High CourtsSingle Bench(2006) 03 J&K CK 0019

Ab. Majid Zarger vs State and Others

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 7 March 2006 · Citation: (2007) 1 JKJ 481

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bashir. A. Kirmani, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 669 words

Bashir A. Kirmani, J.—Impugned in this appeal is order dated 26.11.2005 purporting to have been passed by Principal District Judge

Budgam whereunder while vacating the earlier status quo order dated 2.3.04.2006 passed on interim injunction application he refused injunctive

relief to appellant as prayed for, with the observation that construction of towers in suit land be under taken only after commencing acquisition

proceedings or private negotiations for acquisition of the land.

2.

In the circumstantial back drop; it appears that appellant who owes a parcel of land measuring 3 kanals 10 1/2 marlas u/s No. 279/104 of

Village Sheikhpora Tehsil Budgam apprehending unauthorized use of his land by respondents for erection of towers for lying the transmission line

of electricity used to have them restrained from doing so unless the said parcel of land was duly acquired. Along with the suit he filed an ancillary

application for interim relief which was disposed of vide impugned order aforementioned and hence the appeal.

3.

Grounds pleaded are that course of transmission line required to be laid over the proposal tower was being changed in violation of the original

plan so as to run through petitioner's aforementioned land which besides depriving him of the only parcel of residential land, also violates his rights

thereto, particularly because of respondents' refusal to duly acquire the land for the purpose, if at all required and as such the impugned order of

allowing respondents to raise the tower besides being violative of law also disposes of the petitioner's suit in the interim application, even as the

parcel of land was not suitable for laying down the transmission line for being hazards to general public etc. During course of his threshold

arguments the appellant's counsel has further contended that learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the factual

aspects in their proper context and landed into an error by passing the impugned order etc.

4.

I have heard learned Counsel and gone through the memo of appeal, and the impugned order appended therewith. In so far as petitioners

apprehension that the transmission line from over his land would be hazards to general public is concerned, the same cannot be acknowledged

because the course of transmission line must have been determined by engineering experts after thorough consideration of all aspects involved and

it would be unwise for any court to substitute the expert opinion by its own, particularly in as highly intricated a matter as laying of the transmission

line with highest voltage electric current. So it is the expert opinion that must prevail in the matter, unless dislodged by a more expert opinion.

5.

That petitioner's interest over suit land as owner thereof would be in jeopardy because of the erection of proposed tower for transmission line is

a contention that cannot perhaps be registered as valid for the simple reason that the transmission line must be running over hundreds of Kilometers

and to stop it at a particular point is bound to delay the whole project causing great public loss. That being so the petitioners individual interests has

to yield to the public interest subject of course to the payment of compensation that he may be entitled to under law, regarding which the learned

trial Judge has in the impugned order taken effective care by directing that the tower on plaintiffs land be erecting only after commencement of

acquisition proceedings or settlement of compensation by negotiations with him. Beyond that the appellant can perhaps not ask for anything, and if

that anyhow means the final disposal of the controversy, that has to be so. After all a litigation should not be allowed to remain on the file only

because some one wants it to continue even without a purpose.

6.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, at the threshold, of course, with an observation that acquisition proceedings in the matter be commenced

and concluded with due dispatch with intimation to the appellants.

7.

Matter stands accordingly disposed of along with all connected CMP(s).