1994 PLP 808 (MLD)

Through this revision petition the correctness and legality of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal dated 27-6-1993 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 9-6-1992, decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent has been called into question.

2. According to the respondent, the petitioner alongwith four others had without seeking permission from him and without making any payment of compensation had installed electric poles in his land bearing Khasra Nos.92/23/1, 24 and 25, 102/1/1 and 2/1 and 103/5 situated in Mauza Kot Mool Chand (8 Kassi Jadid), Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal. On being asked to remove the poles, the petitioner refused to oblige forcing the respondent to file suit for mandatory injunction. The suit was contested and it was pleaded vide para. 2 of the written statement with respect to the assertion of illegal installation of electric poles as under: Likewise, in para. 4 of the written statement, it has been contended that the line on which the poles had been installed was in accordance with the approved plan.

3. The learned trial Court after recording evidence came to finding of fact that the petitioner had illegally installed aerial lines/transformer on the premises of the respondent without notice and without consent. This finding was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the finding of the two learned Courts below that the installation of the electric poles as well as the transformer had taken place on the property of the respondent was liable to be set aside, the same being in conflict with the evidence available on record. He has taken me through entire material available on the record but failed to point out any material misreading/non-reading thereof. He, thereafter, drew my attention to condition 21 of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Exh.P.3) to contend that while supplying electricity to the premises of the consumer the authority could maintain service lines through the premises of the said consumer for supply of electricity to the premises of any other consumer, subject to section 12 of the Act. I am afraid, this is a fallacious argument. Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910, inter alia, provides that with a view to fix any aerial line on any building or land, in case the owner or the occupier of such building or land raised objection, the Authority could proceed further in the matter after obtaining order from the District Magistrate in writing. Admittedly, in the instant case before installing the aerial lines/transformer over the property of the respondent, prior permission as visualized by section 12 was not obtained from the District Magistrate. Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property is safeguarded for every citizen of the country vide Article 23 of the Constitution, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the petitioner to obtain prior permission of the District Magistrate before installing the aerial lines/transformer over the lands of the respondents and it having failed to do so, had been rightly directed by the two learned Courts below to remove the same. No illegality could be pointed out in-the impugned judgments. Dismissed. H.B.T./W-43/L Petition dismissed.