The authority of the petitioner under the Electricity Act to install transmission lines and the right of landowners to receive compensation for the use of their land were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders, passed by the learned courts below, whereby in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has been restrained from installing/erecting tower bearing Nos. 64/6 and 64/7 in the land of the respondents-plaintiffs.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from installing tower Nos. 06408 and 06409 of 400 KW power transmission line being erected between Moga and Bhiwadi (Rajasthan), situated in Village Daulatpur, Tehsil and District Hisar and also restraining the petitioner-defendant from changing the site of shortest route. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was filed which was allowed by the trial Court. In appeal by the petitioner before the learned lower appellate court, the order of the trial court was upheld.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide notification dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure P.1), the petitioner has been notified as a Central Transmission Utility in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, `the Electricity Act). The petitioner is also a licensee to transmit the power throughout the country. Vide order dated 24.12.2003, in exercise of power conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the petitioner was authorised to exercise power under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, `the Telegraph Act) for the purpose of erecting tower and laying transmission lines. The Government of India, vide communication dated 9.6.2006, approved for implementation of Northern Regional System Strengthening Scheme (NRSSS)-V, under which following transmission lines were to be erected :

"Transmission Lines * DILO of 400 KV S/C Hisar-Jaipur line at Bhiwani 80 km

* 400 KV D/C Bhiwadi-Agra Line- 216 km

* 400 KV D/C Bhiwadi-Moga Line- 370 km"

The project was financed by foreign currency and domestic loans plus internal resources. The disputed portion falls on 400 KV D/C Bhiwadi-Moga Line -370 kilometers in length. Notice of the proposed line was published in `Indian Express on 23.4.2007 mentioning the villages through which the lines were to pass. Survey was conducted and the places were ear-marked where towers were to be installed.

4 Jaswant Singh Lamba son of Dharam Singh Lamba, owner of a portion of the land through which the transmission line was to pass through, raised objections with the plea that there were kinnow orchards in the land owned by him in which besides drip irrigation system, even rain gun had been installed to take care of the plants from the fly ash from a nearby Thermal Plant. Considering the fact that transmission lines were re-aligned, the revised scheme was approved by the competent authority on 19.7.2008. Respondent No. 1 sent an undated representation to the petitioner raising objection about change of alignment accepting the plea made by Jaswant Singh. The representation was received in the petitioners office on 23.7.2008. On 23.7.2008, a civil suit was filed for seeking permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from installing electric tower bearing Nos. 06408 and 06409 in the land of respondent No. 1 which was alleged to be against the approved scheme. A further restrain was sought from changing the route of the transmission lines. The case sought to be made out in the plaint was that the route was sought to be changed on a representation made by Jaswant Singh, which was contrary to the factual position on the spot and the same was accepted by the petitioner in his connivance. The submission was that the project undertaken by the petitioner is of national importance. The suit, which was filed by respondent No. 1, was not maintainable as neither any prior notice under Section 80 CPC was issued nor any exemption was sought. Even otherwise, in terms of Sectio