Judgment :- 1. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent or its employees and persons claiming through it from in any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful enjoyment and possession of the vacant house site measuring an extent of 3265 sq.ft situate in survey No.156/8 under patta No.1036 in No.158, Vadakadumbadi Village, Tirukkazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District without due process of law. 3. Heard Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jayesh Dolia, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The respondent Corporation is erecting a transmission line under a scheme called "Kalpakkam - Siruseri Transmission Line". The scheme has been approved as early as in March 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has given objection to the authorities, but without considering the same, the respondent Corporation is proposed to erect the transmission line. 5. The issue relating to considering the objection raised by the land owner was considered in very many cases and it has been held that the District Collector / District Magistrate is empowered to go into the objections raised by the land owner on the application made by the transmission company. In this case, the objection has been raised by the petitioner and therefore the respondent Corporation have in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit clearly stated that they have approached the District Collector for appropriate relief. 6. The scope of the enquiry by the District Collector / District Magistrate has been considered in several decisions and more particularly in case of W.A.No.464 of 2008 (R.KANNAN ..vs.. THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHIEF MANAGER), dated 10.04.2008 the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court held as follows:- "... 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." 7. I have also had an occasion to consider similar objection in W.P.No.6353 of 2010 (Minor Vignesh Kanniayaram, represented by mother and natural guardian Dr.T.Chandrakala vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and 5 others) dated 22.06.2010 and in the said decision, it has been held as follows:- "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." 8. In view of the above, the respondent Corporation is directed to pursue the matter before the District Magistrate for getting appropriate orders and the petitioner shall cooperate in the enquiry to be conducted by the District Magistrate for earlier disposal of the same. The District Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible considering the nature of the scheme under implementation. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.