Case Note & Summary
The appellants, owners of a property named 'BONOBO' in Goa, filed a suit for damages against the Government of Goa and the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Department, for allegedly encroaching upon their property by erecting a 110 KV High Tension Line and laying electric lines without their consent or acquiring the property. The respondents contended that they had statutory authority under Section 12 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to lay electric lines on private property without acquisition, and that the scheme was published in the Official Gazette on 6th September 1990. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellants appealed. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the respondents had the power to lay the lines without acquiring the property and that the suit was barred by limitation as the scheme was published in 1990. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Right to Lay Electric Lines - Sections 12, 51 Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 10 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - The respondents, being the Electricity Department, have the statutory power to lay electric lines on private property without acquiring it, provided the scheme is duly published. The court held that the respondents acted within their powers and the appellants are not entitled to damages for such lawful entry. (Paras 1-4)
B) Limitation - Suit for Damages - Barred by Limitation - The scheme was published in 1990 and the suit was filed in 1997. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose in 1990 when the scheme was published. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to lay electric lines on the appellants' property without acquiring it and whether the appellants are entitled to damages for such use.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 5th May, 2001 of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji dismissing the suit is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to lay electric lines without acquiring property
- Section 12 read with Section 51 of Indian Electricity Act
- 1910
- Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act
- 1885
- Limitation for suit for damages
- Compensation for use of land without acquisition
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 116
First Appeal No. 135 of 2001
Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar for the appellants, Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents
Mrs. Melba Lima Brito and Mr. Jose Philipe P. Braganza
Government of Goa and Superintendent Engineer, Electricity Department, Circle II (N), Panaji – Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for damages for wrongful use/encroachment on property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought compensation/damages of Rs.8,20,000/- with interest of Rs.65,000/-.
Filing Reason
Respondents erected 110 KV High Tension Line and laid electric lines on appellants' property without consent or acquisition.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji dismissed the suit (Special Civil Suit No. 180/97/B) on 5th May, 2001.
Issues
Whether the respondents had the right to lay electric lines on the appellants' property without acquiring it.
Whether the suit for damages was barred by limitation.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that respondents entered and laid electric lines without consent or acquisition, entitling them to damages.
Respondents argued that they had statutory authority under Section 12 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and that the suit was barred by limitation as the scheme was published in 1990.
Ratio Decidendi
The respondents, being the Electricity Department, have the statutory power under Section 12 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to lay electric lines on private property without acquiring it, provided the scheme is duly published. The suit for damages was barred by limitation as the scheme was published in 1990 and the suit was filed in 1997.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji dismissing the appellants' suit (Special Civil Suit No. 180/97/B) for compensation/damages for wrongful use/encroachment on their property.
The respondents contended that as per the provisions of Section 12, read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the respondents were entitled to open and break up the soil and lay down and place electric supply-lines and carry out other works through the property of the appellants, without acquiring the suit property.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Special Civil Suit No. 180/97/B before the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji for damages. The suit was dismissed on 5th May, 2001. The appellants then filed First Appeal No. 135 of 2001 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was dismissed on 3rd September, 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Electricity Act, 1910: Section 12, Section 51
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: Section 10
