JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 10.01.2005 passed in A.S.No.71 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.02.2004 passed in O.S.No.398 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Courts below were justified in granting relief on he basis of Ex.B1 without referring to the Annexure to Ex.B1, which indicates the sanction scheme, as to whether in view of the sanction scheme, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to come to a different conclusion?” 3. As the controversy between the parties with reference to the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. Suffice to state that the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of mandatory injunction directing them to remove the low tension electric power line passing through the suit property from South to North. 5. In brief, according to the plaintiff, the suit property had been acquired by him by way of the two sale deeds and the layout had been formed in respect of the suit property and the houses have been built up and the plaintiff has also fenced the suit property and on account of his avocation at Neyveli, he was unable to watch the suit property regularly. However, during May 2003, when he visited the suit property, to his shock and dismay, he found that the defendants had taken a low tension power line across the suit property without his knowledge and consent and accordingly, he had made various representations to the defendants to remove the same as the power line drawn across the suit property would be dangerous to his life and the defendants had been representing that by mistaken impression that the suit property belonged to the Panchayat, they had taken the power line across the suit property and however, they have represented that they would remove the power line, if the plaintiff is ready to deposit the cost with reference to the same and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief. 6. 6. The defendants have taken the defence that the low tension power line was drawn across the suit property, as at that point of time, the suit property was vacant and the defendants had taken the power line to rectify the complaints of low voltage and accordingly, it is stated that the scheme was duly approved with reference to the same and it is their further case that at that time, when the power line had been taken, neither the plaintiff nor anyone objected to the same and thus, it is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the removal of the power line and if at all, the plaintiff has any cause, he has to work out his remedy by exhausting the remedy as provided under the Rules of the Electricity Board and the Civil suit is not maintainable and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 7. On the basis of the materials placed on record, the Courts below accepted the plaintiff's case and accordingly, granted the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. Materials placed on record go to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. It is further seen that the defendants had taken the low tension power line across the suit property and it is stated that based on the sanctioned scheme, the overhead low tension wire had been taken. It is the contention of the plaintiff that before taking the power line across the suit property, the defendants have failed to obtain his consent and without his knowledge, they had taken the power line across the suit property and therefore, the defendants should be directed to remove the power line. On the other hand, according to the defendants, with reference to the drawl of the power line across the suit property, they had formed a scheme and accordingly, based on the sanctioned scheme, the power line was drawn across the suit property and as at that point of time, no one including the plaintiff objected to the same and in such view of the matter, it is contended that the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief prayed for. 9. 9. In this connection, DW1 examined on behalf of the defendants has admitted that she does not know whether the lay out has been formed in respect of the suit property during 1990 and further, she would also state that they had not verified any revenue records as to the ownership of the suit property and according to her, the defendants had drawn the power line across the suit property on the premise that the suit property belonged to the panchayat. However, she would state that with reference to the abovesaid determination, they had not verified any document and thus being the evidence of DW1, it is found that the defendants had drawn the low tension power line across the suit property, without even making the basic verification as to the owner ship of the suit property. This attitude of the defendants would go to show that in a reckless manner, they had drawn the low tension power across the suit property without making any endeavour to verify to whom the suit property belongs and whether they should obtain the consent of the owner of the suit property before taking the power line across the suit property. The reasonings of the defendants that they had pulled the low tension power line across the suit property on the premise that the suit property belonged to the Panchayat but in coming to a such conclusion, there is no material placed by the defendants. It is thus seen that the defendants had not cared to verify the ownership of the suit property and have come forward with the false case that they had pulled the power line across the suit property on the notion that the same belongs to the panchayat but for reaching the abovesaid determination, the defendants having not placed any material whatsoever, it is thus seen that, as rightly contended by the plaintiff, the defendants, without verifying the ownership of the suit property, had pulled up the power line across the same recklessly and after the plaintiff had come forward with the suit, the defendants have come forward with the case as if they had pulled the power line on the premise that the suit property belonged to the panchayat. 10. 10. The defence set out would go to show that the power line pulled across the suit property could be removed and the power line could be taken via other routes for satisfying the low voltage complaints, which has been admitted by DW1. DW1 has admitted that the power line could be changed, however, would only state that for establishing the power line via other route, the plaintiff has to bear the cost. However, when it is found that the defendants had not made any cursory verification as to the ownership of the suit property and when they had come forward with the case as if the suit property belonged to the Panchayat but with reference to the same also, there is no material forthcoming on the part of the defendants, in such view of the matter, the defendants cannot be allowed to contend that only after the plaintiff depositing the costs for the removal of power line, they would shift the power line to the other place. 11. The main defence put forth by the defendants is that inasmuch as the power line pulled across the suit property is based on the sanctioned scheme, in such view of the matter, it is their contention that no notice be given to the owner of the suit property i.e. the plaintiff and according to the defendants, in such view of the matter, they are entitled to pull the power line even across the private property without obtaining the consent of the owner of the same and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief sought for. 12. In this connection, the defendants appear to rely upon Section 42 of the Electricity Act. However, as rightly contended by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the scope of Sections 12 to 19 of the Act, it is found that pulling up any overhead power line across the suit property, they should seek the consent of the owner of the suit property. But as per Section 42 of the Act, it is found that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 19 of the Electricity Act, the defendants shall have the power to pull the overhead line provided the same is done by the defendants under a sanctioned scheme. But as per Section 42 of the Act, it is found that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 19 of the Electricity Act, the defendants shall have the power to pull the overhead line provided the same is done by the defendants under a sanctioned scheme. It is thus found that for claiming the benefit of Section 42, it is for the defendants to establish that a scheme had been drawn by them in respect of pulling up of the overhead line across the suit property and the scheme so formulated satisfies the requirements of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act. In this connection, the defendants mainly placed reliance upon Ex.B1. However, as could be seen from the evidence of DW1, it is found that she has clearly admitted that in Ex.B1, there is no reference about the pulling up of the low tension overhead line from the transformer XIV to the transformer XV, for the purpose of rectifying the low voltage and she would also state that she does not know the reason for not mentioning the transformer XV in Ex.B1. Despite the above admission of DW1, the defendants' counsel would rely upon the diagram appended to Ex.B1 letter and contended that on the basis of the diagram, the Court should hold that the scheme is sanctioned for the purpose of pulling up of overhead power line across the suit property. However, when it is found that there is no mention of the transformer XV in Ex.B1 and the overhead low tension wire is not found to be drawn from transformer XIV to transformer XV and when DW1 is unable to explain as to the omission of the same under Ex.B1 letter, merely from the diagram appended to in the said letter, it cannot be construed that the letter refers to only a sanctioned scheme of the overhead line across the suit property for giving supply to the houses attached to transformer XV from the transfer XIV. In such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the Courts below, when the defendants have failed to establish that they had formed a scheme as per requisites of the Act, with reference to the pulling up of the over head low tension wire across the suit property, it is seen that the provision of Sections 12 to 19 of the Electricity Act would apply and in such view of the matter, it is found that before pulling up the overhead low tension scheme, the defendants should have obtained the consent of the plaintiff and as above seen, when the defendants had endeavoured to pull up the over head low tension across the suit property without even carrying to verify the owner ship of the suit property, it is found that the defendants cannot be allowed to rely upon Section 42 of the Electricity Act for sustaining their act of pulling up the power line across the suit property. 13. 13. Further, as rightly contended by the plaintiff's counsel, the defendants in order to rely upon Section 42 of the Electricity Act should specify that the scheme formed with reference to the work in question had the backing of the sanction as provided under the Act and in addition to that, it is also contended that the sanctioned scheme should specify and fulfil the parameters contained in Sections 28 & 29 of the Electricity Act and when the defendants have failed to establish that as per Sections 28 & 29 of the Electricity Act, the sanctioned scheme, in respect of the subject matter, had the approval of the various authorities concerned and published in the official gazette and in the local newspapers and as contemplated under the abovesaid sections or when the defendants having also failed to establish that the parameters outlined in Sections 28 & 29 of the Electricity Act are not required to be adhered to the sanctioned scheme vis-a-vis the work in question and when for the defendants reliance upon Ex.B1 for the sanctioned scheme, there is no material available in Ex.B1 as above discussed and when DW1 is unable to throw a clear picture as to why in Ex.B1, there is no reference to the sanctioned scheme qua the work in question, the Courts below had rightly found that the defendants have failed to establish that they had pulled the low tension power line across the suit property on the basis of a sanctioned scheme as contemplated under the Electricity Act and in such view of the matter, the failure of the defendants, in not obtaining the consent of the plaintiff before drawing the said power line, cannot be justified and accordingly, it is seen that the defendants are liable to remove the same as prayed for by the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is seen that the decisions relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel reported in AIR 2000 MADRAS 56 (S.Kannappan (died) and others Vs. The Commr., Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and others), (2007) 2 MLJ 111 (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, rep.by its General Manager/Personnel & Admn., and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman and others) and 2008 -1-L.W.1048 (The Executive Engineer, Wind Farm Project, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-11 and another Vs. The Commr., Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and others), (2007) 2 MLJ 111 (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, rep.by its General Manager/Personnel & Admn., and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chairman and others) and 2008 -1-L.W.1048 (The Executive Engineer, Wind Farm Project, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli-11 and another Vs. S.Jegatheesan and another) would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, it is seen that in the absence of prior intimation and consent of the plaintiff, the defendants having pulled the power line across the suit property, the plaintiff is found to be entitled to maintain the suit for the removal of the same in a civil Court and the defendants are liable to remove the same as the defendants had failed to establish that the work with reference to the same had the backing of a valid sanctioned scheme as contemplated under the Electricity Act. Accordingly, it is found that the Courts below are justified in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff as Ex.B1 does not indicate that the work in question had the backing of a sanctioned scheme and the formulated substantial question of law, accordingly, is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the abvoesaid reasonings, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.