AB MAJID ZARGER Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-3-30
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 07,2006

Ab Majid Zarger Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IMPUGNED in this appeal is order dated 26.11.2005 purporting to have been passed by Principal District Judge Budgam whereunder while vacating the earlier status quo order dated 23.04.2006 passed on interim injunction application he refused injunctive relief to appellant as prayed for, with the observation that construction of towers in suit land be under taken only after commencing acquisition proceedings or private negotiations for acquisition of the land.
(2.) IN the circumstantial back drop, it appears that appellant who owes a parcel of land measuring 3 kanals 10 1/2 marlas u/s no. 279/104 of Village Sheikhpora Tehsil Budgam apprehending unauthorized use of his land by respondents for erection of towers for lying the transmission line of electricity used to have them restrained from doing so unless the said parcel of land was duly acquired. Along with the suit he filed an ancillary application for interim relief which was disposed of vide impugned order aforementioned and hence the appeal.
(3.) GROUNDS pleaded are that course of transmission line required to be laid over the proposal tower was being changed in violation of the original plan so as to run through petitioner's aforementioned land which besides depriving him of the only parcel of residential land, also violates his rights thereto, particularly because of respondents' refusal to duly acquire the land for the purpose, if at all required and as such the impugned order of allowing respondents to raise the tower besides being voilative of law also disposes of the petitioner's suit in the interim application, even as the parcel of land was not suitable for laying down the transmission line for being hazards to general public etc. During course of his threshold arguments the appellants counsel has further contended that learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the factual aspects in their proper context and landed into an error by passing the impugned order etc. I have heard learned counsel and gone through the memo of appeal, and the impugned order appended therewith. In so far as petitioners apprehension that the transmission line from over his land would be hazards to general public is concerned, the same cannot be acknowledged because the course of transmission line must have been determined by engineering experts after thorough consideration of all aspects involved and it would be unwise for any court to substitute the expert opinion by its own, particularly in as highly intricated a matter as laying of the transmission line with highest voltage electric current. So it is the expert opinion that must prevail in the matter, unless dislodged by a more expert opinion.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.