Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of his writ petition by a learned single Judge of this Court, the appellant has filed this special appeal. The writ petition was filed on the allegations that the appellant was the owner of an estate called Chandan Bari Estate which is claimed to have been developed into a residential colony. In the writ petition it was alleged that the U. P. Electricity Board is laying a 132 KV transmission line between Yamuna Power House Dehradun and Dehradun. The transmission line runs through the appellant's estate. The appellant's case in the writ petition was that in March 1968 the Executive Engineer of the Hydel Transmission and Construction Division, Roorkee, discussed the suitability of a route for the transmission lines through the appellant's estate and an agreement was arrived at as to the exact route that the lines would take and the spots where the towers would be constructed but subsequently the respondents have marked out places for construction of towers Nos. 16 and 19 which were at variance from those which had been agreed upon between the parties. The appellant consequently on the 28th March, 1968 applied to the District Magistrate, Dehradun, under S. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 hereinafter referred to as the 1910 Act- to direct the respondents to alter the positions of those towers. The application had not been disposed of till the time of the presentation of the writ petition but the respondents were continuing to construct the towers at the altered places illegally. In the writ petition it was prayed that the respondents be directed not to disregard Ss. 12 and 18 of the 1910 Act by shifting the positions of towers Nos. 16 and 19 from the agreed places. A prayer was also made that the District Magistrate may be directed to decide the appellant's application forthwith.
(2.) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents stating that a scheme of construction of a 132 KV line was sanctioned in 1965. After a portion of it was constructed, it was found that its route needed to be altered. Consequent on a survey having been made, a new route was proposed which received the approval of the Superintending Engineer, Hydel Transmission Construction Circle, Roorkee. Towers Nos. 16 to 19 on this route were located on the land belonging to the appellant and the appellant had agreed to the location of four towers on his land. It was denied by the respondents that the Executive Engineer concluded any agreement with the appellant. According to the respondents, tower No. 16 had been installed at the present location with a view to avoid diversion which was not desirable for technical reasons. As far as tower No. 19 is concerned, it was asserted in the counter- affidavit initially filed that it had not been shifted from its intended site. A letter written by the appellant has been filed along with the counter-affidavit showing that the site of tower No. 19 has been agreed to and approved by him. Some trees belonging to the appellant fall on the route of the transmission line and consequently the appellant was given notice to cut them. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that the appellant removed some trees but two or three of them had to be removed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that in view of S. 51 of the 1910 Act and the notification issued under S. 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act - the respondents, under S. 10 of the Telegraph Act, were entitled to place the transmission line and the towers therefor over the appellant's land and if the appellant suffered any damage therefrom he could claim compensation for the same. A rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the appellant re-asserting most of the allegations contained in the writ petition. Subsequently an application was made for amendment of the writ petition. This amendment application was accompanied by an affidavit. Consequently a second counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents and a further rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the appellant.
(3.) WHEN the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, the appellant challenged the respondent's action on the following grounds as noted in the judgment : "1. That there was no sanctioned scheme for the diversion. 2. That the respondents have violated Ss. 12 and 18 of the Electricity Act. 3. That S. 10 of the Telegraph Act was not applicable and in the alternative it violated Art. 14 of the Constitution." The contentions raised by the appellant did not find favour with the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition. It may be mentioned here that the appellant's grievance now is confined to tower No. 16 since from the counter-affidavit filed and the annexure thereto which is a letter written by the appellant himself it is clear that tower No. 19 was located at the spot where it is with his agreement.;