Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fourth respondent proceedings in Roc. 25311/07/C2, dated 24.3.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 3 or their men or agents or subordinates or any one claiming under them from in any manner laying any High Tension Transmission lines or erecting the Towers for the same over the lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 504, 508, 509, 516 of Karumathampatti Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The petitioner, a minor, is the owner of the property in question. The mother, acting as a natural guardian, has filed the writ petition on behalf of the minor. The minor owns lands in Survey Nos. 504, 508, 509 and 516 of Karumathampatti Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. The mother has a number of years of experience of college teacher and proposed to start an educational institution in the lands mentioned above. According to the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, viz., the mother of the minor writ petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 took up a project of construction and installing the 400 KV transmission D/C line between Udumalpet to Arasur. In order to put up the 189 towers for the transmission line running to 65.116 kms., as a part of Neyveli Thermal Station Stage-II Expansion Project, the Power Grid Corporation, the respondents 1 to 3 had to enter upon the lands belonging to various agriculturists and the land owners, upon whose lands the transmission line will have to pass. This proposal by the respondents 1 to 3 was objected to by the agriculturists and the petitioner. On 9.4.2007, the Sub Collector held a joint meeting with various land owners, heard their objections and the matter was dealt with in accordance with law. The petitioner in this case has also objected to for the use of their lands in Survey Nos.504, 506/2, 507/5 507/6, 508/1, 509, 516/1 at the above stated village for the installation of the towers and for drawing the transmission line over the said land. The petitioner in this case has also objected to for the use of their lands in Survey Nos.504, 506/2, 507/5 507/6, 508/1, 509, 516/1 at the above stated village for the installation of the towers and for drawing the transmission line over the said land. (ii) The petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 1404 of 2007 and by order dated 12.2.2007, the learned Single Judge (Prabha Sridevan, J.) directed the District Magistrate/District Collector, the Competent Authority to consider and dispose off the objection as per law. On appeal, the First Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 26.3.2007 in W.A. No. 446 of 2007 directed the petitioner to raise all objections before the District Magistrate/District Collector as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. (iii) Consequent to the orders of this Court as above, the District Magistrate/District Collector, Coimbatore, passed an order dated 9.5.2007 in R. Dis. 4007/2007/C3 overruling the objections of the petitioner and directed the respondents 1 to 3 to proceed with the erection of the transmission line which also falls on the petitioners land. For passing this order, enquiry was conducted on 26.2.2007 and 6.3.2007 and the objection of the petitioner was heard. Joint inspection of the land of the petitioner along with officials of the respondents 1 to 3 was conducted. The grievance of the petitioner that a zigzag route was taken to exclude the lands owned by the influential persons, was also considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector and rejected after considering the reply/response of the respondents 1 to 3. The reason for taking a particular route was explained by the respondents 1 to 3 stating that there are dwelling houses, temples, etc., besides, considering the route on the whole which is 65 kms in length. The respondents 1 to 3 also explained that the slight modification in the route was done due to reduction in area of the land acquired for locating the sub station which necessitated the reorientation of the transmission line with the sub station and the national highway. Technical parameters were discussed and overruled. The higher cost that will be incurred if the alignment is further changed as stated by the petitioner was impressed upon the authority, the District Magistrate/District Collector by the respondents 1 to 3. Considering all these aspects, the objections were overruled. Technical parameters were discussed and overruled. The higher cost that will be incurred if the alignment is further changed as stated by the petitioner was impressed upon the authority, the District Magistrate/District Collector by the respondents 1 to 3. Considering all these aspects, the objections were overruled. (iv) The said order dated 9.5.2007 of the District Magistrate/District Collector was challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007. Dhanapalan, J., by order dated 4.4.2008 while expressing the Courts inability to test the experts view on feasibility or non-feasibility of putting up the transmission line, held that the Court will not go into the factual matrix controverter to by the parties in making alignment of route of transmission lines and also to consider the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner. The Court was of the clear view that its role is restricted to examining the order passed by the District Magistrate/District Collector and find out whether such order was passed in accordance with law and the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. In paragraph 18 of the decision, it is mentioned that a plea was taken that the transmission line was taken in a zigzag manner to avoid lands of some influential persons instead of taking a straight line. The said contention of the petitioner was repelled by the respondents 1 to 3, the Power Grid Corporation stating that the allegation is vague and bereft of details. The Court, however, took the view that the District Magistrate/District Collector did not consider this aspect by taking the sketch into account, more particularly, when a specific plea has been taken by the petitioner before the District Magistrate/District Collector that the deviation is taken only due to influence of other persons. The Court on observing the sketch came to conclusion that the objection was not duly considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector. (v) In para 21 of the order, the Court held that as per sketch there is deviation from the straight route, however, held that the Court cannot go into techno-economical feasibility of the matter and state as to what would be the appropriate route for taking the transmission line. The Court left it to the District Magistrate/District Collector to consider the objection with regard to deviation on account of influence by other persons. The District Magistrate/District Collector was called upon to enquire with the Power Grid Corporation on this aspect. The Court left it to the District Magistrate/District Collector to consider the objection with regard to deviation on account of influence by other persons. The District Magistrate/District Collector was called upon to enquire with the Power Grid Corporation on this aspect. The Court directed the District Magistrate/District Collector to look into the documentary proof, the sketch annexed and the plan and to pass a speaking order on that aspect alone. (vi) The Court in its order dated 4.4.2008 specifically stated that it is convinced on all other aspects except the plea with regard to deviation on account of influence of other persons and that alone has to be reconsidered. The Court, further, stated that if this objection of the petitioner has been addressed, there would be no grievance. In the light of these observations, DHANAPALAN,J., by order dated 4.4.2008 in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007 called upon the authority to examine further if any promboke land is available for erecting the towers. In order to understand the pith and substance of the order it is extracted as such. Paragraphs 21 to 23 of the order reads as follows:- " 21. It is seen from the sketch that deviation is taken by the Corporation, though there is a straight route. This Court cannot go into the techno-economical feasibility of the matter and also as to what would be the appropriate route for taking transmission line. However, in the absence of any convincing material, as it appears that the deviation has been taken because of the influence of other persons, it is for the District Collector, who is the appropriate authority, to consider that aspect of the matter, by calling upon the Corporation to furnish adequate reasons for taking such a deviated route. Pursuant to the objections of the petitioner, the Magistrate is duty bound to look into the documentary proof and the sketch annexed and also the plan and pass a speaking order on that aspect. Though this Court is convinced on all other aspects, the above aspect of the matter alone has to be reconsidered. Had the said objection been considered by the Magistrate, the petitioner would not have any grievance. Therefore, while upholding the findings in the impugned order, this Court directs the District Magistrate to reconsider the said objection alone. Though this Court is convinced on all other aspects, the above aspect of the matter alone has to be reconsidered. Had the said objection been considered by the Magistrate, the petitioner would not have any grievance. Therefore, while upholding the findings in the impugned order, this Court directs the District Magistrate to reconsider the said objection alone. The District Magistrate, while giving consideration to this aspect, shall look into the fact of availability of Government Poramboke lands and the specific objection that the petitioners land is a patta land as well as the material documents furnished by the Corporation. It is also seen from the sketch that there is a temple in the route and though it is not pleaded by the petitioner it has been argued and the same has also to be considered. Therefore, the District Magistrate shall also see whether there is any influence for the deviated line, which goes by the patta lands of the petitioner, when the poramboke lands are available in the straight line, and in that case how the Government Poramboke lands have been avoided and the patta lands of the petitioner have been taken into consideration for the techno-economical feasibility. Reasoning is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, the conclusion becomes defunct. The rationale behind it is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order in that respect alone, as it is silent with regard to the above aspects. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is set aside, remitting the matter back to the District Collector for fresh consideration, in that regard alone. 22. While doing so, this Court is conscious of the importance of the project, involving huge amount, for the benefit of the public at large and its time bounded ness. Therefore, I direct the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, to consider the above issues and pass orders, giving reasonings, within a period of four weeks from today. It is open to the parties to these proceedings to agitate all other issues, if any, over which they are aggrieved, if they so desire. Therefore, I direct the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, to consider the above issues and pass orders, giving reasonings, within a period of four weeks from today. It is open to the parties to these proceedings to agitate all other issues, if any, over which they are aggrieved, if they so desire. The time factor indicated in this order has to be strictly adhered to, taking note of the causing of delay in the project. 23. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007 is closed." (emphasis supplied) (vii) The District Magistrate/District Collector, on remand, thereafter, proceeded with the matter and after inspection and clarification from various sources and after hearing the petitioner on this issue, passed the following order on 12.6.2009 in ROC No. 25311/2007/C3 and rejected the objections and the relevant portion reads as follows:- "6. The demand/objections of the land owner and the reply of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., and the Joint Inspection report furnished by Chief Engineer/Distribution, Coimbatore were discussed in depth and overruled on the following reasons noted against each. Sl Summary Objection/ Demand of the Land owner Decision of the District Magistrate Change of alignment-Tower line to be drawn in the alternate route. The change of alignment was examined in consultation with the respondent viz., Power Grid Corporation of India and officials of TNEB was found to be technically and commercially not feasible." 7.I have heard the objections raised by the land owner and the reply of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and also reply of the TNEB officials letter dt. 26.08.2008. As these works are being carried out for power management and industrial growth in Coimbatore District and I feel that the claim of objection is not sustainable and no valid grounds were adduced to support the objections, the objections cannot be sustained in view of the larger public interest. I therefore, find no valid reason to interfere with the works of power Grid Corporation of India Limited in respect of objectors land regarding laying of Power line and erection of tower/power line as proposed. 8. I therefore, find no valid reason to interfere with the works of power Grid Corporation of India Limited in respect of objectors land regarding laying of Power line and erection of tower/power line as proposed. 8. As per powers conferred under section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Electricity Act 2003 considering the facts narrated in the above paragraphs, I hereby order permitting the Chief Manager/Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Coimbatore to erect the proposed H.T. Transmission line as per tower line schedule through the land in S.F. Nos. 504, 506, 507/5, 6, 508/1, 509/6 & 516/1 of Karumathapampatty village Sulur Taluk, as planned." (viii) The above said order dated 12.6.2009 of the District Magistrate/District Collector came to be challenged by way of another writ petition in W.P. No. 11070 of 2009. On contest, K.VENKATARAMAN,J., by order dated 16.12.2009 set aside the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector and remanded the matter for reconsideration as per the earlier order dated 4.4.2008. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the order, which is relevant, reads as follows:- "6. The said order makes it very clear that the fourth respondent has not considered the orders of this Court at all. This Court specifically directed the fourth respondent to consider the availability of the Government Poramboke lands on the specific objection that the petitioners land is a patta land as well as the material documents furnished by the Corporation. A perusal of paragraph No. 21 of the order referred to above, will amply clear that this Court had directed the fourth respondent to consider the other aspects which have been pointed out therein. But, unfortunately, the fourth respondent instead of considering the same, has once again passed the very same order which was already set aside by this Court and remanded to him to pass orders afresh. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the project is for the benefit of the people at large and hence it requires an emergent consideration. 8. Even assuming that it is a project which is for the benefit of the public, when a direction was granted by this Court to the fourth respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, without doing so, the fourth respondent has once again passed an order without considering the same. 9. 8. Even assuming that it is a project which is for the benefit of the public, when a direction was granted by this Court to the fourth respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, without doing so, the fourth respondent has once again passed an order without considering the same. 9. In view of the above position, the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 12.6.2009 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the fourth respondent with a direction to consider the order made by this Court dated 4.4.2008 in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007 and pass orders thereon. The said exercise has to be carried out by the fourth respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it shall not have an effect if it is adverse to the petitioner till 05.01.2010. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed." (ix) In view of the subsequent order of this Court dated 16.12.2009 in W.P. No. 11070 of 2009 setting aside the District Magistrate/District Collectors order once again and remanding the matter for reconsideration afresh, the Power Grid Corporation and the District Magistrate/District Collector went into the issue once again to consider the objections of the petitioner on merits. As could be seen from the order dated 16.12.2009 in W.P. No. 11070 of 2009, the primary reason for the Court to set aside the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector is for the reason that the authority did not consider the nature of order passed by this Court on 4.4.2008 (i.e.) with regard to availability of government poromboke land. This omission to consider the availability of promboke land in spite of specific objections by the petitioner that patta land is being used even though poromboke land is available in straight line shows the non-application of mind to the order of the Court and the casual manner the issue is being dealt with. The learned Judge pointed out that the direction issued by DHANAPALAN, J. in paragraph 21 of the decision rendered on 4.4.2008 was not considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector and, therefore, the second order of the District Magistrate/District Collector challenged was also set aside. The learned Judge pointed out that the direction issued by DHANAPALAN, J. in paragraph 21 of the decision rendered on 4.4.2008 was not considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector and, therefore, the second order of the District Magistrate/District Collector challenged was also set aside. (x) On remand, the issue took a very queer turn and that is revealed by the following facts and events:- (a) The Power to consider the objections is vested with the District Magistrate/District Collector. In this case, the inspection was for some reason done by the District Revenue Officer(DRO in short), Coimbatore. He caused an inspection on 7.1.2000 and 9.1.2000 in the presence of the Power Grid Corporation officials, Tahsildar, etc., and submitted a report. No doubt the report of the District Revenue Officer is highly damaging, this Court has to consider the scope and legal basis of the said report. The observations of the DRO are extracted hereunder:- "..... Power Grid officials has no proper reply as to how the objectionable land was selected without considering the Revenue Authorities and evolved a sub-station plan, which was later changed and resulted in tower line longest route and added expenditure. This aspect may be referred to Vigilance Cell of Power Grid or CBI for detailed investigation. In this issue only petitioner alleging that the orientation of sub station changed to favour some land owners. This aspect needs further investigation." "To connect 49/1 or 50/0 straightaway with 52/0 in a short route, only coconut trees are existing in small pocket and this was accepted by Power Grid Officials. The only argument of Power Grid at this juncture is changing of route will add up expenditure, coconut trees needs compensation. The location of towers and angle differences can be very well seen from the Revenue Surveyor map which was not exactly shown in Power Grid map. But they have failed to understood that it was only due to their initial problem in deciding the sub-station layouts for which no rate needs to be suffered. It was also found that there is a possibility of short route by avoiding houses by reducing the number of towers. The tower No. either 49/1 or 50/0 can be connected with 52/0. Even during District Revenue Officers inspection on 26.7.2008, Power Grid Officials revealed that change of tower line will affect the coconut trees and not any other specific issue. The tower No. either 49/1 or 50/0 can be connected with 52/0. Even during District Revenue Officers inspection on 26.7.2008, Power Grid Officials revealed that change of tower line will affect the coconut trees and not any other specific issue. "TNEB team who studied the issue opined that change of tower line will cause added expenditure, new litigations (C.F.P. 305) and suggested to adopt old plan. But no clear technical feasibility was examined even by the TNEB team, just they have adopted the version of Power Grid saying that houses are there in between and no feasibility for change in line. Hence the TNEB opinion deserves less consideration. From the points narrated above, there always exists the possibility of change in tower line with short route, but this aspect was not considered by Power Grid for no valid reasons." This report of the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore was placed at the hands of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on an application. The observations of the DRO appears to be the stratum for the petitioner to object the laying of the transmission line over their lands. (b) Thereafter, the District Magistrate/District Collector , the competent authority conducted a field inspection along with officers of the Power Grid Corporation and other officers. The enquiry was conducted on 11.1.2010. The earlier objections, which have already been set out in detail, were once again reiterated. The petitioner sought for change of route of the transmission line, alternate routes were suggested. (c) The Power Grid Corporation on its part clearly stated that after an order is passed by the District Magistrate/District Collector on the first occasion (i.e.) on 9.5.2007 and 12.6.2009, the work insofar as other areas have already been completed and the only portion that remains to be completed is in respect of the land of the petitioner. In view of the nature of project, which is to subserve the public cause (i.e.) for transmission of power line by the Power Grid Corporation for better utilisation of the power generated, the respondents 1 to 3 took a firm stand that the change of alignment is totally impossible as the erection of towers is completed in many parts and partially in respect of the land of the petitioner. Huge amount has been expended for the laying of the transmission line. Huge amount has been expended for the laying of the transmission line. The change of alignment would throw the scheme out of gear and it will result in colossal waste of public money. The District Magistrate/District Collector made field inspection on 25.2.2010 on the various survey numbers mentioned including the poromboke land which are the subject matter of the present controversy. The officers of the Power Grid Corporation and the petitioner were also present. (d) As directed by this Court in its order dated 4.4.2008 in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007, the District Magistrate/District Collector considered the following two issues:- "(i) Availability of Government Poromboke lands for the scheme; (ii) The request of the petitioner for an alternative alignment through shortest route without involving her lands." It will be pertinent to note that except the above two issues no other plea legal or factual was to be considered. The power of the respondents 1 to 3 to enter upon the land and the power of the District Magistrate/District Collector to consider the objection alone was an issue to be sorted out. Thus, the scope of controversy in this writ petition is limited. The power of the authority in exercising their right to enter upon the land by virtue of the Electricity Act and Indian Telegraph Act 1885 is not in issue and no other plea except the above was addressed by the petitioner before this Court. The scope of controversy has been narrowed down by the earlier orders of this Court as set out above. (e) On the first issue (i.e.)availability of Government Poromboke land, the District Magistrate/District Collector set out the survey numbers which are Government Poromboke lands. The District Magistrate/District Collector was of the view that the option of alternate alignment through Government Poromboke land is not feasible as it involves more towers than the present alignment. Many towers have already been erected and therefore, it will be difficult to change the alignment to the southern side of the present alignment. It was stated that the costs will go up if the respondents 1 to 3 put up new towers by discarding the existing towers for the purpose of changing the alignment. Many towers have already been erected and therefore, it will be difficult to change the alignment to the southern side of the present alignment. It was stated that the costs will go up if the respondents 1 to 3 put up new towers by discarding the existing towers for the purpose of changing the alignment. (f) The District Magistrate/District Collector while taking into consideration certain survey numbers which are Government Poromboke lands came to the conclusion that even if the towers are erected on the poromboke lands, the transmission line will necessarily passes through patta lands at different places and the same objections as that of the petitioner will apply. In any event, it is mentioned that the change of alignment once again would lead to high additional costs, besides, technical problem. The possibility of objections by other patta land owners and the project being delayed is imminent and the whole project will become a non-starter and it will lead to great financial loss to the State, besides, it will work against the public cause for which the project was undertaken. (g) The next question relates to alternate alignment through the shortest route without passing through petitioners land. The District Magistrate/District Collector went into the matter with all seriousness and identified the survey numbers, through which the transmission line can pass through without touching upon the petitioners land. It was, however, found that such an option is not technically feasible. The reasons have been given in the order itself in a tabular column at serial Nos. 1 to 5 stating that the reason as to why it is technically not feasible to have the transmission line on the route mentioned by the petitioner. The District Magistrate/District Collector summarised the whole issue in the order as follows:- "Thus the position which emerges is that while the petitioners request is reasonable and deserves consideration, there is no scope for changing the alignment as in any of the above routes. Even if the factor of additional expenditure to The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., due to new towers is discounted, involvement of buildings in such routes will be big problem. This will become even more significant, as the present alignment does not involve any building and has a clear right of way. Even if the factor of additional expenditure to The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., due to new towers is discounted, involvement of buildings in such routes will be big problem. This will become even more significant, as the present alignment does not involve any building and has a clear right of way. Thus, it would be unfair to change the present alignment not involving buildings and technically correct, to a new alignment involving buildings used by people. Hence, the present alignment is the only technically feasible one with a clear right of way and without buildings. I therefore, find no valid reason to interfere with the works of The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., in respect of objectors land regarding laying of power line and erection of tower/power line as proposed. 14. As powers conferred under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Electricity Act 2003 considering the facts narrated in the above paragraphs, I hereby order permitting the Chief Manager/Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited., Coimbatore to erect the proposed H.T. Transmission line as per tower line schedule through the land in S.F. Nos. 504, 506/2, 507/5, 6, 509/6 & 516/1 of Karumathampatty Village, Sulur Taluk as planned." 3. The contentions of Thiru R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:- The said order is now under challenge. (i) The respondents 1 to 3, the Power Grid Corporation did not take the shortest route and are bent upon erecting a transmission line in a zigzag manner to avoid certain lands and thereby the petitioners land is affected. For this proposition, he relied upon several maps, drawings, field maps, sketches to emphasise before this Court that the shortest route is not taken. (ii) The District Magistrate/District Collector did not apply his mind to the direction of this Court passed in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007 on 4.4.2008 and the subsequent order passed in W.P. No. 11070 of 2009 dated 16.12.2009 in the proper perspective. There is non-application of mind and arbitrariness in the approach. The shortest route should have been taken, if not, the towers should have been erected on poromboke lands. There is non-application of mind and arbitrariness in the approach. The shortest route should have been taken, if not, the towers should have been erected on poromboke lands. (iii) He submitted that the District Magistrate/District Collector, who was called upon to identify, whether the route has been changed on account of influence by other persons, has failed to consider the said issue in spite of a specific direction of this Court. (iv) The District Magistrate/District Collector has not properly verified whether government poromboke lands were available for erecting the towers and for drawing the transmission line without affecting the petitioners land. The exercise was not properly done and the District Magistrates/District Collectors approach is casual. (v) The opinion of the District Revenue Officer, which is clearly in support of the petitioner, has not been considered. The authority has gone solely by the views of the respondents 1 and 3 Power Grid Corporation and it is arbitrary. 4. Mr. Jayesh L. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended as follows:- (i) He referred to the counter-affidavit and stated that the scope of enquiry by the District Magistrate/District Collector under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act and the nature of objections that has to be considered in the present case is not relatable to the question of alignment or opting for a particular route. The respondents 1 to 3 have obeyed the order of the Court to proceed quickly with the project and the petitioner is delaying the project under some pretext or the other. (ii) The respondents 1 to 3 do not acquire the land of the petitioner, but only enter upon the land for the purpose of erecting the towers and drawing the transmission line under a scheme or a project. (iii) The power granted to the authority is very wide. If the land owner objects, the District Magistrate/District Collector has to consider the said objection and pass appropriate orders. There is no scope for further enquiry on the techno-feasibility aspect as is done in this case. The Act does not provide for such an enquiry. If objections of this nature is entertained then no scheme for power transmission will be possible. (iv) In this case, on two occasions, the petitioner has been shown indulgence by the Court by setting aside the order of the competent authority with a direction to consider the objection. The Act does not provide for such an enquiry. If objections of this nature is entertained then no scheme for power transmission will be possible. (iv) In this case, on two occasions, the petitioner has been shown indulgence by the Court by setting aside the order of the competent authority with a direction to consider the objection. The respondents 1 to 3 are not obliged under law to satisfy the petitioner as to why they are choosing the particular line for transmission. The drawing of the transmission line on a particular route is based on technical study over an extensive area so as to implement the projects of the respondents 1 to 3, that is transmission of power all over India on a phased manner so as to provide electricity for urban, agricultural and industrial use. The District Revenue Officers report on technical aspect is without any basis and has no legal basis. It cannot be acted upon as the said authority is not technically competent to state on the route or method to be followed for erection of towers and for drawing the transmission lines. (v) The scope of enquiry before the District Magistrate/District Collector is only with regard to the permission to enter upon the property for the purpose of erecting the towers for drawing the transmission line. The owner is only entitled to adequate compensation and the scope of enquiry cannot go beyond that. He referred various decisions of this Court and pointed out that the scope of enquiry is very limited. (vi) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that the project has been delayed for more than three years by the petitioner and thereby the cost has escalated enormously and further delay will increase the cost resulting in waste of public money. (vii) The alignment of the towers and the path of the transmission line is taken based on a techno-feasibility report and a copy of the same was produced before this Court for reference. He submitted that where ever it is technically possible, the Department has considered slight modification that too without jeopardising the project and when there is no loss of public money. In the present case, the objections were considered on more than one occasions and found to be baseless. The allegation of favouritism is farce and without any substance. He submitted that where ever it is technically possible, the Department has considered slight modification that too without jeopardising the project and when there is no loss of public money. In the present case, the objections were considered on more than one occasions and found to be baseless. The allegation of favouritism is farce and without any substance. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard Mrs. R. Anitha, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the District Magistrate/District Collector who submitted the following:- (i) The reliance on the District Revenue Officers report is no use in the present case as he is not the competent authority to inspect and give a report. There was no specific delegation of power or authorisation by the District Magistrate/District Collector to the District Revenue Officer to inspect and give a report. Under what circumstances, the inspection was done by the District Revenue Officer is not clear and suitable action has been taken against the such officer. It was also pointed out that the District Revenue Officer is not a technically qualified person to comment about the alignment and the technical aspect of the scheme. Therefore, it was contended that no credence should be given to the report of the District Revenue Officer and it has no worth in the eye of law. (ii) The District Magistrate/District Collector on remand has made a field survey on all aspects and enquired with the parties. The District Magistrate/District Collector has considered the objections on merits as directed by this Court and by a reasoned order disposed off the matter and therefore, no fault can be attributed. All the objections raised have been considered and answered. (iii) There is no basis for finding fault with the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector and the petitioner cannot seek reconsideration once again under one pretext or the other. It is a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner without any substance in the allegation. The petitioners averments and contentions are factually incorrect and not supported by records. (iv) The various objections made by the petitioner have been considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector on 9.5.2007 in R. Dis. 4007/2007/C3 on the first occasion and clearly explained in the said order. The technical aspect of the matter has also been set out in the earlier order. The reason why the deviation is not possible has also been explained. (iv) The various objections made by the petitioner have been considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector on 9.5.2007 in R. Dis. 4007/2007/C3 on the first occasion and clearly explained in the said order. The technical aspect of the matter has also been set out in the earlier order. The reason why the deviation is not possible has also been explained. The same issue is being argued again and again. In this process, the project is delayed and the cost escalating. 6. It is unfortunate that the District Magistrate/District Collector was called upon to redo the exercise over and over again when the scope of enquiry under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is very limited. The number of decisions on this aspect clearly points out that the District Magistrate/District Collector alone can consider the objections and decide the same on merits and the scope of enquiry is specific and limited. The Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 464 of 2008 dated 20.4.2008 rendered in a similar case will clarify this aspect and it reads as follows:- “9. On behalf of the Corporation, the original plans were produced before us and on examination of the materials placed on record, we are satisfied that the route selected by the Corporation is the best possible route and in any event, in our opinion, it is not permissible to the District Magistrate to accept such opinion of the technical expert and to suggest another route for the purpose of laying down the transmission lines. It is required to be noted that the route selected by the Corporation is the shortest route cutting through the Reserve Forest area, which is also in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court and in fact, the Corporation has also approached the Supreme Court and is awaiting orders for cutting the required number of trees in the Gudalur Forest Area, where three towers would be erected. Moreover, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the only question which the District Magistrate is empowered to decide is whether to permit the authority to exercise the power under section 10 of the Act and the jurisdiction cannot be expanded to empower the District Magistrate to suggest alternative routes for the purpose of laying down the transmission lines on the basis of the so-called report, when it is on record that the Corporation has chosen the most techno-economically feasible route.” (“emphasis supplied”) It is, therefore, clear that the DROs suggestion/opinion on technical aspect cannot be considered and it has to be eschewed as irrelevant. 7. In this case, the District Magistrate/District Collector on three occasions considered the objections on technical aspect, alternate route, availability of government poromboke land, reduction of acquired land, the techno-feasibility of proceeding on an alternate route and such other matters from time to time. In such a situation as has been rightly pointed out by this Court (DHANAPALAN,J.) in order dated 4.4.2008 in para 17 that this Court is not an expert body to go into feasibility or non-feasibility of the transmission line to be erected. This statement of the Court has to be emphasised once again to resolve the controversy in the present case. If the scope of the enquiry by this Court is limited as held earlier then all that the Court needs to consider is whether the District Magistrate/District Collector has considered the objections as has been raised by the petitioner and dealt with the same. If the answer to this query is "yes", then there is no further role for this Court to do. 8. In the order which is impugned in the present case, two specific issues which have been pointed out by DHANAPALAN,J. in order dated 4.4.2008 and reiterated by K.VENKATARAMAN,J. on 16.12.2009 have been duly considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector and disposed off on merits. The order is clear and unambiguous. Though on the earlier occasion it was set aside for being vague and without application of mind, it is not the case in the present. Had the District Magistrate/District Collector taken little more care to look into the earlier order of this Court, the unnecessary delay would not have happened. It is the callous approach that made this Court to set aside the order on 16.12.2009. This could have been avoided. 9. Had the District Magistrate/District Collector taken little more care to look into the earlier order of this Court, the unnecessary delay would not have happened. It is the callous approach that made this Court to set aside the order on 16.12.2009. This could have been avoided. 9. Several maps, sketches and alternate alignment routes have been shown by the petitioner and explained by the leaned senior counsel Shri R. Krishnamoorthy, appearing for the petitioner. On the face of it, it may appear that the petitioner has a prima facie case to show that the route followed by the respondents 1 to 3, Power Grid Corporation, is longer, zigzag and costlier. But after going through the technical report and the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector which is impugned in the present writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the Court cannot come to a different conclusion as to how the towers should be relocated and erected for transmission of the power line. Such a role, if undertaken, by the Court will be a disastrous and unwarranted. It will amount encroaching upon the functions of the Power Grid Corporation and this Court is not inclined to do that. This view has been emphasised by DHANAPALAN, J., in para 17 of the order dated 4.4.2008. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the various sketches and maps that have been produced before the Court to suggest an alternate route. However, the same can be considered by the respondents 1 to 3 on a techno-economical feasibility level if found to be correct or appreciable. This Court hastens to add that the above said observation does not give a stamp of approval to the maps or routes suggested by the petitioner. The respondents 1 to 3 may consider the same if they find any merit in the modification suggested. If there is a scope for any slight modification at the time of erection which will benefit both parties, they then can come to a workable arrangement. This Court will not impose or substitute its view on the authority on technical matters. 10. If there is a scope for any slight modification at the time of erection which will benefit both parties, they then can come to a workable arrangement. This Court will not impose or substitute its view on the authority on technical matters. 10. As regards the feasibility of using poromboke land is concerned, the District Magistrate/District Collector has in his order clearly stated and that is also reiterated by Shri Jayesh L. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the District Collector, the fourth respondent, to state that the government poromboke land is not contiguous or in a straight line so as to avoid patta lands. It has been clearly explained that poromboke lands are situated at different points. Even if the towers are located on poromboke land, the transmission line will have to pass through patta land of individuals and that is inevitable. Therefore, the suggestion given by the petitioner that the towers of transmission line can go through poromboke land and thereby avoid patta land is not based on record, but on a mistake of facts. In such an event, the Court is inclined to accept the reason given by the District Magistrate/District Collector. The objection has been considered and rejected and for reasons stated in the impugned proceedings. 11. As far as alternate route is concerned, the same has been considered by the District Magistrate/District Collector and found that the various Survey Numbers, through which the alternate route is suggested, have been found to be technically not feasible and the reasons have also been set out in the impugned order. The petitioner has no material to state that this statement is factually incorrect or false. In any event, this Court is not inclined to accept the version of the petitioner as this Court has no role to play in the selection of route for erecting the transmission line or the towers. This Court cannot suggest what will be the appropriate route that should be followed and how the power transmission scheme should be executed. The District Magistrate/District Collector in this case has considered the objection of the petitioner in all aspects and has passed reasoned order and the Court finds no good reasons to find fault with the same. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has been given opportunity on three occasions. The District Magistrate/District Collector in this case has considered the objection of the petitioner in all aspects and has passed reasoned order and the Court finds no good reasons to find fault with the same. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner has been given opportunity on three occasions. Three District Magistrates/District Collectors have gone into the issue and have concurrently held that the objections are not sustainable. There is no scope for further enquiry or consideration. 12. The District Magistrates/District Collectors role in considering the objection under section 16 of the Telegraphic Act has been emphasised in several judgments which are as follows:- (1) Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd., - vs. - Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum and others reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47 (Full Bench), (2) M. Nithyanandham and 2 others – vs. - The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 and others reported in 1994 Writ Law Reporter 445, (3) E. Venkatesan and others – vs. - Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and others reported in AIR 1997 Madras 64 and (4) Unreported Order dated 15.1.2007 in the case of T. Narayanan – vs. - Power Grid Corporation (India) Ltd., Chennai-45 in W.P. No. 49172 of 2006 batch rendered by Prabha Srideven, J. It will be pertinent to point out that objections by other land owners for the very same project (i.e.) Udumalpet to Arasur 400 KV D/C Power Transmission line was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and disposed off by Prabha Sridevan J. in W.P. No. 49172 of 2006 etc., on 18.1.2007 and the petitioners first writ petition W.P. No. 1404 of 2007 was also disposed off by the same Honble Judge on 12.2.2007 with a direction to consider the objection. The said objection was considered and rejected. It is also to be pointed out that consequent to the disposal of the batch of writ petitions W.P. No. 49172 of 2006 on 18.1.2007 the same project in respect of other portions was completed leaving the short stretch pertaining to the petitioners land alone incomplete. It is not as if that the transmission line begins and ends at the petitioners property. The entire scheme runs to a 65 kms stretch by erection of 189 towers. The number of towers pertaining to the petitioners land is negligible. 13. It is not as if that the transmission line begins and ends at the petitioners property. The entire scheme runs to a 65 kms stretch by erection of 189 towers. The number of towers pertaining to the petitioners land is negligible. 13. The technical aspect of the scheme cannot be overturned by the District Magistrate/District Collector on mere allegation by aggrieved land owners. The Act provides for compensation for use of the land for erection of towers and transmission lines. The petitioner is entitled to seek the same and nothing more. 14. As far as erection of tower and transmission line is concerned, the District Magistrate/District Collector is empowered to pass an order to enter upon the property if it is found that the objections are trivial and without basis. The District Magistrate/District Collector on three occasions have overruled the objections of the petitioner and all aspects of the objections have been considered. The petitioner has been shown indulgence by this Court on more than one occasions. It is will be travesty of justice to scuttle the project any further. 15. Ideally every land owner would pray that no part of the power transmission line or the tower should go through his land, be it agricultural land, or any other land which would be his source of enterprise, income or livelihood. Considering the larger interest of the society to transmit power to different parts of the nation, in the process of national building, the transmission by erection of towers through one or other land is inevitable. To say that all transmission line and towers should be erected on government poromboke land is nothing, but, chasing a mirage. The endeavour of the petitioner to save his land and to call upon the respondents 1 to 3 to use government poromboke land can be accepted as pointed out by DHANAPALAN,J., in the earlier order dated 4.4.2008 in W.P. No. 19676 of 2007, if such land is available and is feasible. In the present case, time and again inspection was done and the route chosen by the respondents 1 to 3 was found to be the optimum and effective route. There is no straight line of poromboke land. Therefore, the District Magistrate/District Collector has rightly considered the objection in the light of the Courts order dated 4.4.2008 and rejected the plea explaining the reason as to why the poromboke land is not chosen. There is no straight line of poromboke land. Therefore, the District Magistrate/District Collector has rightly considered the objection in the light of the Courts order dated 4.4.2008 and rejected the plea explaining the reason as to why the poromboke land is not chosen. The matter ends there. 16. If the petitioner is able to point out certain place, where towers could be relocated or changed so as to avoid a portion of his land, without compromising the project, such suggestion can be given to the authority, who may consider the same on the techno-economical feasibility level considering it as a suggestion. The Court is not inclined to substitute its views on this aspect of the matter. 17. The District Magistrate/District Collector has considered the objection and granted the permission to respondents 1 to 3 to enter upon the property for the purpose of laying the transmission line. This Court does not find any palpable error, illegality or impropriety in the order of the District Magistrate/District Collector in exercise of his power under the Act. The principles of natural justice has been followed and to a great extent the petitioners grievance was heard over and over again, inspection was done and the District Magistrate/District Collector has concluded that the objections are not sustainable and has passed the impugned order. This Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the same. The respondents 1 to 3 are at liberty to consider the suggestion that may be given by the petitioner if it is technically correct or feasible. No right falls in favour of the petitioner otherwise. The provisions of the Act will follow as a consequence of the impugned proceedings. 18. Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.