published properly. In the gazette notification, which has been marked as Ext. B, it has been specifically mentioned that full details of the scheme & the plan may be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer (Transmission Project), Orissa State Electricity Board, Bidyut Bhawan, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar on any working day during office hours. It, therefore, cannot be said that in the detailed plan, the areas were not mentioned & accordingly, the said areas mentioned in the detailed plan formed a part of the scheme, which was notified in th