JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C. J.—The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in Civil Suit No. 185 of 1980 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Hamirpur, who lost before both the Courts below against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 10.6.1992 in Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986, whereunder the learned First Appellate Judge, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge decreeing the suit, which was originally filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from stretching electrical tower line over the house of the plaintiff, but later got amended seeking for the relief of mandatory injunction to have the high-tension electrical wires passing over the suit property removed within a time to be stipulated by the Court. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner in possession of house situated in Khata No. 22 min, Khatauni No. 24 min, Khasra No. 104, of an area of 15 Kanals as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80, situated in village Ben, Tappa Nounghi, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, and that the defendants in the suit stretched forcibly the electrical tower line over plaintiffs house and damaged the walls of his house while pulling the electrical cable over the house and thereby caused damage to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the tower line in question can be taken at some distance of plaintiffs house in order to avoid risk and damage to her house and inhabitants and that the act of the defendants in laying electrical tower line over the plaintiffs house is illegal and likely to cause irreparable loss and damage to the house as well as the members of the family. It is in such circumstances, the suit originally sought for the relief of permanent injunction but subsequently got amended and converted into mandatory injunction, came to be filed. 3. It is in such circumstances, the suit originally sought for the relief of permanent injunction but subsequently got amended and converted into mandatory injunction, came to be filed. 3. The defendants contested the suit by raising several objections including want of notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, besides contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff is barred from filing the suit by her own conduct and the suit has not been also properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was admitted that the appellants-Electricity Board was constructing transmission lines and sub-stations and possibility of stretching tower lines over her house could not be ruled out. The claim about the alleged damage to the walls of the plaintiff and threatened risk to the family members and property of the plaintiff has been stoutly denied. The towers were said to be erected more than 2 years before the filing of the suit with no objection whatsoever from the plaintiff at that time and on that basis the defendants contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff filed a replication reasserting her claim and controverting the claims made in the written statement. 4. On the above claims and counter-claims, the suit came to be tried and the learned trial Judge was of the view that in the absence of any stipulation in the sanctioned scheme published and marked as Ex. D-4, Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 applied to the case on hand and that being the position in the absence of notice and consent obtained, the defendants could not have carried out the work under dispute. The learned trial Judge also proceeded to consider the alternative stand and was of the view that at any rate by virtue of application of the provisions contained in Part-Ill of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which otherwise stood attracted to the case on hand in view of the stipulation contained in Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Supply Act’), the plaintiff had a right to ask for removal or alteration of the line. The learned trial Judge while rejecting the claim on behalf of the defendants that there is no danger to the house or the property of the plaintiff or the members of the family since the wires are about 45-46 fts. over and above the house, held that it would constitute permanent nuisance to the plaintiff and in the absence of any proof that the defendants had any right to stretch transmission line over the house of the plaintiff, she is entitled to mandatory relief, as prayed for. Consequently, a direction to remove the lines drawn over the suit property within three months with a further stipulation that on the failure of the defendants to do so, the plaintiff will be entitled to get them removed by way of execution, through the Court, at the expenses of the defendants, came to be passed. 5. Aggrieved, the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1986 before the District Judge, Hamirpur. The learned District Judge also has considered the claims of the respective parties in the light of Section 42 and the provisions of the scheme on both alternatives as has been done by the learned trial Judge and ultimately concurred with the relief granted by the learned trial Judge. It was the view of the learned first Appellate Judge that Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act applied and the absence of notice and consent from the plaintiff before drawing lines over the property of the plaintiff vitiated the drawal of such lines and even in the absence of Section 12 of the Act, it was considered that the rights and liberties available under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 entitled the plaintiff to have the lines removed and, therefore, the learned first Appellate Judge also approved the relief of mandatory injunction granted in the matter. Hence, the above second appeal. 6. Mr. Trilok Chauhan, learned Counsel for the appellants while elaborating the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal for consideration contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of the nature and the Civil Courts jurisdiction is barred under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, Electricity (Supply) Act and Indian Telegraph Act and, therefore, the Courts below committed an error in decreeing the claim on behalf of the plaintiff in this case. The learned Counsel also contended that the Courts below miserably failed to construe properly the materials and the relevant provisions of law applicable and that at any rate the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation unless and until the District Judge assessed the compensation under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision reported in AIR 1988 M.P. 172 (Rajak and others v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Indore and another). 7. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff with greater vehemence and force contended by placing reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1929 Lahore 226 (Jit Singh v. Gujranwala Electric Supply Company Limited); AIR 1960 Madras 374 (South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. T.L. Jagannatha Aiyar and others); AIR 1978 Orissa 190 (The Orissa State Electricity Board and another v. Pyari Mohan Patnaik and others) and AIR 1989 Delhi 51 (Sh. Surat Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi) that the Civil Court had the required jurisdiction and authority to deal with the matter in issue and committed no error of law, whatsoever in according the relief granted in favour of the plaintiff in this case. Argued the learned Counsel further that the interpretation placed by the Courts below on the relevant scope and operation as well as applicability of the provisions of the Supply Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, are quite in accordance with law and does not call for any interference in my hands and that unless the lines drawn over the property of the plaintiff are removed as directed by the Courts below, grave prejudice will be caused to the property as well as the members of the family of the plaintiff. Lastly, it has been submitted that such lines could not have been drawn without determining, at any rate, and paying the due compensation to the plaintiff for the loss and damages caused to her on account of drawal of the over-head lines in this case. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the basic and relevant as well as essential facts are not in serious dispute. The plaintiff is indisputably the owner of the property and the house situated therein over which the disputed high tension electrical wires have been drawn pursuant to the scheme. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the basic and relevant as well as essential facts are not in serious dispute. The plaintiff is indisputably the owner of the property and the house situated therein over which the disputed high tension electrical wires have been drawn pursuant to the scheme. It is equally not in dispute that under Ex. D-1, the Punjab State Electricity Board has formulated a draft scheme dated 16.8.1972 and published the same as envisaged under Section 29 of the Supply Act, 1948 and paragraph 3 of the scheme reads as follows : "3. For the placing of wires, poles, wall brackets stays, apparatus and appliances for the transmission and distribution of Electricity or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephonic communications necessary for the purpose of this scheme, the Board shall in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, have and shall exercise all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) with regard to a telegraph established or maintained and shall not be bound by the provisions of Sections 12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910” The Punjab State Electricity Board also has, thereafter, published another notification dated 10.2.1978 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 28 (3) declaring that the Board has finally sanctioned the scheme, which was previously published in the notification dated 16.8.1972, as envisaged under Section 29 of the Supply Act. In view of the specific stipulation contained in paragraph 3 of the scheme, which stood in all respects finalised and published subsequently in the notification marked as Ex. D-4. It is futile to contend that once over again in Ex D-4 also paragraph 3 should have been repeated to exclude the operation and applicability of Section 12 etc., to the case on hand. The Courts below, in my view, committed a serious error in assuming so when by simply finalising and notifying the finalisation of the scheme as proposed, which was earlier published, the finalised scheme must taken to be in all respects the same as what was published initially, which is marked as Ex. D-l. The repetition of the entire scheme published in Ex. D-l. The repetition of the entire scheme published in Ex. D-4 even at the final stage in unnecessary and, therefore, the Courts below committed an error in assuming that Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act will have no relevance or application to the case on hand. In view of such inevitably consequences flowing from the stipulations contained in Section 42 of the Supply Act read with scheme published as in this case and marked as Exts. D-1 and D-4, the rights of the parties have to be adjudged in the light of the provisions contained in Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 17 of the Telegraph Act on which much and strong reliance has been placed by the Courts below has also been misconstrued by the Courts below so as to justify the granting of mandatory injunction to remove the over-head lines already drawn, as in this case. Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, on the other hand, enables and leaves liberty with the owner of the property, if he so desires to deal with the said property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the line or post should be so removed to another part or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the authority concerned to remove or alter the line or post accordingly and if the compensation has already been paid under Section 10 (d) of the Act, when making the requisition, the owner shall tender to the competent authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum and if the competent authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or alteration and sub-section (3) of Section 17 renders the order passed thereon by the District Magistrate final. From the said stipulation, it cannot be inferred or postulated that the plaintiffs suit for removal of the lines could be straightway decreed by the Civil Court granting a mandatory injunction, as has been done in this case by the Courts below. From the said stipulation, it cannot be inferred or postulated that the plaintiffs suit for removal of the lines could be straightway decreed by the Civil Court granting a mandatory injunction, as has been done in this case by the Courts below. Such a result does not either reasonably or necessarily follow from the scheme of the provisions contained in Part-Ill or particularly in the stipulations contained in Section 17 of the Act. 9. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1960 Madras 374 (supra), was in the context of a case to which Section 12 applied. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1978 Orissa 190 (supra), is in the context of a scheme in which there is no provision in the sanctioned scheme for placing, maintaining or taking any wires, poles and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity and, therefore, by virtue of the stipulation contained in Section 42 of the Supply Act, Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian Electricity Act were considered to be attracted. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1989 Delhi 51 (supra) was in the context of altering the mode of dealing with obstruction or objection or resistance from the owner of the property while laying overhead electric lines and fixing of poles in the private property in the context of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 12 of the said Act. In the decision reported in AIR 1988 M.P. 172 (supra), on which strong reliance has been placed for the appellants, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when the sanctioned scheme under the Electricity Supply Act provided for laying lines and towers the generating company has powers to do such an act and the only remedy of person owning property where lines are laid for transmission of electricity is to get compensation. The decision of a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 42 (Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Limited v. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum and others) may also be usefully referred to in evaluating the respective claims and rights of the parties in this case though the said decision came to be rendered on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash a notice issued in that case and also to declare the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and the corresponding provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The learned Judges of the Full Bench therein observed that the Electricity Act is a law to provide for the supply and use of electrical energy and such supply and use of electrical energy has become a necessity and, therefore, power has to be taken for the purpose of facilitating generation and quick distribution and supply of electrical energy. Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, which though limited in the width and extent of the power in comparison to Section 42 of the Supply Act, it is almost similar and the purpose and object of both these provisions seem to be identical. In analysing the issue, vis-a-vis Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, it was observed further that the powers conferred upon a public officer, licensee or any other person for placing poles and electric supply lines can hardly be expected to be utilized arbitrarily for causing loss and damage to owners or occupiers of the property and that one may have to suffer some detriment in the user of the property to serve the common good though the person, who was paid full compensation, has been held to be not entitled to complain about the laying of the over-head electrical lines or fixing poles. 10. 10. On a careful analysis of the above provisions as also the principle laid down in the decisions noticed supra and relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, I am of the view that with the exclusion of the applicability of Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian Electricity Act and the specific provisions contained in the scheme itself for fixing poles and drawing lines in furtherance of the scheme proposed and approved in this case, the rights of the contending parties in this appeal have to abide by and adjudged in the light of the provisions contained in Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 10 which enabled the authority competent to from time to time place and maintain lines under, over, along or across and posts in or upon, any immoveable property specifically stipulated in Clause (d) of the proviso that in exercise of the powers conferred under the said section the authority shall do as little damage as possible and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than those referred to in proviso (c) "shall pay full compensation to ail persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers." The necessary provisions are also enacted in this part for entering on the property in order to repair or remove the lines or posts and the power of the locai authority concerned to give permission or to require removal or alteration of the lines or posts and to alter even position of gas or water pipes or drains besides settling disputes between the competent authority under the said Act and the local authority. Section 16 which forms part of Part-Ill of the said Act, stipulates that if the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of a property dealt with under Clause (d) of the proviso of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may in its discretion order that the authority shall be permitted to exercise them. Section 16 which forms part of Part-Ill of the said Act, stipulates that if the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of a property dealt with under Clause (d) of the proviso of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may in its discretion order that the authority shall be permitted to exercise them. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 enacts that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 (d), it shall on application for that purpose either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him and sub-section (5) renders such determination by a District Judge to be final. It is useful even at this stage to advert to the salient features of Section 17 of the Telegraph Act. Section 17 provides that when under the provisions of Part-Ill a line or post has been placed by the authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not vested with or under the control and management of the local authority any person entitled to do so and desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in form, he may require the competent authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly. If the authority omits to comply with the requisition, then liberty is left with the person making such a requisition to apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to secure gin order for removal or alteration and the District Magistrate has been enabled to pass appropriate orders in this regard under sub-section (3). If the request is to be countenanced by the competent authority concerned or by the District Magistrate, it is a condition precedent to comply with the requisition that the owner of the property concerned who had already received the compensation paid to him under Section 10 shall while making the requisition tender to the authority concerned the amount requisite to defray expenses of the removal or alteration or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum. 11. 11. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it appears that though initially interim orders of injunction were granted, by then the towers have been put up and the transmission lines have been drawn also over the house of the plaintiff and in such circumstances not only the interim orders came to be vacated but the application for injunction was said to have been dismissed. Thereupon, a revision came to be filed by the plaintiff, which ultimately came to be dismissed as withdrawn since it has become infructuous by then, with a direction to deal with and dispose of the suit. In view of the above, it could be seen that the electric lines have already been drawn over the property of the plaintiff in furtherance and implementation of the scheme finalised and approved. Consequently, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to volunteer to pay the compensation, whatsoever be the quantum in their view or they should have disposed of the claim about the damages said to have been caused or prejudiced or inconvenience which the plaintiff was, according to her, made to suffer. Apparently in view of the overlapping Civil Court proceedings, the parties were keen on fighting the Civil Court proceedings and, therefore, no concrete steps appear to have been taken in that direction relating to the question of paying any compensation or vindicating the rights of the plaintiff or both parties concerned under Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act. In view of the fact that I have already come to the conclusion that the rights of the parties on both sides have to be adjudged and adjudicated as envisaged under Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, it would be in the fitness of things and in the interests of justice also instead of leaving the matter in vacuum to issue certain directions while setting aside the judgments of the Courts below, which cannot for the reasons already stated be sustained in so far as the Courts below have chosen to order for the removal of the lines already put up and drawn. The plaintiff shall be at liberty and shall also file a claim for compensation giving the details of the same with the first appellant, at his present place of office, which will be furnished by the learned Counsel for the appellants, as suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellants, within four weeks or such further time and on receipt of such claims the first appellant or any other authority competent of the Punjab State Electricity Board shall decide objectively such claims and determine the compensation payable in his or its view, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said claim. The plaintiff-respondent, if aggrieved by the quantum, shall be at liberty to move the District Judge as envisaged under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 on the question of sufficiency of the compensation to be paid. Equally, the plaintiff if she so desires shall be at liberty to move the competent and concerned authorities under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and if such application is moved the parties on either side shall be at liberty to vindicate their rights as are permissible under the said provision as also under the other provisions of Part-III of the said Act. 12. The second appeal is allowed subject to the above directions given and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below granting the relief of mandatory injunction are hereby set aside and instead shall be substituted with the directions issued in this case. Appeal allowed.