ORDER : RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J. 1. It is settled position of law that an individual right has to give way to the right of public at large. In the present case, the petitioner is before this Court challenging an act of the respondent Corporation (Power Grid Corporation of India) of erecting pillars or posts or transmission towards in the land of the petitioner being Survey Nos. 222/1 and 222/2 for the purpose of drawing overhead High Tension Power Supply Lines. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. D. C. Dave with Mr. Rakesh Patel for the petitioner. 2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent Corporation is acting in high-handed manner and in utter disregard of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short). Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Section 10 of the said Act. Section 10 of the Act provides for 'Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.' Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that what will be applicable to the facts of the present case is clause (d) of Section 10 which reads as under. "(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." "2.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the provision contained in clause (d) of Section 10 of the Act sounds to be absolute power conferred on the licensee, it is subject to the provisions of Section 16 of the said Act. In this regard, learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to Section 16 of the Act which pertain to 'Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority'. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 16 will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 16 will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act reads as under : "(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them." (Emphasis supplied) "2.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum of which a copy is made available for perusal of this Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Natthoolal Joharmal, a copy of which is made available for perusal. Last but not the least, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of T. Narayanan v. Power Grid Corporation (India) Limited (AIR 2007 NOC 768) of which a copy is made available for perusal. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon paragraphs 23 and 27 of the first judgment, paragraphs 5 and 7 of the second judgment and paragraph 14 of the third judgment. All these judgments are relied upon to bring home the contention that, 'once the owner of the land resists or obstructs, it is the duty of the licensee to approach the District Magistrate who in turn is duty bound to take into consideration the objections, resistance or obstruction raised by the owner of the land and thereafter while acting as a quasi-judicial authority has to consider, whether licensee be allowed to exercise the power/privilege conferred by Section 10 of the Act. 3. The aforesaid paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are taken into consideration. This Court is of the opinion that there is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by these judgments cannot be discarded or found fault with. The proposition of law is very well settled and, therefore, no judgment is required to bring home the contention raised by the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that there is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by these judgments cannot be discarded or found fault with. The proposition of law is very well settled and, therefore, no judgment is required to bring home the contention raised by the petitioner. 3.1 But in the case on hand, the question is whether the petitioner was vigilant enough to resist or obstruct or even to object at an appropriate time, laying down of the aforesaid power transmission lines. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was served with notice dated 31-8-2009, copy of which is produced at page 16 of the present petition. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this notice is admitted but no dispute was raised by the petitioner because the notice did not contain any details and, therefore, the petitioner did not file any objection or resist or obstruct, the laying down of the transmission lines until the licensee entered on the land of the petitioner on 15-11-2010. "5.1 But then the learned advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out that the petitioner had called for the required details about laying down of transmission lines on the property of the petitioner. In absence of any demand for the details, the presumption is that the petitioner is in know of the same and the petitioner has consented to laying down of the transamission lines in any part of his land. That being so, the objections raised by the petitioner is nothing but an afterthought which cannot be taken note by this Court. "5.2 The photographs are placed on record. The photographs are suggestive of the fact that there is substantial work has taken place, which seems to have been undertaken by the respondent Corporation not in a day or two. This Court is of the opinion that, for this much work the respondent Corporation must have spent not less than 8 to 10 days. "5.3 If that is so, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that on 15-11-2010 when the licensee entered on the land of the petitioner, immediately on that very day, petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent Corporation, copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. Either of two things are not correct. "5.3 If that is so, the petitioner cannot be heard saying that on 15-11-2010 when the licensee entered on the land of the petitioner, immediately on that very day, petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent Corporation, copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the petition. Either of two things are not correct. Either the licensee-the respondent Corporation has not entered on 15-11-2010 as is claimed by the petitioner or the letter must have been written subsequently and must have been given the date of 15-11-2010. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, besides, the aforesaid communication dated 15-11-2010, the petitioner also communicated his unwillingness by E-mail, copy of which is produced at page 69 - Annexure-P4. It is thereafter that on 16-12-2010 the petition is filed. 7. All these facts are set out to exhibit the delay on the part of the petitioner and his conduct which speaks of 'non-vigilance' on the part of the petitioner, that is not seeking details from the licensee-respondent Corporation and taking objections at an appropriate time. 8. On merits about laying down of the lines by a particular alignment is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Buch for the respondent Corporation invited attention of the Court to page 54 - tower 19A/0 is the tower which is being led in the land of the petitioner. It is quite possible that by putting the tower at that location on the land of the petitioner, there is deterioration in the utility of the land. But then Court cannot over-look other very important and relevant factors that near to the property of the petitioner, there is canal and in the vicinity, there are as many as four transmission lines passing i.e. three 66 KV and one 220 KV. With such interjection of transmission lines near the property of the petitioner, it is for the 'experts' to decide as to in what manner, the towers/pillars are to be led. 8.1 That being so, the petition is dismissed having found no merits in the matter on both the counts, i.e. (i) the petitioner has not woke up to his right at the right time and (ii) on perusal of the material placed before the Court by the respondent Corporation. This Court is of the opinion that alignment cannot be veried as suggested by the petitioner. 9. This Court is of the opinion that alignment cannot be veried as suggested by the petitioner. 9. Learned advocate for the respondent Corporation relied upon two orders passed by this Court, one by the Division Bench in the matter of L. N. Garg v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. in Special Civil Application No. 5489 of 2009 (Coram : Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. K. S. Radhakrishnan (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) dated 24-9-2009 and another order passed by learned single Judge of this Court (Coram : K. S. Jhaveri, J.) in Special Civil Application No. 13606 of 2009 in the matter of Rajendra Amrutlal Jhaveri v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. dated 17-2-2010. 10. Learned advocate for the petitioner tried to distinguish these orders on the ground that the petitioners of these petitions had approached the Court admittedly at a very late stage. For example, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 13606 of 2009 approached the Court after two years of laying down of the foundation of the tower. Be that as it may. As discussed hereinabove, the Court finds no substance in the matter and, therefore, it is rejected. Notice is discharged. Petition dismissed.