JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner and Mr. Nilesh A. Pandya for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 6-3-2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Vadodara, vide Exh. 44, in Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, the present petitioner, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., the then Gujarat Electricity Board (‘G.E.B.'), has preferred the present Special Civil Application and challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the said order under Section 16(4) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. 3. The respondent herein is the original applicant who has approached the District Court, Vadodara by way of filing Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001 against the petitioner, for getting compensation of Rs.2,80,000/- under the provisions of the Electricity Act and under die provisions of the Telegraph Act. 4. The brief facts of the case between the parties of these proceedings are that the respondent/original applicant is a resident of village Dhavat of Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara and he is an agriculturist, having his agricultural land bearing Survey No. 464 of his ownership and possession. 4.1. Shri Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, real brother of the respondent/original applicant has been cultivating the said land. High Tension electric wires pass through the said field of the respondent/original applicant since years and the petitioner/original opponent is responsible for maintenance and to get these electric lines in up to date condition and while discharging the said duty, the petitioner/original opponent is duty-bound to see that minimum damage, if at all, is caused to the owner of the property. 4.2. It is pertinent to note that prior to filing of Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, the present respondent/original opponent had filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1995 against the present petitioner/original opponent, on the identical grounds, stating that on 12-1-1995, officers and servants of the petitioner/original opponent entered the said field of the respondent/original applicant and cut 535 trees from the said field without any reason and without informing the respondent/original applicant, and therefore, the respondent/original applicant sustained damage to the tune of Rs.4,29,600/-, and therefore, he claimed compensation against the petitioner/original opponent Board. In the said Misc. In the said Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1995, judgment and decree dated 18-9-1998 in favour of the respondent/ original opponent was passed and the G.E.B. was directed to pay a sum of Rs.87,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% and as the respondent/ original applicant could not challenge the said judgment and decree before the higher forum, it had paid Rs.1,29,827/- on or about 18-1-1999. 4.3. As averred in the application being Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, in Para 6, it is stated by the present respondent/original applicant that the Deputy Engineer, G.E.B., original opponent No. 2, had issued notice dated 29-10-1998 for removal of the branches of the trees, but as those branches were far from the High Tension electric wires, the question of removal of branches of trees had not arisen at all. In Para 4 of the said Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, the respondent/original applicant has further averred that on or about 25-6-2001, the petitioner/original opponent had again without prior information or notice removed 73 Babool trees and 3 Samla trees, in all 76 trees, from the trunk, and as the respondent/original applicant had sustained damage to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-, he had preferred the said Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001. 5. Now, the main question/point to be decided in this case is as to whether the respondent/original applicant proves that the petitioner/original opponent had cut Babool trees from the field in question as alleged. 6. We are quite aware of the fact that in the writ jurisdiction, the scope of discussion of oral evidence is as such very limited, but some of the observations and findings of the learned Principal District Judge are such with which we have entered into discussion of the oral evidence on the above point. 7. Deposition of Dineshbhai J. Patel is at Exh. 29. On page 8 of the judgment at Exh. 44 passed by the learned Principal District Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, the learned trial Judge has observed that, "on behalf of the opponent, deposition of Dineshbhai J. Patel, has been recorded. Regarding this case, in the deposition, he has deposed that the Gujarat Electricity Board has not cut the trees from their roots, but only the branches have been cut-off." 7.1. Now, if we peruse the said deposition at Exh. Regarding this case, in the deposition, he has deposed that the Gujarat Electricity Board has not cut the trees from their roots, but only the branches have been cut-off." 7.1. Now, if we peruse the said deposition at Exh. 29, in chief examination, the said witness has deposed that, "the Gujarat Electricity Board has not cut these trees from their roots, but only removed branches which were inconvenient". 7.2. In the cross-examination of the said witness at Exh. 29, nothing has been asked on the above point. Whatever the witness has deposed in the chief examination, referred above, is narration of general procedure which shall be applicable. But, in our view, the learned Principal District Judge has wrongly understood the said chief examination and observed, particularly in this case, the deposition, he has deposed that the Gujarat Electricity Board has not cut the trees from their roots, but only cut in the branches. As such, in our view, it is not an admission on the part of the above-referred witness at Exh. 29 examined by the petitioner/original opponent. 8. Now, if we peruse the deposition on the above point, it shows that no specific evidence has been forthcoming on the record to show that Babool trees and Samla trees, in all 76, had been cut-off by the petitioner/original opponent's officials or on the directions of the said officials. 9. Exhibit 19 is the deposition of Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, younger brother of the respondent/original applicant. He has deposed in the cross-examination that he has no evidence with him to show that the trees in question had been cut-off by the Gujarat Electricity Board. 10. Exhibit 20 is the deposition of Hasmukhbhai Ishwarbhai Patel. In Para 3 of said Exh. 20, he has stated that the Deputy Engineer, Supervisor and staff of 22 to 25 labourers had come to cut-off the trees and it took half an hour to cut trees upto a radius of 3 ft. He has also stated that the entire work of cutting of trees lasted front morning to evening and this witness, who is neighbour, and Arvindbhai Patel both had objected to the said action of cutting-off trees with officials of G.E.B. Moreover, Arvindbhai Patel had lodged the complaint with police, in which the witness, at Exh. 20, had signed. He has also stated that the entire work of cutting of trees lasted front morning to evening and this witness, who is neighbour, and Arvindbhai Patel both had objected to the said action of cutting-off trees with officials of G.E.B. Moreover, Arvindbhai Patel had lodged the complaint with police, in which the witness, at Exh. 20, had signed. Then, he has stated that the Talati was called at about 1-00 p.m. on the day when the trees were cut-off by the officials of the G.E.B. and then he has denied that after 3 to 4 days, the Talati had drawn the panchnama of trees which have been cut-off. 10.1. The above-referred case has not been canvassed by the respondent/original applicant in his application or in the deposition. No document has been forthcoming in support of the same. It appears that entire new story has been created by said Hasmukhbhai Patel. It is not the case of the respondent/original applicant that he was present and had objected the action of the G.E.B. officials of cutting of trees. In our view, this deposition will not give any help to the respondent/original applicant. 11. Next deposition is of Jigneshkumar Nitinchandra, photographer. He has stated that he has no personal knowledge regarding cutting-off trees. Likewise, witness at Exh. 26, Rajendra Nandlal Dave, who is appointed as Court Commissioner, has also not thrown any light on the above point. According to the case of the respondent/original applicant, the trees were cut-off on or about 25-6-2001 and the Court Commissioner's work was carried out on 24-11-2001, i.e. after 5 months. In spite of that, the Court Commissioner has mentioned that the trees had been cut-off recently. In the cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that he was to measure the distance of trees which had been cut-off from the High Tension electric line, but, he has specifically admitted that he has not mentioned any specific details that the trees which had been cut-off, are how far from the High Tension electric line. Thus, considering the above facts, it is clear that the Court Commissioner, who has carried out the commission work twice, has miserably failed to locate the exact distance of the trees, which had been cut-off, from the High Tension electric line. Thus, considering the above facts, it is clear that the Court Commissioner, who has carried out the commission work twice, has miserably failed to locate the exact distance of the trees, which had been cut-off, from the High Tension electric line. Therefore, the commission work, as such, in our view, will not help the present respondent/original applicant and this aspect appears to have not been taken into consideration by the learned Principal District Judge while passing the above-referred order. 12. It is important to note that as per the case of the respondent/original applicant, 76 trees had been cut-off by the present petitioner/original opponent on or about 25-6-2001 and the respondent/original applicant had written letter dated 29-6-2001 to the Mamlatdar of village Karjan, stating that the present petitioner/original opponent had cut-off 76 trees, and therefore, he had requested to visit the disputed place to carry out the panchnama of the place of incident as well as to take necessary steps against the officials of the G.E.B. As per the case of the present respondent/original applicant, the Talati-cum-Mantri had carried out panchkyas on 29-6-2001. It is important to note that copy of the said letter dated 29-6-2001, which had been addressed to Mamlatdar, Karjan, had not been forwarded to the G.E.B. in spite of the fact that the grievances against the officials of the G.E.B. had already been levelled in the said letter. In our view, it is bounden duty of the present respondent/original applicant to forward and serve copy of the said letter dated 29-6-2001 to the present petitioner/original opponent, in which the present respondent/original applicant had failed and in our view, it appears to be the deliberate action on the part of the respondent because if the respondent/original applicant informed the petitioner/original opponent, then the officials of the Board shall remain present and put the correct picture on the record during the period when the Talati-cum-Mantri had carried out the panchkyas, on 29-6-2001. We are of the opinion that when the respondent/original applicant had failed to discharge the said duty, then, in fact, under the above-referred circumstances, the Talati-cum-Mantri shall inform the official of the petitioner/original opponent about the receipt of request dated 29-6-2001, their visit and to draw panchkyas by the respondent/original applicant, on the same date, for compliance of the said request for drawing the panchkyas. It is important to note that this important aspect has been sidelined by the learned Principal District Judge while delivering the above-referred order. 13. It is also important to note that the petitioner/original opponent is a statutory body, and if in fact, it has hired labourers, 25 to 30 in number, for cutting-off the trees then it must have paid labour charges and entry to that effect must have been reflected in its relevant register, but none has made any efforts for the same. 14. It is to be noted that as per the case of the respondent/original applicant, the wood of Babool tree will fetch more price than the wood of other ordinary trees. Nothing has been forthcoming on the record, to show that what happened to the wood of 76 trees, alleged to have been cut-off by the officials of the petitioner/original opponent. The learned Principal District Judge has neither touched nor discussed this important aspect. If we presume that the respondent/original applicant had sold the same, then the amount which was received by him is generally to be deducted from the final awarded amount. But, this point appears to have not been touched by the learned Principal District Judge. 15. It is a common impression of the Society that person who is serving in the Government will hardly render his dedicated service. If we consider the above issue on a hypothecated basis, then, if cutting-off branches of trees will serve the purpose, then why the Government officials will make their efforts for cutting-off the trees and that too without any gain to them or the petitioner/original opponent. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondent/original applicant has no case and the Misc. Civil Application has been filed only with a view to extract money from the present petitioner/ original opponent, as earlier he had enjoyed that benefit. Thus, in our view, the respondent/original applicant has miserably failed to prove that the trees had been cut-off by the officials of the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board. In our view, the learned Principal District Judge has passed illegal and erroneous judgment and order dated 6-3-2006, vide Exh. 44, in Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001 without considering the above discussed facts of the case, and hence, the said judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. In our view, the learned Principal District Judge has passed illegal and erroneous judgment and order dated 6-3-2006, vide Exh. 44, in Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001 without considering the above discussed facts of the case, and hence, the said judgment and decree deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. Judgment and order dated 6-3-2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara, vide Exh. 44, in Misc. Civil Application No. 330 of 2001, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Office is directed to return the Record & Proceedings to the District Court, Vadodara forthwith. Application allowed.