1988 PLP 2314 (CLC)

‑‑‑S. 115, O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Courts below in rejecting interim injunction application made by applicant had neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily‑‑High Court declined to interfere with order of Courts below in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in circumstances. Jhamat Jethanand for Petitioner. This revision application is directed against the order of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, dated 24‑11‑1987 passed in Civil Appeal No. 95/84 whereby he has maintained the order of the 1Vth Senior Civil Judge passed or the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. The facts giving rise to this revision application briefly stated, are these: That the applicants owned and possessed Survey Nos.138, 140, 144, 192 and 199 of Deh Jamshoro within the municipal limits of Hyderabad. The applicants Nos.10 to 15 were served with a notice somewhere in July, 1987 issued by the officials of the respondent which was replied by them through their legal adviser vide his letter dated 23‑7‑1987. The land of the applicants was required for laying down a High Power Transmission Line. The applicants' case was that sufficient Government land was available adjacent to their lands and that the High Power Transmission Line could be laid thereon. It was, therefore, pleaded that the action of the respondents was mala fide. It was further stated that the line would cover the portion of the land of the applicants and they would not be able to raise construction over that portion of the respondents. The respondents did not accede to the request of the applicants with the result that the applicants filed the Suit bearing No.545/87 in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, Alongwith the plaint they also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying for the grant of injunction against the respondents. The learned trial Court vide his order dated 3‑11‑1987 dismissed the said application. He held that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case and that they would not suffer irreparable loss, as the damage could be compensated in terms of money. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, tfle applicants filed an appeal before the District Judge which in turn was transferred to the learned Additional District Judge, Hyderabad‑By his impugned judgment dated 24‑11‑1987 the learned A.D.J. had dismissed the appeal with observation that if the injunction was granted it would cause great inconvenience in completion of the scheme and that it would, in turn, cause great inconvenience to thousands of people in getting electricity for various purposes. Keeping in view, therefore, the damage to be caused to the national interest the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with an observation that the Chairman WAPDA would award proper compensation to the applicants. Hence this revision application. I have heard Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the respondents is also in appearance on pre‑admission notice. The learned counsel for the applicants vehemently urged that both the Courts below have committed error in not allowing the application for injunction inasmuch as irreparable injury was to be caused to the applicants who are admittedly the owners of the lands through which the high power transmission line is to be taken. He submitted that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was also in their favour. With regard to the irreparable loss, the learned counsel submitted that since the lands of the applicants have not been acquire) in accordance with law and they have not been paid the compensation, which, in turn would not be appropriate looking to the fact that the applicants are cultivating the lands and are also residing thereon. Having considered the various aspects of the case to which my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the appellants, particularly the provisions of section 14 of the WAPDA Act I am' of the view that the Courts below have not in any manner acted illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting the injunction application of the applicants. No doubt, it will cause great inconvenience to the applicants if their land is utilised for the purposes of carrying the high power transmission line but the law itself gives ample power to the WAPDA to acquire any land and carry out their scheme notwithstanding the fact that the land of somebody would in that case be vacated. There is a provision made under section 14 itself for payment of compensation to the affected persons and, as rightly observed, by the learned District Judge, with whom I find myself in complete agreement, that the WAPDA authorities shall without any loss of time make necessary arrangement to pay the requisite compensation to the applicants, Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, I may make a mention, strongly protested that section 14 of the WAPDA Act does not as such apply in the instant case. This position can, however, be urged at the appropriate time before the learned trial Court. Having reached the conclusion that the Courts below have neither acted illegally nor arbitrarily in rejecting the injunction application made by the applicants I do not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the learned lower Courts and therefore reject this application in limine. In view of the above order this application has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such. H.B.T./S‑180/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision declined,