JUDGMENT
V. Ratnam, J.
1. The defendants in. O.S. No. 267 of 1977, District Munsif’s Court, Thirumangalam, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The respondent herein instituted that suit praying for a mandatory injunction against the appellants for the removal of electric wires drawn across and over the lands of the respondent in Survey Nos. 32/1 and 38/1 in Solaikuruchi village and for compensation for wrongful trespass and for causing damage. The facts giving rise to the Second Appeal may now be briefly set out. The respondent owns an extent of 1.63 acres in survey Nos. 38/1 and 32/1 in a single plot. About a furlong west of the lands of the respondent one Parisutharajan owns 1.38 acres in survey No. 106/4 and he, after putting up a house in survey No. 106/4, applied for electric service connection. According to the case of the respondent, though electric posts and transformer and service connections for a petrol bunk and coir factory, west of Parisutharajan’s house, at a distance of about 200 feet, are already there and service connection for the house of Parisutharajan could easily be given by extending the lines from the electric post, at the instance of Parisutharajan and with a view to cause damage to the respondent, the third appellant attempted to trespass upon the lands of the respondent to draw wires from east to west. The respondent appears to have sent telegrams, registered letters and petitions on coming to know about the attempt of the third appellant to draw lines on the lands of the respondent. Despite this, the third appellant is stated to have1 trespassed upon the lands of the respondent and drew electric lines across his lands from east to west on 27.10.1977 and also caused damage to the paddy crops of the respondent. The respondent claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 100/- towards the trespass and compensation of Rs. 300/- for the loss caused to the paddy crops. The respondent put forth a plea that the appellants had no authority to trespass upon his lands and as the existence of electric wires across the lands of the respondent materially affected the value and utility of the lands and constituted a hindrance for the development of the lands into a coconut tope, the respondent prayed that the electric lines have to be removed.
2. In the written statement filed by the first appellant and adopted by appellants 2 and 3, they contended that the petrol bunk and the coir factory are situate faw away from Parisutharajan’s house and six poles are required for drawing the electric lines between Parisutharajan’s house and the coir factory, while the distance between the lands of the respondent and Parisutharajan’s house is only about 845 feet and the lines had been drawn as per the shortest route with four poles observing economy in selecting the routes for drawing of lines as per the provisions of the Electricity Manual. Adverting to the existence of a number of coconut trees west of Parisutharajan’s house in the east as well as in the west, the appellants contended that they would be a hindrance to the drawing of lines from the coir factory. The appellants further stated that the drawing of lines was over in May, 1977 and two poles were placed on the site on 17.10.1977 and on the next morning, that is, 18.10.1977, two more poles were erected and all the poles were erected when there were no crops in the lands of the respondent and the respondent also did not raise any objection. The telegrams, registered letters, etc., sent by the respondent were, according to the appellants, only attempts to delay the energisation of the service connection. The trespass attributed to the appellants as well as the loss of crops and damages for trespass were all denied. No damage was at all done by the appellants to the lands of the respondent, as according to the appellants, they had a right to enter into the lands of the respondent for installation of poles and drawing of electric lines.
3. In the reply statement filed by the respondent, he disputed the right of the appellants to erect poles without the permission of the concerned District Magistrate and further reiterated the damage caused to the crops of the respondent.
4. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the respondents, Exs. A1 to A14 were filed and the respondent and another were examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2, while, on behalf of the appellants, Exs. B1 to B7 were marked and D.W.I gave evidence. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial Court found that already a pole had been erected in the lands of the respondent in 1976 from where electricity connection to the owners on the north and on the east had been given, that the appellants are entitled to draw electric lines across and over the lands of the respondent for the purpose of giving service connection to the house of Parisutharajan, that the respondent is not entitled to damages either for trespass or towards damage to paddy crops and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the suit. On the aforesaid conclusions, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the respondent preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 87 of 1979 before the Sub Court, Madurai. Exs. B8 and B9 were marked in appeal on behalf of the appellants herein. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that a pole had already been erected in the lands of the respondent even in 1976 and from that pole, lines had already been drawn for giving service connection to the east of the lands of the respondent that though the respondent, as owner of the land, has put up with certain amount of restrictions in regard to the user of his land lit the interest of the public and the appellants are also entitled to draw electric lines across and over the lands of the respondent for the purpose of giving service connection to the house of Parisutharajan, the appellants have not followed the statutory requirements while entering upon the lands of the respondent for this purpose and, therefore, are bound to remove the electrical wires. The claim of the respondent for damages towards trespass and damage caused to the paddy crops were, however, negatived by the lower appellate Court. On the aforesaid conclusions, the lower appellate Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent for a mandatory injunction directing the appellants to remove the electrical wires running across the lands of the respondent leading to the house of Parisutharajan. It is the correctness of this that is questioned by the appellants in this Second Appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants, relying upon Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), contended that inasmuch as electric supply-lines pr work had already been lawfully laid down or placed by the Electricity Board upon the lands of the respondent, though for giving a service connection to him, for erecting other poles or for giving connection over the lands of the respondent td other persons, the consent of the respondent was not necessary and the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the statutory requirements had not been followed by the appellants justifying the grant of a decree for mandatory injunction. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that what had been already provided for the respondent would only be a ‘service line’ as defined in Section 2(1) and that would not be comprehended within the definition of ‘electric supply-line’ occurring in Section 2(f) of the Act and, therefore, without the consent of the respondent, the appellants had no authority to erect or plant additional poles in the lands of the respondent and, therefore, the grant of mandatory injunction directing the removal of electrical wires is quite in order.
6. Before considering the aforesaid submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the definition of ‘electric supply-line’ and ‘service-line’ as found in Sections 2(f) and (1) of the Act. ‘Electric supply-line’ defined in Section 2(f) of the Act means a wire, conductor or other means used for conveying, transmitting or distributing energy (whether by overhead line or underground cable), together with any casing, coating, covering, tube, pipe or insulator enclosing, surrounding or supporting the same or any part thereof, or any apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of so conveying, transmitting or distributing such energy and includes any support, cross-arm, stay, strut or safety device erected or set up for that purpose. ‘Service line’ as defined in Section 2(1) of the Act means any electric supply-line through which energy is, or is intended; to be, supplied–(i) to a single consume either from a distributing main or immediately from the supplier’s premises, or (ii) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on adjoining premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main. Section 12(1) of the Act runs as follows:
Any licensee, may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his license, within – the area of supply or when permitted by the terms of his license to lay down or place electric supply-lines without the area of supply, without that area-
(a) open and break up the soil and pavement or any street, railway or tramway;
(b) open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway;
(c) lay down and place electric supply-lines and other works;
(d) repair, alter or remove the same; and
(e)do all other acts necessary for the due supply of energy.
Section 12(2) of the Act is as follows:
Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorize or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply-line or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, where ever or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has hot already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee.
There are two provisos which runs as follows:
Provided that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on any building or land or having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier, of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police, by order in writing so directs:
Provided also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.
7. There is no dispute in this case that a pole was already erected in the field of the respondent in 1976 and lines had already been drawn from there for giving service connection to the east of the lands of the respondent. This has also been referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgments of the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. This pole had been erected in the lands of the respondent for the purpose of serving as a support for distribution of energy. It would thus fall within the definition of ‘electric supply-line’ under Section 2(f) of the Act. With the help and support given by the pole, which, under Section 2(f) of the Act would be an electric supply-line, the respondent had been supplied energy and this would fall within the definition of ‘service line’ under Section 2(1) of the Act. There is no dispute that the respondent had been supplied with energy as a consumer through the lines supported by the pole already erected. The pole so erected would be in the nature of support for distribution of energy and would constitute an electric supply-line under Section 2(f) of the Act and would also be a service line under Section 2(1) of the Act, as through the electric supply-line, the respondent had been supplied with energy as a consumer from a distributing main. Under Section 12(2) of the Act, if the electric supply-line had not already been lawfully laid down or placed by the licensee, then, the powers given to the licensee under Section 12(1)(a) to (e) of the Act cannot be exercised without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier. In other words, if the electric supply-line or work had already been lawfully laid down or placed by the licensee in any land, then, the consent of the local authority or even the owner may not be necessary. On the facts of this case, it is clearly established that an electric supply-line as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act had already been laid down or placed by the Electricity Board in the lands of the respondent and, therefore, there was no further need to obtain either the consent of the local authority or the respondent for the purpose of erecting further supply-lines With a view to distribute the energy to others. Before a line could be a service-line within the meaning of the Act, it must be an electric supply line. In other words, if a line is not an electric supply-line, it cannot be a service line within the definition contained in Section 2(1) of the Act. On the facts found in this case, a pole had already been erected in 1976 in the lands of the respondent and that would be in the nature of a support for distributing energy and would thus fall within the definition of electric supply-line contained in Section 2(f) of the Act and since that electric supply-line was intended to supply energy to the respondent, namely, a single consumer from a distributing main, it would also be a service line within the definition of Section 2(1) of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that because the line with reference to the respondent is a service line under Section 2(1) of the Act it will cease to be an electric supply-line under Section 2(f) of the Act is, therefore untenable.
8. Thus, on a careful consideration of the undisputed facts and the definition of ‘electric supply-line’ and ‘service-line’ under Section 2(f) and (1) of the Act as well as the powers under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, it follows that the consent of the respondent for the erection of other poles was wholly unnecessary in view of the admitted erection of a pole in the lands of the respondent even in 1976. Under those circumstances, the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the appellants had not followed the statutory requirements while entering into the lands of the respondent for the purpose of erecting further poles is clearly unsustainable. Since that conclusion is the only basis for granting a decree for mandatory injunction and that conclusion had been found to be erroneous, it follows that the respondent is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by him. Consequently the Second Appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court will stand restored with costs throughout.