While upholding concurrent findings that Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited bypassed statutory pre-conditions, the Delhi High Court has held that the statutory authority alone can determine compensation and that the plaintiff failed to prove quantum of damages. The Court clarified that a distribution licensee must obtain prior consent of the owner or occupier before erecting poles or laying electric supply lines on private land, and where the owner objects, written permission from the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, or other authorised officer is mandatory under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.
The High Court explained that Section 67 read with Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to the exercise of powers by licensees, including disputes concerning compensation for damage caused by the laying of electric lines and erection of poles. Accordingly, the consent of jhuggi occupiers or the production of Voter Identity Cards cannot substitute the statutory requirement of obtaining the owner’s consent or the Competent Authority’s permission before carrying out electrical works on private property.
A claim for damages for unauthorised erection of poles and laying of electric wires must be supported by cogent evidence establishing the diminution in the value of the property or the basis for quantification. Further, mere production of circle rates is insufficient to sustain a claim of Rs. 50,000/- per month, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, if a licensee erects poles or lays electric supply lines on land owned by a third party, it must obtain the prior consent of the owner or occupier. In case the owner raises an objection, the licensee is mandated to obtain written permission from the District Magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, or any other officer authorised by the State Government.
The Court noted that in the present case, no permission whatsoever had been taken from the Appellant, who was admittedly the owner of the property, nor from the District Magistrate or any other competent authority. The Court observed that Om Prakash, Senior Manager of TPDDL, admitted in cross-examination that he was not aware whether any permission had been taken from the Appellant, the SDM, the Commissioner of Police, or any other authority before laying the network of electricity wires and poles.
The Court further observed that the specious explanation of the Respondent that the request was made by jhuggi occupiers could not substitute the statutory requirement, and once the owner was objecting, permission ought to have been taken from the District Magistrate or the Competent Authority, which was never done. The Court noted that while there may have been an imminent need to curb electricity theft, this did not absolve the Respondent of its statutory obligations.
The Court observed that Section 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003 expressly provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of matters which the Assessing Officer, Appellate Authority, or Adjudicating Officer is empowered to determine under the Act, and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken under the Act. The Court also observed that the procedure under Section 67 of the Electricity Act was not followed by the Appellant, who failed to approach the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, or the Competent Authority for determination of compensation.
On the question of damages, the Court observed that the Appellant had merely filed the circle rate applicable to the suit property but led no evidence to show how the value of the property had diminished on account of the laying of electric wires, or how the damages of Rs. 50,000/- per month were calculated.
Briefly, Appellant, Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, filed a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction along with recovery of damages against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL), the Respondent. The Appellant claimed to be the owner of Property bearing Municipal No. 669, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, comprising built-up quarters, along with jhuggis, hutments, a temple, two wells, a piao, and an open compound, popularly known as ‘Gopal Mandir’, and ‘Munna Lal Gaja Nand Bhiwani Walo Ka Kuan’, spread over approximately 4537 sq. yards in the erstwhile Village Sadhora Khurd.
The Appellant traced his title through ancestral sale deeds of 1878 and 1905, subsequent revenue records, and a registered Will dated Nov 08, 1978, executed by his father Gajanand in his favour, claiming to be the sole owner and in possession of the property.
In October 2012, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent had, without his consent, erected concrete poles for laying electric wires on his property. He served a Legal Notice dated Nov 05, 2012, calling upon the Respondent to remove the poles. When he visited the property again on March 14, 2013, he found that the Respondent had resumed the work and installed approximately 20 electric poles, distribution boxes, transformers, and overhead electric wires, extending electricity connections to hutments without his permission, clearance, or no objection.
The Respondent contested the suit, taking a preliminary objection that the suit was founded on forged documents since the stamp papers of the alleged 1878 and 1905 sale deeds bore the National Emblem of India and the expression ‘Bharat’, which came into use only after Jan 26, 1950. The Respondent further asserted that the property belonged to Indian Railways and not the Appellant, and that it was a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, with the works being governed by Section 67 of the Act and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. The Respondent claimed that more than 200 jhuggies existed at the suit property where residents were indulging in electricity theft, and after a raid in early 2012, the residents requested permanent electricity connections and produced Voter Identity Cards to demonstrate their occupation.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stood barred under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and that no cogent evidence had been led to establish or quantify the damages. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal, concurring that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the prayer for injunction had become infructuous as the poles had already been installed and electricity was being supplied.
