JUDGMENT : Regard being had to the homogeneous character of the controversy involved in the present cases, writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being decided by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 6412/2010 are narrated hereunder. 2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1 in construction of a tower for transmission of electrical energy through 400 KV High Tension Transmission Lines. The petitioner has stated before this Court that he is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 434/1, 434/2 and 434/3 ad-measuring area 3.84 acres situated in Village Panod Tehsil Indore. The petitioner has further stated that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner on 16-5-2008 through a registered sale-deed and he is the Bhumi-Swami of the land in question. The petitioner has further stated that he was informed by one of his associate companies namely Kalyan India Infrastructures Private Limited that the Power Grid Corporation of India is proposing to erect a tower for putting up a High Tension Lines of 400 KV over the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner's further grievance is that in case, respondent No. 1 is permitted to erect a tower and to carry on the construction of laying High Tension Lines over the land of the petitioner, a large number of area of the land belonging to the petitioner would become unusable, as the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, would be required to leave unused area as an open space, to a stretch of 15 meters on the either side from the centre line of the proposed overhead transmission lines. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that an alternative land is available, which is Government land and the same can be used for construction of transmission tower and for laying transmission lines. The petitioner has further stated that an objection was raised on 29-1-2010. The petitioner has also stated before this Court that an alternative land is available, which is Government land and the same can be used for construction of transmission tower and for laying transmission lines. The petitioner has further stated that an objection was raised on 29-1-2010. However, instead of granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, a notice was issued on 15-3-2010 under the provisions of sections 68 and 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, informing the petitioner that transmission line is being laid over the land reflected in the notice and in case, he is aggrieved, he is free to stake his claim for grant of compensation. The petitioner has further stated that a notice was received by the petitioner served by respondent No. 1 through its counsel, informing the petitioner that a caveat is being filed in the matter. The petitioner's grievance is that without obtaining his consent, a transmission tower is being constructed by the Power Grid Corporation of India over the land belonging to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and it has been stated that notice dated 15-3-2010 issued under sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is totally without jurisdiction and there is a distinction between the electrical lines and the transmission lines. It has been vehemently argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not applicable in the present case, as the aforesaid section deals with installation of overhead lines (electric lines) while transmission lines are defined under section 2 (72) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same excludes electric lines since they are high pressure cables for transmission very high electricity from one generation station to another generation station or to a Sub Station. 4. The petitioner has also raised another ground before this Court and the contention of the learned senior counsel is that keeping in view the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, consent of the petitioner is required and without acquiring the land and without obtaining consent from the petitioner, no such construction can take place, especially keeping in view the provisions of Work of Licensee Rules, 2006. The petitioner has also stated that the respondents, in spite of receiving a notice from the petitioner, have not decided the objections raised by the petitioner and have threatened the petitioner that they shall be using police force against the petitioner, in case respondent No. 1 is obstructed, in the matter of construction of transmission tower. It has also been argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner at any point of time, and therefore, action of respondent No. 1 is bad in law and is also violative of principles of natural justice and fair play. 5. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of notice dated 15-3-2010 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation of India and has also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order, restraining respondent No. 1 from laying transmission line across the land of the petitioner or from erecting transmission tower over the land belonging to the petitioner. It has also been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to use the adjoining government land. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of M.D., M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry Private Limited vs. R. Chellappan and others, reported in 2009 (7) SCALE 157. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Limited vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum and others, reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon a judgment delivered in case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Limited and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 705 . 7. A rejoinder has also been filed in the matter and it has been stated in the rejoinder that respondent No. 1 has not been able to establish that they are carrying out the work of laying transmission line, as per sanctioned scheme and if there is no sanctioned scheme, the impugned action is without any legal authority, hence liable to be quashed by this Court. It has also been alleged that no survey of any kind took place in the matter and the maps, enclosed along with the return, are of no value. It has also been alleged that no survey of any kind took place in the matter and the maps, enclosed along with the return, are of no value. The petitioner in his rejoinder has reiterated that consent of the petitioner was not sought and the property belonging to the petitioner cannot be taken away, without following the prescribed procedure and the respondents could not have ignored the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 8. A detailed and exhaustive return has been filed on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India and the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the Power Grid Corporation of India is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Government of India Undertaking and the Central Government is having 86.36% shares of the company and rest of the shares are held by mutual funds, financial institution and nationalized insurance companies. It has also been stated in the return that the Power Grid Corporation of India was specified as a Central Transmission Utility of this country under the Electricity Act, 1910 and it is notified in the Government of India Gazette vide notification dated 24-12-2003 and the main function of the Power Grid Corporation of India is development of an integrated and efficient power transmission system network in the country. Respondent No. 1 has stated before this Court that the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are made applicable by virtue of section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and, no consent of any kind is required while constructing a tower or while laying transmission lines. The respondents have enclosed a notification dated 24-12-2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, wherein respondent No. 1 has been authorized to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It has been stated in the return that no permission of the District Magistrate is required, keeping in view provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, at any point of time, while constructing a tower or laying transmission lines. It has been stated in the return that no permission of the District Magistrate is required, keeping in view provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, at any point of time, while constructing a tower or laying transmission lines. It has also been stated that exhaustive survey was done in the matter and a Beeline, which is the straight line joining two terminal points and two alternative lines where the work has to be actually carried out, were also drawn by the department while surveying and finalizing the transmission route. It has been categorically stated before this Court that in respect of both the alternative routes, the petitioner's land is coming in way of the transmission lines. The respondent No. 1 has further stated that various guidelines framed from time to time were followed and the Beeline was kept in mind, while finalizing transmission lines. It has also been stated that the entire cost of the project is approximately Rs.7,031.88/- crores and at the time the present writ petition was filed, almost 60% of the project was completed and the laying of transmission line is going ahead with full swing. However, in respect of the land in question, as interim order was passed by this Court, the work has come to standstill. The respondent No. 1 has further stated that the map sanctioned for laying transmission line was finalized and scheme was forwarded to the Government of India and the Government of India as provided under section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has accorded approval on 25th October, 2007. The approval granted by the Government of India includes transmission lines, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition i.e. Indore (Power Grid) Indore (MPPTCL) 400 KV D/C Line. It has been further stated that the Government of India has again granted approval under section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide letter dated 2-9-2008, meaning thereby the scheme has been sanctioned by the Government of India and it is a time bound project. Respondent No. 1 has enclosed approvals accorded by the Government of India from time to time and the aforesaid approvals reflect that the work in question has to be started within three years from the date of approval, meaning thereby that it is a time bound project. Respondent No. 1 has enclosed approvals accorded by the Government of India from time to time and the aforesaid approvals reflect that the work in question has to be started within three years from the date of approval, meaning thereby that it is a time bound project. Respondents have categorically stated in the return that 60% work is already over, therefore, question of changing the route alignment afresh, is not possible and the same shall result in heavy loss to the State Exchequer. The respondents have categorically stated that they are not acquiring the land of the petitioner and they have also denied that 300 sq. ft. of land will become unusable. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner shall be free to use the land in question and in case, he is aggrieved in the matter of grant of compensation, he shall always be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law by claiming compensation or for enhancement of compensation. However, his consent is not required under any statutory provisions of law. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Power Grid Corporation of India has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Manojbhai Dasrathbhai Patel and another vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others Special Civil Application No. 2813/2010 decided on 30-3-2010. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel and another vs. State of Gujarat and another, reported in AIR 2007 Gujarat 32. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered by Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust and others vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others, reported in AIR 2008 Jharkhand 34. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajak and others vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Indore and another, reported in AIR 1988 M. P. 172. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajak and others vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Indore and another, reported in AIR 1988 M. P. 172. Learned counsel has lastly relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of G. V.S. Rama Krishna s/o Naqeshwar Rao and others vs. A.P. Transco represented by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha and others, reported in AIR 2009 A. P. 158 and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, the question of obtaining consent from the petitioner for construction of transmission tower and for laying transmission lines over the land belonging to the petitioner, does not arise and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. The matter is being heard and decided with the consent of the parties, at admission stage itself. 12. In the present case, the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 434/1, 434/2 and 434/3 ad-measuring 3.84 acres situated in Village Panod, Tehsil and. District Indore. A notice was issued by respondent No. 1-Power Grid Corporation of India under the provisions of sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as The Electricity Rules, 2005. The petitioner's grievance is that the land belonging to the petitioner, which is the private land, respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation of India, is constructing a transmission tower and laying transmission lines over the land belonging to the petitioner, which is his private property and no consent has been obtained from the petitioner, while proceeding-ahead in the matter. The notice issued by respondent No. 1 reflects that the same has been issued under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads, as under :- "164. The notice issued by respondent No. 1 reflects that the same has been issued under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads, as under :- "164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.- The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained." Section 2 (20) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines "electric line" and the same read, as under :- "(20) "Electric line" means any line which is used for carrying electricity for any purpose and includes - (a) Any support for any such line, that is to say, any structure, tower, pole or other thing in, on, by or from which any such line is, or may be, supported, carried or suspended; and (b) Any apparatus connected to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity." 13. The notice further reflects that the aforesaid section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, empowers the "Appropriate Government" to permit any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity etc. to exercise powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the present case, "appropriate Government" i.e. the Government of India has issued a notification, as contained in Annexure R/2-C dated 24th December, 2003, by which Power Grid Corporation of India has been authorized to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Para 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads, as under :- "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads, as under :- "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. -- The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immoveable property: Provided that - (a) The telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) The [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and (c) Except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c); shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers." 14. In the present case, for laying transmission lines, approval of Government of India, as required under section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was granted on 25th October, 2007 and on 2nd September, 2008. The aforesaid documents clearly establishes that respondent No. 1 is carrying out construction of transmission tower and is laying transmission lines, as per the approval granted by the Government of India under section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that he has not been heard in the matter and no consent has been obtained, at any point of time and has also argued before this Court that the provisions of Rule 3 of the work of Licensee Rules, 2006 has not been complied with. Relevant statutory provision i.e. Work of Licensee Rules, 2006 reads, as under:- "3. Relevant statutory provision i.e. Work of Licensee Rules, 2006 reads, as under:- "3. Licensee to carry out works - (1) A licensee may - (a) Carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, thorough, or against any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, where-over or where-under any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land; (b) Fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support; Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works: Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorized may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. (2) When making of an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorized, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. (3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall Effect the powers conferred upon, any licensee under section 164 of the Act." 15. (3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorized officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall Effect the powers conferred upon, any licensee under section 164 of the Act." 15. Keeping in view the provisions of section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the question of consent of any kind for erecting poles and transmission lines on a private land is certainly not required. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.V.S. Rama Krishna (supra) in paragraphs No. 33, 34 and 35 has held, as under :- "33. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the AP Transco to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric polls for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or occupier. 34 It is also relevant to note that since section 28 or 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are not saved under section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is no need to publish a sanctioned scheme nor it is necessary to give any notice by publication in local news paper as required under section 29 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In spite of the same, the notification dated 14-7-2008 was published in the A.P Gazette as well as two local dailies inviting objections from the interested/ aggrieved persons and no objections were received from anyone. 35. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Hence, no Mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with the erection of poles and transmission lines through the land of the petitioners. 35. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Hence, no Mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with the erection of poles and transmission lines through the land of the petitioners. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners to claim the compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law in case any damage is sustained to their property." 16. A similar view was taken earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajak (supra) and it was held that the only remedy of a person owing the fields where lines are laid for transmission of electricity, is to seek compensation. Paragraphs No. 12 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment reads, as "12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the provisions referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the alteration in respect of the sanctioned scheme which has been concurred in by the Authority, by way of introducing the non obstante clause therein, as published, in the notification (Annexure R-IV), is minor in character, which could be made without preparing a supplementary scheme, as is contemplated in the first proviso to section 32 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove. In our view, therefore, the published sanctioned scheme as per notification (Annexure R-IV) is valid and operative and there can be no legal bar to its implementation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners raising objection to the validity of the sanctioned scheme as published in the notification (Annexure R-IV) cannot be upheld and is hereby rejected. 15. In view of the power vested in the Generating Company NTPC under section 42 of the Act read with Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, there can be no valid objection by the petitioners to the implementation of the sanctioned scheme either on the principles of natural justice or on the ground of unauthorized user of petitioners' land in respect of which compensation has been provided for under proviso (d) to section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act". Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust (supra) in paragraph No. 8 has held, as under :- "8. Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust (supra) in paragraph No. 8 has held, as under :- "8. In view of scheme of the Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Electricity Act, 2003, the Rules of 2006 and section 10 of the Telegraph Act; and the notification dated 24-12-2003, it is clear that prior consent from the petitioners was/is not required." 17. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is evident that no such consent, as claimed by the petitioner, is required, keeping in view section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel (supra) again it has been held that no such consent at any point of time is required under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Gujarat High Court while deciding the case of Jayantkumar Bhagubhai Patel (supra) in paragraph Nos. 3, 20, 21 and 25 has held, as under :- "3. The petitioners have approached this Court through a common Power of Attorney holder. It is stated in Para 1 of the petition that- "The petitioners by this petition challenge notice dated 2-5-2006 (copy at Annexure 'A' hereto) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned notice') for laying overhead electric supply lines, upon Shri Jagdishbhai Ramanbhai Patel who is the nephew of the petitioner No. 1 and who handles the affairs of the petitioners on their behalf as the petitioners are residing abroad." This fact is mentioned as the Court is of the opinion that this litigation is a 'luxury litigation' and is motivated to bring pressure on the respondents to come to same terms by creating hurdle in laying down 220 KV overhead line from the point of generation of electricity to the point of distribution from where number of consumers in the licensed area of respondent No. 2 company are to be supplied the electricity. 20. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 confers powers of 'telegraph authority' on a 'licensee'. 20. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 confers powers of 'telegraph authority' on a 'licensee'. The learned advocate submitted that, that being so, it is within the powers of the State Government to confer powers of the 'telegraph authority' for placing of electric supply lines, appliance and apparatus for the transmission of energy or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co­ordination of works by order in writing. Not only on a 'licensee' but even on any 'public officer', 'licensee' or 'any other person' engaged in the business of supplying energy to the public under this Act. He submitted that it is true that it is open to the State Government to impose such conditions and restrictions which it may think fit to impose. The learned advocate submitted that the State Government can confer any of the powers which the 'telegraph authority' possesses under that Act with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained. He submitted that section 51 expands the powers of the 'licensee' at par with the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph Act with respect of placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained. The learned advocate submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of Nagaraju vs. Mahalingappa, was pleased to hold that, 'it is open to the Kerala Electricity Board to enter upon the lands of private citizens for the purpose of placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for transmission of energy without consent of the owners of such lands (Emphasis supplied). The learned advocate submitted that section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was with regard to 'overhead lines', and the restrictions/limitations, if any of this section stood removed by section 51, as it starts with 'non obstante" clause. Section 51 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything in sections 12 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 and 19, the State Government may, by order in writing………..” 21. Section 51 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything in sections 12 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 and 19, the State Government may, by order in writing………..” 21. The learned advocate submitted that "sections 12 to 16 relate to 'works', section 18 deals with 'overhead lines' and section 19 deals with 'compensation for damage'. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 submitted that in new Act (Electricity Act, 2003) section 164 provides for 'exercise of power of telegraphic authority in certain cases'. The learned advocate submitted that section 164 is equivalent to section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The learned advocate submitted that section 67 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Section 68 of the new Act is more or less akin to section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He submitted that the net effect of all these provisions is that respondent No. 2 has all the powers that of the 'telegraph authority', conferred on it under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority' to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. These powers are conferred by the State Government on respondent No. 2 under section 51 of the old Act, which is equivalent to section 164 of the new Act. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 made available a copy of the order dated 8th April, 1968 bearing No. GU-28-ESA-3267/2232/K. By this order, the licence granted to the Surat Electricity Company Limited, was revoked with effect from 12th April, 1968. The learned advocate for respondent No. 2 also made available a copy of the Notification dated 8th April 1968 bearing No. GU-29-LSX-3267/2232-K, relevant part of which reads as under: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX-of 1910) hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") the Government of Gujarat, after consulting the State of Gujarat, after consulting the State Electricity Board and with the consent of Surat Municipal Corporation, Surat District Panchayat and other Local Authorities as shown in the statement attached hereto, hereby grants sanction to the Surat Electricity Company Ltd...." 25. This Court finds that the present are the petitions filed with an oblique motive and for extraneous considerations. This Court finds that the present are the petitions filed with an oblique motive and for extraneous considerations. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds that the petitions have no substance and the same are dismissed. Notice is discharged. The Court restrains itself from passing an order of dismissing the petition with cost only because it is not on record that the petitioners were aware of the acts of the enthusiastic Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioners. Though under the law a person who is giving Power of Attorney is responsible for all the acts of the Power of Attorney Holder, done by him on behalf of the person, who gave him the Power of Attorney, therefore, the Court is of the opinion that let the petitioners be not burdened with costs." 18. A similar view has been taken by Gujarat High Court again in the case of Manojbhai Dasrathbhai Patel (supra). Thus, time and again, various High Courts has held that no such consent is required for laying transmission lines and for erecting a tower. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a judgment delivered in the case of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra) and it has been vehemently argued that the right to property is not only a constitutional right, but is also a human right. In the present case, this Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and there is no manner of doubt that right to property is not only a constitutional right, but also a human right, but the fact remains that it is not a fundamental right and the respondents have initiated action in the matter, keeping in view the various other statutory provisions i.e. the Electricity Act, 2003/lndian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as Work of Licensee Rules, 2006 and therefore, once the respondents have taken an action, as per the prescribed procedure under various statutes and statutes do not provide for consent in the matter of laying transmission lines, the question of obtaining petitioner's consent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. Heavy reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47 and it has been argued that the Competent Authority is under an obligation to issue a prior notice to the owner of the property over which the electric supply line is proposed before exercising powers under section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as the respondents have issued a notice under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and also keeping in view the subsequent judgments delivered by various High Courts and also keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of our own High Court, no such notice is required in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner, at the best, is entitled to claim compensation and for the same mechanism is also provided under section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 19. In the present case, the petitioner is literary praying for shifting of the transmission line from his land to some other land, which means it will result in change of entire alignment. The cost of the project is Rs. 7,031.88/- crores and transmission lines are laid by Power Grid Corporation of India in larger public interest, and therefore, right of an individual some times has got to give way to the right of public at large, and therefore, no case for interference is made out in the matter. 20. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to claim damages, for which a notice has already been given to the petitioner by the Power Grid Corporation of India. No order as to costs. C c. as per rules. Petition dismissed.