MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondent for the purpose of electricity connection to his tube-well wants the aerial line through the property of the petitioner, thus the petitioner filed a suit for the permanent injunction, along with which an application for the grant of temporary injunction was also moved, which was disallowed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 28-7-2009; the appeal of the petitioner has also failed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 68 of the Electricity Act, 1910 concedes that in order to provide the electricity connection, the aerial line can be stretched from the property of the petitioner, however, he has argued that as per section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, little possible damage and utilization of the property must be caused/made. It is thus submitted that the land of respondent No,1 is at a distance of 50 feet from the transformer' and therefore, the line should be stretched straight to his land and accordingly to the tube-well, rather first fixing a pole in the middle of the petitioner's land and then to the connection point.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that as per the law mentioned above, the property of the petitioner can always be utilized; besides, the petitioner is not the owner of the property.
4. Heard. As regard the question of utilization of the petitioner's property is concerned, law is very clear. However at the same time, if the connection can be had by respondent No,1 directly to his property from the transformer by utilizing about 50 feet of the petitioner's property and/or which is in his occupation in whatever capacity, the respondent No,1 cannot insist that as he shall save some expenses if the line is stretched from the property in question and therefore, is legally entitled to have the connection therefrom is not legally tenable. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by the Courts below resultantly the impugned orders are set aside. Anyhow, it is held that if respondent No,1 wants the connection, he can only use the property of the petitioner to bear minimum damage, which is absolutely necessary and required for that purpose, otherwise notwithstanding as to whatever amount of expenses he may have to bear, he must have the line through his own property. This petition is accordingly allowed.