SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHIEF ENGINEER, HARYANA VIDYUT PARSARAN NIGAM LTD AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
DAYAL SARUP AND ANR – Respondent
CR 2215/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

209 *****

================= IN VIRTUAL COURT =================

1. CR No. 2215 of 2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 13.12.2021 Chief Engineer, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ...... Petitioners v.

Dayal Sarup and another ...... Respondents

2. CR No. 2217 of 2021 (O&M)

Chief Engineer, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ...... Petitioners Versus Rajiv Gupta and another ...... Respondents

3. CR No. 2201 of 2021 (O&M)

Chief Engineer, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ...... Petitioners Versus Shashi Mittal and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT Present : Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Amulay Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate, for the respondents (CR No. 2215 of 2021)

Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate, for the respondents (in CR No. 2201 and 2217 of 2021)

---

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

This order shall dispose of the aforementioned three petitions as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being taken from CR No. 2215 of 2021.

The parties herein are referred to as 'the plaintiffs' and 'the defendants', as they are referred to in the original suit.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the order dated 15.9.2021 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, in appeal against order passed by the Trial Court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from passing high power electrical wires, by erecting the structure of electrical poles in the land of the plaintiffs, situated at Mouza Dhaurang, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

Brief facts, as involved in the case are that the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited is a Public Utility; engaged in construction of power stations and transmissions of electricity. Towards fulfillment of those functions, the defendants are required to lay the transmission lines to ensure supplies of electricity through various parts of the State. To facilitate the defendants in its job in laying down the lines, the Governor of Haryana has conferred upon it the powers of Telegraph Authority; to be exercised under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; by issuing a notification under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short ‘the Electricity Act’). For ensuring transmission of electricity in the district of Yamuna Nagar, the defendants had prepared a plan for laying a high tension electricity line. A notification to that effect was issued in the newspaper. Thereafter, the defendants started the work of laying the line. When they reached over the land of the plaintiffs for erecting a poll, they were resisted by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the action of the defendants in laying the transmission line over their land, the plaintiffs filed civil suit claiming that they are the co-sharer in the land described in the plaint. The defendants, along with official and workers, had visited the spot and they had put the marks in the suit property for erecting the poles. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were planning to erect structure of poles to lay the electricity line in the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pleaded that there is an orchard in that particular area of land and there was also a Gurudwara. Previously, attempt was made to lay the line through the land of the neighbors of the plaintiffs. However, thereafter, the alignment has been changed to bring the same over the land of the plaintiffs; without any notice and without issuance of any notification regarding the change of the route of line. The plaintiffs had even suggested the shortest route to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top