Uttarakhand Power Corporation ... vs Manjeet Kaur
2021 Latest Caselaw 1853 UK

        HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

          Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1047 of 2021
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited                     ...    Petitioner

                                      Vs.
Manjeet Kaur                                              ... Respondent
Advocates :   Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing) The petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition, is a statutory corporation and a distributing agency, engaged in distribution of the electricity to the consumers and their acts and actions are being governed by the provisions, contained under the Electricity Act, 2003, to be read with the Regulations, which are framed by the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter to be referred as "UERC"), laying down the guidelines, parameters and the regulations, for the purposes of regulating the activities to be discharged by the petitioner in distribution of electricity to their respective consumers.

2. Brief facts, which engage consideration in the present writ petition are that, the respondent herein, had filed a complaint on 28.08.2020, before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter to be referred as "CGRF"), as constituted under sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the complaint, which was thus instituted on the aforesaid date, it was numbered as Complaint Case No. 77 of 2020, Manjeet Kaur Vs. Executive Engineer EDD Rural UPCL Haldwani, wherein the complainant has prayed for; that initially there was a low tension electricity line, which was being carried over from the mango orchard of the complainant and since the low tension line, has

been subsequently converted into a high tension electricity line and since it is passing over the respondent' orchard i.e. posing danger for the respondent, as well as the workmen, working in the orchard in the process of plucking of the fruits or for the purposes of insecticidation of the plants and hence the prayer was made that pole may be shifted along with the transformer and simultaneously, a prayer was also made by the respondent/complainant that as a consequence of shifting of one pole, the open high tension wire may also be replaced by an insulated cable, which may meet the purpose and requirement of the respondent, and to provide safety and protection to the respondent, as well as the workmen, who are working under him in the orchard.

3. On the said complaint being instituted by the respondent herein, it was also pleaded by the respondent that there are about 40 years old mango trees beneath the transmission line, there is an agricultural field also, and since the high tension wires are being carried through, the orchard by creating dumps in the fruit trees, it is extremely dangerous and there is all possibility that any untoward incident may happen at any time, with anyone, and hence the prayer was made for shifting of one pole and the transformer thus installed by the respondent.

4. On the complaint in question, which was thus instituted on 28.08.2020 by the respondent herein, the petitioner herein was noticed and surprisingly, in view of the observations, which are likely to be made in the forthcoming paragraphs, what is reflected is that the present petitioner in opposition to the aforesaid complaint, which was filed by the respondent before the CGRF; the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as "UPCL"), Kumaon Zone, Haldwani, District Nainital,

had filed as many as four written statements/objections to the complaint of the respondent on the following dates:-

      (i)    11.09.2020
      (ii)   22.09.2020
      (iii) 14.01.2021
      (iv) 24.02.2021.

5. The reference of the aforesaid dates and filing of the written statement/objections by the petitioner before the CGRF, has been consciously made by the Court, because it was not an isolated opportunity only, which was granted to the petitioner to project their complete case. In fact, they themselves on their own choice, have filed four written statements, while opposing the objection. But, in fact, in none of the objections thus filed by the petitioner, any of the grounds which has been taken now in the writ petition, has been taken by the petitioner for opposing the complaint, which is now being sought to be, attempted to be pressed before the writ Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the first time which is exclusively a supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, over the judgements of subordinate judicial or qasi judicial authority, and at this stage any party to the proceedings cannot take the liberty to introduce a new case altogether.

6. If the scrutiny of the objections, which have been filed by the petitioner on various occasion if that are taken into consideration, the first reply of 11.09.2020, as submitted by the Executive Engineer of the petitioner, a defence, which was taken was that, on the receipt of the notice, which was issued by the CGRF of UPCL, to the Executive Engineer has contended that he has called the Sub Division Officer (SDO) of the UPCL, by issuing an appropriate direction to him; to carry out the spot

inspection and report back about the topography, the impact of placing back of the pole as prayed for, cable wires and the affect of reduction of the distances of the open high tension wires from the trees and also to the aspect of cost intensiveness, over the relief claimed in the complaint.

7. The case of the petitioner on the very first available opportunity of filing the written statements; does not have or carry any element of questioning the competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, qua the nature of relief, which was being sought by the respondent in their objection before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, as preferred on 28.08.2020. Rather to the contrary, if the said first written statement dated 11.09.2020 itself is exclusively taken into consideration, in fact, in principle, the very observation, which has been taken in defence, that they have asked the Sub Divisional Officer to give a report about the facts, already referred above. In fact, it shows that the petitioner was consciously in agreement and in acquaintance with the Grievance of the respondent; as it was raised in their objection before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

8. It is the case of the petitioner, admittedly, that in pursuance to the directions which were issued by the Executive Engineer to the SDO, an inspection was conducted and a report was submitted, wherein as per the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner themselves, the SDO, after holding an spot inspection had assessed the total estimated expenditure, which was likely to be incurred, that in case if the relief sought for by the respondent, is to be considered and granted, the same was assessed to be to the tune of Rs. 4,18,022/-. Accordingly, based upon the said report of the SDO, assessing the total cost, the

petitioner had admittedly as per records, submitted its second written statement on 22.09.2020, and surprisingly, in the second available opportunity also, no objection was ever raised by the petitioner; about the competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, pertaining to the aspect of consideration of the nature of relief claimed for by the respondent in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested under sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

9. In fact, the very act of the projection of assessment of the cost of shifting the transmission lines and the pole as prayed for, in the objection filed by the petitioner and the report, which was annexed therewith, as per the opinion of this Court, it was rather in fact a step taken forward by the petitioner, themselves in support of the relief claimed for by the respondent and accordingly a line diagram which was also placed on record before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, with regard to the area of work, which was required to be performed as per the contents of the complaint had also been assessed by the CGRF.

10. To the second written statement which had been filed by the petitioner on 22.09.2020, the respondent had also filed a replication to it on 26.10.2020, wherein he has submitted that in the light of the reports submitted by the SDO, his grievance could stand redressed even if an insulated cable wire is placed, in place of the previous open high tension wires and that if the transformer and one pole are shifted towards the road side. But, however, even at that stage, the petitioner, did not acceded to the said proposal, as agitated by the respondent in his replication dated 26.10.2020.

11. According to the pleadings before this Court, the petitioner had come up with the case that in furtherance to the two written statements of 11.09.2020 and 22.09.2020, in fact, the Executive Engineer of the petitioner had still proceeded to attempt to resolve the controversy, by writing a letter to the SDO of UPCL on 26.12.2020, wherein the SDO, was once again directed to conduct a fresh spot inspection in the light of the pleadings, which was raised by the respondent in his replication dated 26.10.2020, and a fresh report was solicited.

12. The record shows that in compliance of the order of the Executive Engineer dated 26.12.2020, the SDO of the UPCL, had once again conducted an inspection on 07.01.2021, and it was thereafter that on the basis of the said report dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner had filed, the third written statement on 14.01.2021, referring to the report of the SDO dated 07.01.2021, and as a consequence thereto, as per the contents of the report, the SDO, he has reported, that if the modulated relief sought by the respondent/complainant, in his replication dated 26.10.2020, is taken into consideration, confining to the replacement of the open wires with insulated cable wires and by changing the route by shifting the transformer and a pole back, the cost was reassessed as to be Rs. 3,83,223/-, which was assessed in the report dated 07.01.2021, for the purposes of shifting of 11 KV line and transformer, from the mango orchard towards the road side. It is once again reiterated that, in the third written statement also, no objection of any nature, whatsoever, was ever raised by the petitioner, raising a question with regard to the competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, to deal with the controversy and the nature of relief sought.

13. On 25.01.2021, in fact, the Superintending Engineer, UPCL, it was after considering the report of the SDO dated 07.01.2021, and the cost thus assessed by the SDO, had granted a technical sanction for shifting the line, as proposed by the said report of the SDO dated 07.01.2021, but only with a rider, was attached to it, to the effect, that the cost thus assessed by the SDO as Rs. 3,83,223/- was directed to be paid by the respondent for the grant of the relief prayed in the complaint of the respondent.

14. In the further proceedings which were held before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of UPCL, on 30.01.2021, it was rather the petitioner had filed an application, praying for that since the installations of the high tension lines for supply of electricity by the distributing agency, is an act and the responsibility, which the petitioner, in the capacity of being a distribution agency, has to perform and which takes the shape of a public duty, in accordance with the UERC Regulation and the guidelines, thus framed from time to time, it was rather the responsibility of UPCL, itself to ensure that a minimal damage is caused to the property, from which the high tension line is to be carried and safety & security, were determined as to be the foremost and prime consideration for its installation, in order to avoid any inconvenience or possibility of probable accident and hence the petitioner, in his application dated 30.01.2020, before the UERC, submitted and had admitted that, since it was a statutory duty to be discharged by the petitioner, the cost of shifting as sought for in the replication dated 26.10.2020, ought to be met by the petitioner themselves.

15. In addition to the three written statements, already referred and discussed above, the petitioner had submitted the fourth written statement on 24.02.2021; before the Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum, of UPCL, informing thereof the fact that the height of the nearest high tension cable, which is crossing over from the land and the orchard of the applicant/complainant, is approximately at a height of 5 meters to 5.4 meters, which happens to be much above, the prescribed standards, as it has been laid down by the UERC, which stipulates a height of at least 4.6 meters, and hence in the reply/written statement, thus submitted on 24.02.2021, which was 4th in the successive sequence, the petitioner wanted to contend that the respondent's grievance and the apprehension of probable damage, loss or accident, would stands eradicated, because as per the report, since the high tension cables were at a much above height, than what has been prescribed by the guidelines of UERC, the grievance does not deserves to be considered. But still even in the 4th written statement filed by the petitioner, no question of jurisdiction or competence of CGRF to deal with the dispute was ever raised, by them.

16. It is once again reiterated that even in the fourth written statement dated 24.02.2021, the petitioner had never raised any question pertaining to the competence of the CGRF, to deal with the nature of dispute, or whether the dispute falls to be within the ambit of consideration of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. As far as this Court is concerned, after considering and scrutinising the four written statements which were filed by the petitioner, and as detailed above, and if the chronological steps which were taken, are taken into consideration, in fact, it shows that the competent superior authorities of the petitioner, themselves have rather taken steps cumulatively, in calling for the report, assessing the cost to be invested, granting a technical permission by the Superintending

Engineer, UPCL, perhaps itself shows, that in fact the petitioner have principally agreed to redress the Grievance which were raised by the respondent in his objection dated 28.08.2020.

17. After exchange of the pleadings to that extent, if the documentations and the pleadings raised by the petitioner, are harmoniously considered with one another, the issue of shifting of pole, the issue of shifting of the transformer towards the road side, and the issue of converting the open high tension lines; into insulated high tension wires, in fact, was not a controversy, which was in principle, denied by the petitioner, in their all four written statements, which were filed by them before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum without raising the issue of competence of CGRF, at the first available opportunity, rather had participated in the proceedings on merits.

18. Thus, logically, as per the opinion of this Court, upto that stage the only controversy, which was now left open to be decided by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, was with regard to the aspect as to who would bear the revised cost, which was assessed by the Sub Divisional Officer, UPCL, in his report dated 07.01.2021, assessing the total cost of investment to be Rs.

3,83,223/-, whether it was to be borne by the consumer/complainant himself or whether it was to be borne by the respondent.

19. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, by virtue of the impugned order/judgment dated 05.03.2021, which has been put to challenge before this Court, had allowed the complaint, and thereby the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, had directed that the total cost of shifting of the high tension open cables and converting it into an insulated cable and the cost which was to be

accrued in it, would be met by the petitioner in terms of the UERC Regulations and the following directions was issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum:-

**vkns"k ifjokfnuh dk ifjokn vkaf"kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{[email protected] dks funsZf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og ifjoknh dh Hkwfe ds mij ls HT ¼gkbZVsa"ku½ [kqyh fo|qr ykbZu dks vius Lrj ls balqyVs sM dscy ykbZu ls ifjofrZr djsaA foi{kh fnukad 06-04- 2021 rd vuqikyu vk[;k izLrqr djsaA ;fn ifjokfnuh fu.kZ;@vkns"k ls larq'V ugha gS rks og vkns"k dh izfr feyus ds 30 fnu ds Hkhrj ekuuh; vksEcM~leSu ¼fo|qr½ 80] olar fogkj Qst&1] nsgjknwu ds le{k vihy izLrqr dj ldrk gSA**

20. The petitioner has come up with the case, that though if the impugned judgement of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, is scrutinised, in principle, the right of the petitioner as protected by law, to lay the electricity lines by maintaining a certain specified heights, as provided by the UERC Regulations, it is not in controversy and rather the respondent too had not disputed, that in the light of the provisions contained under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The findings, which have been recorded are that, the high tension lines, which are being carried over the orchard of the respondent was by creating dumps in the trees, which may be dangerous to the respondent, as well as the workers, who were working under him.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has rather harped upon a fact that the finding, which has been recorded that the crossing of high tension wire from the orchard is not only beneficial for the respondent, but also for the public at large, there cannot be any dispute to it, but then this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the rights conferred to carry a high tension line from a private land, also simultaneously carries with it a certain responsibility on the distributing agency also i.e. petitioner herein, to ensure and to maintain the same, and not to

cause damages to the property and life of the person, from whose land the high tension wire lines are being carried, it causes an extreme responsibility on the petitioner to ensure that there is no exposed danger, not only to the human being, but also to the birds and animals, which are normally found or are residing in the areas, from where the high tension line is being carried. These precautions, have already been prescribed by the UERC Regulations and guidelines, which had been framed from time to time. And particularly, the aspect of cost of maintenance, which has to be met by the petitioner.

22. Besides, the above responsibility of the petitioner, was to lay down the high tension line in a manner that it minimises the possibility of danger and that is why the direction issued by the judgment passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Form, to the UPCL dated 05.03.2021; of converting the open high tension lines into insulated cables, was well within the framework and the guidelines which had been provided by the UERC. Consequently, the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, had rightly issued a direction on 06.04.2021, to comply with the directions which had been given in the judgement dated 05.03.2021, hence the present writ petition.

23. Primarily, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted and that too, for the first time, before this Court, in a writ jurisdiction under its supervisory powers provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where a decision, which was challenged, was rendered by an authority, which exercises the powers in the nature of being quasi-judicial authority has raised an objection and to for the first time with regard to the alleged competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal

Forum, to decide the nature of controversy which was agitated by the respondent in her complaint.

24. This Court is of the confirmed opinion, that the issue of jurisdiction, it is a settled law that, that has had to be raised at the first available opportunity, if the opposite party to the proceedings is of an opinion that the proceedings are not maintainable before the Forum, which had been chosen by complainant or the nature of relief which has been sought is not falling within the ambit or competence of the Forum, chosen by the opposite party for adjudication. The logic behind it is that, if the aforesaid two embargoes, if at all come into play or are attracted for the purposes of deciding the right of a property of a person or an issue raised, it is rather the responsibility of the petitioner herein that before venturing to contest the matter on merits, they should have attracted the attention of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, about its competence, which was not done in the present case while filing any of the written statements, which were four in number. Meaning thereby, it would be deemed that the petitioner had submitted to the competence and jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to deal with the issue and also to the relief claimed in the complaint by the respondent.

25. Not even that, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware or was not provided with an ample opportunity to have their defence raised before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. In fact, it was on four consecutive occasions, that the petitioner had filed their written statements and no such plea about the jurisdiction or competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, to deal with the relief claimed by the respondent was ever raised by them. Raising a plea of

competence before the High Court and that too for the first time, in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, means taking a complainant, who had contested the proceedings on merits, by way of a surprise and no new plea as such before the High Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction can be raised for the first time.

26. As already referred above, the very conduct of the superior authorities of the petitioner, shows that calling of the consecutive reports, as has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, on number of occasions assessing the cost on the basis of the reports, holding the spot inspection and the aspects of viability of shifting of the poles and transformer as prayed for, and further the grant of a technical sanction by the Superintending Engineer, UPCL, all these itself show that the propriety of the relief claimed by the respondent, was a fact admitted in principle by the petitioner and that is why the assessment of cost likely to be incurred was made. Hence, now, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to have a converse and a somersaulted argument about the tenability of proceedings under the principles of submission to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

27. This principal of having submitted to the jurisdiction of a Forum, which has decided the matter, apart from the fact that it was not a question raised at the stage of initiation of the proceedings, particularly, once it relates to the very jurisdiction of the Court dealing with an issue has to be looked into from a different perspective altogether and that is from the view point that if the contesting party, who intends to oppose the jurisdiction of the Court, if it has not raised any objection at the initial stage and after the proceedings are culminated and the judgment is rendered against it, whether in a converse situation where an

authority which according to the opposite side was not competent to decide the matter, had rejected the claim whether still the opposite party would have persisted upon the question about the competence of the Court deciding the matter irrespective of the fact that the person raising an objection of jurisdiction has been declared to be successful in the proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the view that in the present set of circumstances, if the complaint preferred by the private respondent was rejected, in that eventuality, this Court is of the view that the petitioner might not have raised such an objection about the competence of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to deal with the complaint while exercising its powers under Section 42 (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

28. Even if the findings of the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2021, are taken into consideration, in fact, it rather goes in the light of the guidelines and the Notification which had been issued by the UERC; on 22.01.2019, for meeting out the parameters, which had been already dealt with above by this Court, and hence it cannot now be said that the judgment dated 05.03.2021, deviates the guidelines of UERC. Apart from it, this plea of the judgment being in violation of the guidelines of UERC, was yet again not a plea, which has been raised by the petitioner before this Court for the first time, on the submission of the reports, submitted by the SOD, who is their own subordinate authority. It was not a case, which was ever raised, when the technical sanction was being granted by the Superintending Engineer, UPCL and hence at this stage, the petitioner is stopped and it cannot contend that the grievance, as raised by the respondent in his complaint on 28.08.2020, was falling outside the ambit of sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

29. Though, under the definition clause of the Electricity Act, 2003, the term 'grievance', has not being defined, but as far as the opinion of this Court is concerned, this Court is of the view, that when a platform is provided and it is created under a statute, for the purposes of resolving the controversy or dispute, between the parties by a Body, which has been legally constituted under the Act, the term grievance, as referred to under sub Section (5) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, would be very wide enough to cover within its ambit, the nature of controversy and relief sought for by the complainant in her complaint, which was filed on 28.08.2020. This logic would also be in consonance to the Notification dated 22.01.2019 of UERC, which lays down the parameters to be followed by the distribution agency, while laying down the high tension electricity lines. This argument raised, to the contrary that the grievance would not fall to be a grievance under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not sustainable for the aforesaid reasons.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument has made reference to Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which were framed under the Indian Electricity Act of 1910, which provides for to erection, alteration etc. of the overhead lines for the distribution of electricity. Under Rule 82, the reference of which has been made, by the petitioner, it does not create any embargo or restriction in the entertainment of the nature of controversy which has been raised by the respondent in the complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum filed on 28.08.2020. In fact, if the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 is taken into consideration in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 91, which is extracted hereunder:-

"91. Safety and protective devices.--

(1) Every overhead line, (not being suspended from a dead bearer wire and not being covered with insulating material and not being a trolley-wire) erected over any part of street or other public place or in any factory or mine or on any consumers' premises shall be protected with a device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks.

(2) An Inspector may by notice in writing require the owner of any such overhead line wherever it may be erected to protect it in the manner specified in sub-rule (1).

(3) The owner of every high and extra-high voltage overhead line shall make adequate arrangements to the satisfaction of the Inspector to prevent unauthorised persons from ascending any of the supports of such overhead lines which can be easily climbed upon without the help of a ladder or special appliances. Rails, reinforced cement concrete poles and pre- stressed cement concrete poles without steps, tubular poles, wooden supports without steps, I-sections and channels shall be deemed as supports which cannot be easily climbed upon for the purpose of this rule."

31. It is rather the responsibility of the distribution agency, to adopt the measure of providing an insulating material and to provide the protective devices, for carrying over the high tension lines from over the places provided under the Rule 91. While dealing with the arguments, as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the aspect; as to whether a new plea altogether, could at all be permitted to be raised by the petitioner to be agitated before a writ Court for the first time, this Court feels it to be necessary to deal with the judicial pronouncements laying down the restrictions, from building up a new case for the first time.

32. In yet another judgment reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1616, Rukmini Amma Saradamma Vs. Kallyani Sulochana and others, in its para 22, has observed that a point which has been sought to be pressed, must have been urged by the party to the proceedings before the Court below. Having not

done so, the principles of acquiescence has been attracted. Para 22 of the said judgement is extracted hereunder:-

"22. As to whether a second revision lay to the High Court this Court by the judgment in Aundal Ammal's case (supra) held that no such revision lay. On this point the High Court referring to this very judgment held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is not taken away. Therefore, the earlier order dated 21.8.86 passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Act is not void. We need to pause to consider this because this point ought to have been urged by the appellant immediately after the order of remit was made. Pursuant to the order of remit the appellant took a chance by participation in the proceedings before the Rent Controller, taking up the matter in appeal. Thus, having acquiesced in these proceedings she cannot question the first remit order."

33. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with an identical issue, where it entails the consideration of the jurisdiction of a Forum in a judgment, as reported in 2011 (8) SCC 249, Ramrameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others. In para 25, it has observed that the issue of jurisdiction or valuation of a suit it ought to have been raised and agitated as a preliminary issue, based on the pleadings which has been raised in the written statement or objection and once the said issue is not being raised and the matter is being contested by the opposite party on its merit, it will amount to be an acquiescence of the question of jurisdiction. Para 25 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"25. Sub Rule (2) refers to the discretion given to the court where the court may try issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court or the bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force as preliminary issue. It further relates to disposal of the suit treating these points as preliminary issues and also relates to deferring the settlement of other issues, but there is no such case. The entire evidence has been led, the matter is at the stage of final arguments and the point raised does not relate to the point pertaining to Sub Rule (2). Neither it relates to bar created by any law nor the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. It is just an averment made in the plaint. Contention of the appellants for treating the said issue as preliminary issue is against the spirit of law as referred in Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC.

These observations of the courts below are correct and in pursuance of the provisions of the Act."

34. Similarly, in a judgment, as reported in AIR 1971 Punjab & Haryana 335, Raja Ram Patap Singh and another Vs. The President, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana and others, in its para 7, held that a new plea cannot be raised for the first time in a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when no objection was raised in the written statement pertaining to the lack of jurisdiction of the Court.

"7. Mr. D.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the petitioners, in Civil Writ 1282 of 1970 submits that compensation has been awarded for a lesser area than actually acquired. No such point was raised before the Tribunal and this cannot be allowed to be done for the first time in the present proceedings in this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. If he had any real and genuine grievance he could apply to the Tribunal for review if the law so permits, more so when according to the learned counsel, it is only a clerical omission."

The said principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in a judgment reported in 1985 Srinagar LJ 9.

35. Owing to the above reasons given and coupled with the fact that the findings, which have been recorded by the Court below does not apparently suffers from any error calling for an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 14.06.2021 Mahinder/