Compensation for electricity poles must be determined by statutory authorities, not civil courts.

The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed ownership of property bearing Municipal No. 669, Ward No. 75, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, comprising built-up quarters, jhuggis, a temple, open spaces and other structures.

His title was traced through historical sale deeds, revenue records and a registered Will dated 8 November 1978.

In October 2012 and again in March 2013, he alleged that the Respondent electricity distribution licensee had erected electric poles and laid overhead wires, distribution boxes and transformers on the property without his consent or statutory permission.

He sought permanent and mandatory injunctions, removal of the installations, and damages of ₹50,000 per month.

The Respondent contended that the works were undertaken to provide regular electricity connections to jhuggi residents, who had consented to the works, and that the property belonged to the Indian Railways.

It further pleaded that disputes concerning the works and compensation were governed by Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred and that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the quantum of damages.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, additionally observing that the works had already been completed and that the Plaintiff had not approached the competent statutory authority.

The Plaintiff thereafter preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred from granting relief in respect of the erection of electric poles, laying of wires and determination of compensation under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006?

Whether the Respondent had complied with the statutory requirement of obtaining the consent of the owner or occupier, or written permission from the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police or other competent authority?

Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to damages or compensation and had established the basis and quantum of the amount claimed?

Whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC?

Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003 requires a licensee to cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as possible and to pay full compensation for damage or inconvenience caused by its works; under Section 67(4), disputes arising under that provision, including disputes regarding compensation, are to be determined by the Appropriate Commission.

Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 requires the licensee to obtain the prior consent of the owner or occupier before carrying out works on or over land; where the owner or occupier objects, the licensee must obtain written permission from the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police or other authorised officer, who may also direct removal or alteration of the works.

Section 145 of the Electricity Act bars the Civil Court from entertaining matters assigned to statutory authorities under the Act and prohibits injunctions in respect of actions taken under statutory powers.

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible only where a substantial question of law arises.

The Court accepted, for purposes of the appeal, that the Plaintiff was the owner of the property.

It found that the Respondent had not obtained the Plaintiff’s consent and had also not obtained written permission from the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police or any other competent authority after the Plaintiff objected to the works.

The Respondent’s reliance on the consent of jhuggi residents was insufficient because such consent could not substitute for the consent of the owner once the owner had raised an objection.

The alleged urgency arising from electricity theft or the need to regularise electricity supply did not dispense with the statutory requirements.

Nevertheless, the Court held that disputes concerning compensation for the erection of poles and laying of wires fell within the statutory mechanism under Section 67 and Rule 3, and therefore could not be adjudicated by the Civil Court.

Independently, the Plaintiff failed to prove the claimed damages of ₹50,000 per month: he produced only circle-rate material and did not establish diminution in property value, the affected area, the nature of the land, or any rational basis for the claimed amount.

The Court consequently found no substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the courts below.

It further held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the quantum of damages claimed.

No substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 CPC, and the pending applications were also dismissed.