Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.:— The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting the impugned order dated 30.5.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P, in CMA No. 6 of 2015 (Civil Suit No. 195 of 2012).
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) alleging that the plaintiffs are co-owners in joint possession of the suit land measuring 24 bighas, 1 biswa, Khasra No. 71(11-01) and 72(13-00) comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 8/22, situated in village Ambwala, HB No. 63, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P (hereinafter refereed to as the ‘suit land’). The defendants are stranger to the suit land having no right, title or interest in the suit land. The defendants are threatening to install electricity tower and to lay down/stretch overhead electrical wires in, over and through the suit land forcibly and illegally without any right, title or interest. It is averred that during the pendency of present suit, defendant No. 1 filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading them as defendant No. 2. The application was contested by the plaintiffs on the ground that the application is not maintainable. Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II, Nalagarh, District Solan, vide impugned order dated 30.5.2015, has allowed the application of defendant No. 1 and impleaded him as defendant No. 2 in the suit. Hence, the present petition.
3. Heard.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is without appreciating the fact, which has come on record, as it is for the plaintiff to choose against whom he wants to maintain his suit.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1-defendant company has argued that the stay order was operating against newly added defendant, now defendant No. 1 and so, the interest of defendant No. 1 was involved, as he was rightly impleaded as a party.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No. 2-HPSEB has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is just, reasoned and as per law.
7. In rebuttal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs has argued that the newly added defendant has neither agent nor attorney of HPSEB and so, not required to be impleaded as defendant.
8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail.
9. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction. The Government of Himachal Pradesh has sanctioned the transmission of electricity transmission line of 66 KV from Sub-Station Nangal Upperala (Nalagarh) to Panjehra, the premises of M/s. Sunnox International Limited, defendant No. 1, vide its notification No. MPP-A (3)-3/2003-1, dated 18.9.2008, the said transmission line is being installed under the supervision of HPSEB Limited and its officials/Engineers under the provisions of The Electricity (Supply) Act, 2003. Defendant No. 2-HPSEB under the aforesaid notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh have almost completed the work of electricity transmission line of 66 KV from Nangal Upperla Sub-Station to Panjehra barring two small spans including one in the present suit. Defendant No. 1-company and Defendant No. 2.HPSEB have strictly carried out the work under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, as HPSEB being licensee has been conferred the powers of Telegraph notification under Section 164 of the Government has given vast powers to officials of HPSEB for laying of cables and plants for electrical transmission as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. There is no mention of present notification. The mere fact that notification was published, keeping in mind the interest of the public and not as a prerequisite of laying the cables. The supply of power on 66 KV voltage level from 220/66 KV Sub-Station Uperla Nangal (Nalagarh) to premises of defendant No. 1-company at village Panjehra, transmission line was to be set up by erecting the towers. Transmission line is to be set up on self execution basis under the supervision of defendant No. 2.HPSEB. Defendant No. 1-company with the help and supervision of defendant No. 2.HPSEB has to set up the transmission line. Defendant No. 1-company has invested huge amount in the project and due to the present suit, defendant No. 1.company is not able to complete the project in the scheduled time resulting in huge financial losses to it. The disturbance at this site, if being created by persons with vested interest who are trying to exploit and arm-twist the company to extract money by creating obstacles in smooth laying of cables. There is no dwelling unit of any farmer/individual or anyone else is being transgressed or damaged in the process. Defendant No. 1.company and defendant No. 2.HPSEB has already compensated the villagers at rates much higher than those as per the norms of the revenue department whose lands are taken for laying the transmission line and defendant No. 1-company even ready to compensate the villagers for the damage, if any, caused during the laying of transmission line.
10. The interest of defendant No. 1-company is involved in the present suit and in these circumstances, defendant No. 1 was impleaded as necessary party. So, this court finds that there is no illegality and infirmity with the impugned order dated 30.5.2015 passed by the learned Court below.
11. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal, hence the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 22nd December, 2016. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.
Comments