' Briefly stated facts of the case out of which this Civil Revision has arisen are that the petitioner, which is a body corporate has been delegated powers and assigned the functions to carry out the scheme of development by setting up poles/structures for 132 K.V. Transmission Lines to supply electricity in the area. In pursuance of the performance of the aforementioned duty, the petitioner planned under the auspices of the Federal Government to set up Grid Station -at Rawat, and overhead Transmission Lines have been constructed to better supply of electricity in area. The line is being set up to provide direct source of electricity from Tarbela to Rawalpindi and Islamabad, particularly to key points i,e, Presidency, Prime Minister House, Nelore and Kahuta Atomic Energy Projects, etc. The respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner seeking restraint order from digging, constructing and affixing any pole in the land, which is claimed to be owned by it. Alongwith the plaint, a stay application has also been filed wherein ad interim injunction was sought seeking a restraint order against the petitioner to install poles and laying overhead lines in his land. Grievance of the respondent is that without payment of compensation, petitioner is not entitled to install poles and lay overhead lines in the land belonging to the respondent. Stay application has been contested by the petitioner and has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 25-6-1992. This order was challenged in appeal by the respondent which has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi vide order dated 8-8-1992, and a stay order has been issued that the petitioner shall not install poles and lay overhead lines in the land belonging to the respondent. This order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Civil Revision.
2. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Sheikh, learned Advocate has placed reliance on case Malik Haji Nazar Muhammad and another. v. WAPDA and another PLD 1991 SC 715 and Saleh Muhammad and others v. WAPDA and others 1988 CLC 2314, and, has argued that as per provisions of section 14 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, the petitioner is entitled to enter upon the disputed land and erect the pillars for laying electricity cable and that at no point of time, payment of compensation has been refused to the respondent, and, therefore, the project being of a public importance, no stay order could have been issued in favour of the respondent merely on the ground that the respondent shall be entitled to payment of compensation for use of his land.
Learned counsel contends that in view of the above factual and legal position, the learned First Appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity while granting stay order in this case. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel has argued that the poles have been installed up to and beyond the land in dispute and it is due to the stay order issued by the learned First Appellate Court that the drawing of lines is suspended, and a project of a very great public importance is not being completed as a result whereof public at large is suffering an irreparable loss whereas in case the stay order is not granted, the respondent shall not suffer any irreparable loss as he can recover compensation whatever is found due to him. During the course of the proceedings of this civil revision the petitioner was asked to determine the tentative compensation which will be payable to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has today placed on record copy of the letter dated 14-12-1992 according to which an amount of compensation/damages has been assessed as Rs,17,428, which learned counsel states that petitioner is ready to pay to the respondent immediately. The letter further shows that more than 90% work of T/Lines has already been completed and therefore, it is not possible to change the route on technical grounds. In view of the above, learned counsel states that neither the petitioner has a prima facie case for grant of interim stay nor the other two ingredients i,e, irreparable loss and the balance of inconvenience exist in favour of the grant of interim relief to the respondent hence this Civil Revision is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. As against the above arguments, Mr.Muhammad Amin Jan, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that as per provisions of section 14 of the WAPDA Act referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is entitled to grant of compensation and without payment of compensation, neither the poles could be installed nor the T/Lines can be laid. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner initially intended to lay 11 K.V. Overhead T/Lines, but now has decided to lay 132 K.V. T/Lines, which shall result in great loss to the respondent. According to the learned counsel, due to overhead T/Lines, the land which is meant for construction of a Colony for Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission low paid employees, will not be in a position to be utilized for the said purpose and as a result whereof compensation is very low and is not acceptable to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that the compensation has been assessed tentatively and the petitioner is ready to pay whatever compensation is ultimately assessed and is payable to the respondent.
4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the project for which the T/Lines is to be laid and the poles are installed is of great public importance. It is an established principle of law that public good is to override the individual interest. Even the case of the respondent is that he is entitled to more compensation than assessed by the petitioner. Consequently, at the most the claim of the respondent is with regard to the payment of compensation, which relief can be granted to him even after the poles are installed and the line is completed. As is clear from the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the letter issued by WAPDA 90% work at site has been completed. The balance of inconvenience shall definitely be in favour of the respondent whose claim can be measured in terms of money. In case the stay order continues to remain in force, the public at large is going to suffer an irreparable loss. In exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, as well as the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., no stay order should be granted, which interferes in the performance of public duties, mererly for the reason that as a result of that act an inidvidual will suffer a monetary loss which can be measured and compensated in the terms of money. Under the provisions of section 14 of the WAPDA Act as interpreted in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to install poles and lay T/Lines by entering upon a private land prior to the payment and determination of the payment of compensation. The only requirement is that the compensation is to be determined and paid to the owners of the land expeditiously.
5. In view of the above, the learned First Appellate Court has illegally interfered with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court, and, hence has exercised jurisdiction/discretion illegally and with material irregularity in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Resultantly this revision petition is accepted, the order passed by First Appellate Court is, set aside and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge is restored with the result that the stay application filed by the respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall ensure that the compensation/damages, etc., the payment whereof the respondent is entitled to, shall be determined and paid to the respondent not later than three months w,e,f, today.