JUDGMENT :- 1. Though the Miscellaneous Petition is listed today, by consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr.A.R. Karunakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right in the lands in Survey Nos.74/1, 74/3, 77/1J, 77/1B, 77/1C, 77/1H, 77/1A (part), 77/1A, 77/1E, 77/1F, 77/1D, 77/1G and 77/1-I in Paiyanur Village, Chengleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District and consequently direct the respondents to lay the 230 KV high tension transmission lines from Kalpakkam to Sirucheri through the originally proposed route. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he owns the land in Survey Nos.74/1, 74/3, 77/1J, 77/1B, 77/1C, 77/1H, 77/1A (part), 77/1A, 77/1E, 77/1F, 77/1D, 77/1G and 77/1-I in Paiyanur Village, Chengleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District which was purchased by way of a sale deed dated 19.05.2008, registered as Document No.3764 of 2007 in the Sub-Registrar's Office at Thiruporur. As there was a decision to put up high tension transmission line from Kalpakkam to Sirucheri, on coming to know the same, the local bodies of that area immediately passed a resolution objecting to the erection of high tension transmission lines and several farmers from the neighbouring villages also challenged the act of the respondents before this court inasmuch as a large portion of the land was attempted to be excavated without any concern of the crops and trees lying thereon. No prior intimation was given to the petitioner, who was also ignorant of the route proposed to be adopted by the respondents. An undated notice bearing No.040 was sent on 21.04.2011 under the Indian Telegraph Act (13 of 1885) by the 1st respondent to the petitioner without giving any details of the lands, in which the 1st respondent intended to erect its transmission masts. Therefore, the petitioner raised objections not to install the high tension transmission line through his land. 4(a). According to the petitioner, 230 KV transmission lines proposed to be laid from Kalpakkam to Sirucheri is on the western side of Bay of Bengal and runs parallel to Buckingham Canal. The said proposal to be carried out now is through the petitioner's land which cannot be given effect. 4(a). According to the petitioner, 230 KV transmission lines proposed to be laid from Kalpakkam to Sirucheri is on the western side of Bay of Bengal and runs parallel to Buckingham Canal. The said proposal to be carried out now is through the petitioner's land which cannot be given effect. He raised several grounds in respect of his claim and therefore, prayed for issuance of a direction to forbear the respondents from erecting the transmission lines in his land. 5. On 18.5.2011, this Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, ordered notice and has not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the action proposed by the respondents is contrary to the earlier route proposed by them and despite the objections raised by several land owners, the respondents have proceeded with the project. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider such objections by referring the matter to the concerned District Magistrate of the jurisdiction. He would further submit that when there is an alternative route available to erect the high tension transmission lines, it is incumbent on the respondents to consider the same if it is feasible as per the provisions of the Act. 7. Per contra, Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would vehemently contend that in the interest of the entire nation and the State of Tamil Nadu, it is proposed to erect the high tension power line for supply of electricity after taking into consideration all feasible measures including the experts' opinion. At this stage, it is not possible for the respondents to alter the alignment from the proposed erection of transmission lines. He would further submit that already the project has been envisaged to cater to the power requirements of all southern states and scheduled to be commissioned by the end of February, 2011. He pointed out that due to certain stringing activities, remaining works were scheduled to be completed by June 2011. There are only two towers where the stringing operations have to be completed and any further delay in completion and commissioning of the project would enhance the expenditure which would have a direct impact on power tariff and would result in enhancement of cost of power per unit burdening the common man. 7a. There are only two towers where the stringing operations have to be completed and any further delay in completion and commissioning of the project would enhance the expenditure which would have a direct impact on power tariff and would result in enhancement of cost of power per unit burdening the common man. 7a. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, at the end of his arguments, brought to the notice of this Court Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 by which, it is incumbent on the respondents to refer the matter to the District Magistrate of the jurisdiction concerned, to consider the objections if any, in respect of the lands owned or the persons interested. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material documents and the relevant provisions of law. 9. The respondent Corporation being a Government of India Enterprise is involved in the task of establishing an efficient Power Transmission System network throughout the nation and to establish the National Power Grid in the country. The project of laying HT transmission lines is undertaken to augment the power supply to the State of Tamil Nadu which will benefit the public at large. According to the respondents, for fixing the transmission line route, only the most techno-economically feasible route is chosen which would cost least damage and after complying with the statutory clearances and after taking all the experts' opinion and on a detailed survey, they proposed the present transmission line route which is the most techno-economically feasible route in all respects. The said project is being carried out for public purpose and as per the schedule, it is due for commissioning by the end of June 2011. At this stage, the petitioner has come out with the objection that the original route was not carried out and the respondents have dropped the proposal of laying the transmission lines through the initially proposed route and on the other hand they have proposed to erect the same in the other land i.e. in S.No.56/5 of Paiyanoor village. According to the petitioner, they raised objections, however, without considering the same, respondents have proceeded with the project work and if erection is allowed to take place in their lands, it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and other land owners. 10. According to the petitioner, they raised objections, however, without considering the same, respondents have proceeded with the project work and if erection is allowed to take place in their lands, it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and other land owners. 10. However, this claim of the petitioner is refuted by the respondents, stating that the project itself is in the interest of public at large and the very necessity to establish the power grid is to cater to the power requirements of all southern states and at any cost, the said project has to be completed as per the schedule, otherwise, it may not only cause financial loss but also delay the execution of the project. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have proceeded with the project without considering their objections. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which reads as under: "16. Exercise of Powers conferred by Section 10, and dispute as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.- (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." 11. Therefore, a plain reading of the above Section would clearly reveal that in exercise of powers conferred, 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 (d) is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate while exercising his discretion, can order the telegraph authority permitting to exercise the powers in case of resistance or obstruction. Therefore, having regard to Section 16(1) of the Act, the respondents are bound to refer the matter to the District Magistrate. 12. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents may be directed to refer the objections to the District Magistrate, Kancheepuram within a period of seven days and thereafter, the Magistrate concerned shall issue notice to the parties concerned after hearing them and pass appropriate orders. 13. 12. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents may be directed to refer the objections to the District Magistrate, Kancheepuram within a period of seven days and thereafter, the Magistrate concerned shall issue notice to the parties concerned after hearing them and pass appropriate orders. 13. Accordingly, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the project itself is undertaken to augment the power supply to the southern state of Tamil Nadu in the interest of the public at large, the prayer as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to refer the petitioner's objection to the District Magistrate, Kancheepuram within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the District Magistrate concerned shall issue notice to the parties concerned and hear the objections, after giving them an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks. Till such time, the parties to the writ petition are directed to maintain status quo as on today. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.no.1 of 2011 is closed.