IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on :06.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on 17.04.2026 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT VERSUS DARIYA SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate for Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. RSA No. 1393 of 2002 was taken up along with RSA No. 1550 of 2002 as a connected matter. However, perusal of both the appeals, particularly RSA No. 1550 of 2002, shows that they involve different parties and arise out of distinct cause of action, though the part of land in dispute, i.e., Killa No. 23, in both the appeals is one and the same.

2. Present regular second appeal No. 1550 of 2022 has been preferred by appellant–defendant No. 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat vide which appeal preferred by plaintiff-respondent was allowed

3. Plaintiff–respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from erecting electric poles for transmission power line under the scheme of N.T.P.C. over the agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 59, Khatoni No. 72 rectangle No. 70, Killa No. 22(7-11), 23/1 (4-

0), situated in Village Mahawati, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat, without paying compensation and damages or acquiring the land of the respondent– plaintiff. It was the case of respondent–plaintiff that he is the owner in possession of the said property. It is asserted that appellant-defendant No. 3 preferred a scheme for erecting the 400 KV Abdulapur–Bawana Power Line. Appellant–defendant No. 3 was erecting poles in Killa Nos. 22 and 23/1 after ₹

damaging sugarcane crops of plaintiff-respondent amounting to 9,100/-. It was ₹

further asserted that only 7,001/- had been paid to plaintiff-respondent towards compensation for damaged crops in Killa Nos. 19 and 22, whereas no compensation has been paid for the damage caused to crops in Killa No. 23/1. Accordingly, the plaintiff-respondent had sought an injunction against the defendants.

4. The defendants raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. It was contended that, in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short ‘1948 Act’) read with sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short ‘1885 Act’), and Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, suit was not maintainable and no injunction could be granted, particularly as compensation for the alleged damages had already been paid to the plaintiff-respondent. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation u/s 10 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885?OPD

5. Relief.”

6. The learned Court of first instance concluded that the defendants had not paid compensation to the plaintiff for the damage caused to the standing crop in Killa No. 23/1 and, therefore, restrained the defendants from erecting poles/tower line over the suit property unless compensation was paid to plaintiff in accordance with the Rules. Accordingly, the suit was partly decreed in favour of plaintiff.

7. Dissatisfied with the partial relief granted by the Court of first instance, the plaintiff had preferred first appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.02.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat. The said appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Court, and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Appellant–defendant No. 3 was directed to pay compensation to the plaintiff in accordance with the prevailing market value of the land over which the electric poles had been erected.

8. It is