Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Banwari Devi being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 15.11.2014 rendered by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar (for short 'the Appellate Court') whereby appeal filed by the respondents has been allowed reversing the order dt. 25.06.2014, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff, passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Sikar (for short 'the Trial Court'). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Appellate Court has erred in law in deciding the issue relating to prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner had amply made out her case and as per provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, prior permission of the District Collector is necessary for the contractor, if there is any dispute and in the present case such prior permission was sine qua non for the respondents. Such prior permission was not obtained by the contractor/licensee of the respondents. It is further contended that Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the permission of the District Collector was not necessary where there is a Gazette Notification with regard to placing of electricity lines. There is no provision in the law to take such an interpretation. Learned counsel has argued that Appellate Court failed to appreciate that for putting up electric poles and placing electric lines, the land has to be acquired and sufficient compensation has to be made to the khatedar of the land. Appellate Court has further failed to appreciate that before placing electric lines a satellite survey has to be conducted and thereafter marking has to be done on GT Sheet which has to be superimposed upon the Revenue Map. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Court has wrongly decided issue regarding balance of convenience against the petitioner whereas balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff -petitioner. In case temporary injunction is not granted to the petitioner, she would suffer irreparable loss.
(2.) THE Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner accepting all the aforesaid arguments, but the Appellate Court has reversed the same, therefore, what is to be seen is whether the Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal. Even though, it is an order of reversal, but none the less, perusal of the impugned order indicates that learned Appellate Court has examined all the provisions of relevant law in detail. It has relied upon the decisions rendered by various High Courts. It was found by the Appellate Court that distance between the electric line and the house of the petitioner -plaintiff was around 30 meters. Necessary order for erecting high tension line has been passed under Sec. 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Appellate Court has observed that where an order has been passed by appropriate Government under Sec. 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, powers conferred under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall vest in the concerned officer/licensee. It is further observed by the Appellate Court that where no such order under Sec. 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been passed, provisions of Section 67 of the Electricity Act would be applicable. Learned Appellate Court has relied upon the decision rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.V.S. Ramakrishna & 7 Ors. vs. A.P. Transco., : AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 158 and also decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Nanchi Devi & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11973/2008 decided on 18.03.2009) wherein this Court has held that a conjoint reading of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act depicts that for exercise of powers to erect transmission of electricity supply line and for laying poles or constructing any tower, no prior consent or notice or intimation to enter into property is necessary and only right to the owner or occupier of the property/land is to claim compensation as provided under Sec. 10(d) of the Act and their act of placing poles for laying electric line in fields of petitioner cannot be said to be unauthorised or a trespass.
(3.) IN view of above, the view taken by the Appellate Court cannot be faulted with. The petitioner, at the maximum, can claim compensation, if it is already not paid to her. Mere not obtaining prior permission of the District Collector would not be fatal for laying electricity line especially when the poles have already been fitted. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.;