' IFTIKHAR MUAHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 31-7-2009 passed in Civil Revision No, 355 of 2009.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with his brother is owner of the property situated at village Chakora Dakhli, Odharwal, Tehsil and District Chakwal bearing Khewat No, 565, Khatooni No,1597, details of which have also been mentioned in the plaint and the respondent WAPDA intended to cross a 132 KV transmission line over his property which according to him is likely to cause damage to their life and the property owned by them, therefore, they had suggested that instead of crossing the wire over the whole of the property it should be taken from the periphery of the same for which a proposed plan had already been suggested. The request so made by them was not acceded to, therefore, the petitioners filed a suit along with an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. But the same was dismissed on 15-7-2009, therefore, he filed an appeal which came up for hearing on the file of Additional District Judge, who also dismissed the same on 24-7-2009 and Civil Revision filed by them was also disposed of vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that before the High Court as well, the petitioners stated in all fairness that respondent WAPDA should consider passing of the wires on the boundary of the property, however, the request so made was not allowed. He placed reliance upon Ms. Shela Zia and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) and stated that in such like case a balance has to be struck between rights of the citizens as well as right of the WAPDA because for the purpose of economic growth and prosperity, etc. Of the country, the projects cannot be stopped but preventive and precautionary measures are to be adopted.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the plea now raised was not agitated before the Civil Judge. He further stated that it is not possible for WAPDA to pass the electric wire from the periphery of the petitioners' land because they have already completed 42 kilometers transmission line as per approved route.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record particularly unsealed site plan which indicates that wire can be passed from the periphery of the property instead of over and above the land of the petitioners. The request so made by the petitioners seems to be in line with the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Ms. Shehla Zia (supra), wherein it has been observed that the balance should be struck between the rights of citizens and also the plans which were executed by the Authority for the welfare, economic progress and prosperity of the country and if there were threats of serious damage, effective measures should be taken to control it and it should not be postponed merely on the ground that the scientific research and studies were uncertain and not conclusive. Following the above dictum we direct the respondents to pass the transmission- wire along the periphery of the land owned by the petitioners instead of crossing the wire through the whole of the property and in this behalf necessary changes in the plan shall also be made by the Authority. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed with no order as to costs.