The electricity board is empowered under the relevant provisions of the law to erect the poles and lay lines in private fields, and the only remedy available to the aggrieved person is to claim compensation.

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bathinda, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

3. Appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendants to remove the electricity poles and electric wires installed in the land owned by the plaintiff comprised of khasra no. 140//18, 19, 20 situated adjoining to Nathana-Bhagta road situated in revenue estate of village Dialpura Mirza, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

4. As per averments in the plaint, the land of the plaintiff detailed above falls on two roads. For the protection of crops, the plaintiff had fixed the barbed wire around the said land. The transformer already exist at point "O" shown in the site plan and the said transformer is just on the corner of the road. The defendants have no right to install or erect the electric poles in the land of any farmer against any scheme and in arbitrary manner. However, defendants no.2 and 3 without any prior sanction scheme, without any notice to the plaintiff and without acquisition of her land removed the barbed wire to cause loss to the crops of the plaintiff in khasra no. 140//18, 19 and 20. Instead of installing the poles on side of the road, they had erected the same in the land of the plaintiff and had put the electric wires and connected the same with transformer TF-2 at point "M". The said act of the defendants is arbitrary, without any competence or jurisdiction and with a view to cause the economic loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

5. Defendants-respondents contested the suit on the plea that they had full right to install the poles, transformers and to lay the wires to supply the electricity to the consumers as per rules and regulations of the department. The poles and transformer were installed as required for giving connections to the consumers under B.P.L Scheme, which was launched under Rajiv Gandhi Yojna to supply electricity to poor persons. It was further pleaded that sanction of the scheme was only required when the supply is to be given at large. There was no need of acquisition of the land of the plaintiff. No irreparable loss has been caused to the plaintiff. With these pleas, defendants-respondents pleaded for dismissal of the suit.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPP

3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction ? OPP

4. Relief ? OPP.

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013.

8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree, appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal and the same was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 09.12.2014. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

9. I have heard Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticulously gone through the paper book.

10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is an admitted fact that no scheme was got sanctioned before erecting the electric poles and electric line in the land of the appellant-plaintiff. Her land was also not acquired nor any compensation was given to her. Thus, he contended that the action of the defendants is arbitrary, illegal and has resulted in economic loss to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff is entitled for