ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in erecting tower in the middle of the petitioners' land in Survey Nos.172 and 127 in Gopavaram Village and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to erect the towers in the 'Banjaru land' which belongs to the Government adjacent to the petitioners' land in Gopavaram Village. 2. The petitioners are claiming to be the residents of Gopavaram Village, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and owners and possessors of land Acs.9.81 cents in Survey No.172 of Gopavaram Village and Mandal and they are jointly cultivating the lands since time immemorial and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands jointly. The petitioners are landless and houseless poor persons and will be deprived of land due to proposed construction of towers in Survey No.172 of the above village. 3. The respondent Corporation proposed to erect the tower in the midst of the lands in Survey No.172 which belongs to the petitioners and in pursuance of their proposal to erect towers, they made demarcation in the middle of the survey number having knowledge of the above fact. It is also stated that more than 30 families of their village will be deprived of their shelters due to erection of towers. It is stated that the petitioners have invested lakhs of rupees in developing the land to make the land fit for house sites by borrowing amounts from several persons. If the respondents erect towers in the middle of Survey No.172, then the value of the lands will go down and the petitioners will suffer financially. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is banjaru land to the northern side of the petitioners' land and if the officials of the respondent Corporation erect the 400 K.V. Electrical Line at the distance of 100 meters, which is on Krishnapatnam and Gooty Road, it will not cause harm to anybody including the petitioners. It is stated that the respondent Corporation did not give any opportunity to the petitioners nor issued notice to make representation regarding proposed erection of tower in Survey No.172 nor heard the petitioner about their objections. The respondent Corporation failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Electricity laws. 4. It is stated that the respondent Corporation did not give any opportunity to the petitioners nor issued notice to make representation regarding proposed erection of tower in Survey No.172 nor heard the petitioner about their objections. The respondent Corporation failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Electricity laws. 4. Counter is filed by the first respondent stating that it is a Government of India Enterprise and 'the Central Transmission Utility' under the aegis of Ministry of Power. It is a Corporation of National importance incorporated as a 'Government Company' under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 by Government of India with a view to develop an efficient Power Transmission System Network throughout the country and to establish the National Power Grid in the country to facilitate transfer of electric power within and across the regions with reliability, security and economy on sound commercial principles for the overall development of the country. It is submitted that as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 'the Act'), the Appropriate Government may by order in writing for placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity confer upon the 'Licensee' any of the powers which the Telegraph Authority possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for brevity Telegraph Act'). The Government of India in exercise of powers conferred under Section 164 of the Act passed order dated 24.12.2003 vide Gazette of India No.1148 authorizing Power Grid Corporation to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Telegraph Act, in respect Electrical Lines and Electrical plants established or maintained for Transmission of Electricity or for the purpose of Telephonic or Telegraphic communication necessary for the proper coordination of work. 5. The proposed lines referred to in this writ petition are to be laid by the 1st respondent Corporation are a part of the approved scheme under Section 68 of the Act for common system associated with Simhapuri, Meenakshi, Krishnapatnam (Navayuga) and APDCL projects for establishment of 765/400 KV, 2 x 1500 MVA pooling station at Nellore by LILO of Simhapuri, Nellore 400 KV, Quad D/c Line. As per the approval given by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, the implementing agency will commence construction of the project within 3 years unless the term is extended by the Ministry of Power. As per the approval given by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, the implementing agency will commence construction of the project within 3 years unless the term is extended by the Ministry of Power. The present line being laid is from Nellore to Kurnool, which is 765 KY Double Circuit Line which can carry 6000 Mega watts through high capacity transmission line. It is stated that the cost of the project is Rs.1600 crores from Nellore to Kurnool itself and the project has commenced in December, 2011 and to be completed by December, 2013. The length of the line is 302 Kms from Nellore to Kurnool and 100 Kms from Kurnool to Raichur and 208 Kms from Raichur to Sholapur. In the present case, in total 746 towers are to be laid out of which 30 towers are to be laid in forest area for which stage-1 clearance has already been received. Out of 746 towers, 657 towers the foundation works are already completed and already 230 towers erection work is also completed and 18 Kms of wiring is also completed. The height of the tower is 68 meters and the minimum clearance from the land level for the power lines is 15.5 meters, therefore, no loss will be caused for the crops in the land of the petitioners. The land in Survey No.127 do not belong to the petitioners. 6. The Corporation has shifted the Tower No.63/1 in Survey No.127 by about 5 meters and aligned it to pass through the edge of the land else the line would have passed through the center of the land. Since the casting of foundations is already completed in the alignment, it is not possible to make any changes to Loc.63/0 in Survey No.172. The first respondent has taken care to increase the height of the tower. The land owners in Sy.No.172 of Gopavaram in YSR Kadapa District, had filed WP No.4972 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 19.2.2013, disposed of the same directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners therein and to communicate the reasons, in the event of their request for erecting the electrical line over alternative lands indicated by them was rejected and till the decision is communicated to the writ petitioner No.1 therein, that the respondent shall not proceed with the erection of the electrical line over the petitioner's land. It is stated that in view of the orders in WP No.4972 of 2013, the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioners dated 11.2.2013 and replied to the same on 5.3.2013. 7. The 1st respondent has made all the efforts and had also replied to the Joint Collector, YSR, Kadapa District on 19.7.2013 and the District Collector had also informed the same to the Tahasildar, Gopavaram on 20.3.2013 informing him that the Corporation had already replied stating that deviation is not possible and requested the Tahasildar, Gopavaram to convince the land owners in Sy.Nos.172 and 127 for placing of the towers in their lands as the authorities of the Power Grid have agreed for payment of damages, if any, that occurred at the time of placing of towers, as per Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is further submitted that shifting of the line from the present approved line layout is not possible as there is no technical feasibility. There are specific design limitations for each type of tower. The tower being erected is a "DD" type tower and if the tower is shifted by 100 meters, the angle of the particular tower goes beyond the specified limit of 60 degrees. At the present location, the angle of deviation is 50 degrees. Hence, deviation is not at all possible and even minor change to the present line alignment is not possible in relation to tower 63/0 in Sy.No.172. 8. It is further stated that prior to commencement of the earmarking and commencing the works of laying of the foundation pits itself, the Corporation had duly issued notices dated 11.1.2013 to the land owners/occupants under the Telegraph Act. As the land owners/occupants have declined to receive the said notices, the Tahasildar, Gopavaram had sent the said notices once again along with his letter, dated 15.7.2013 to the land owners/occupants and there is no truth in the allegation of the petitioners that they were not informed. It is submitted that already a line is existing, Nellore-Gooty 400 KV Line, which is to be crossed over as per the Central Electricity Authority Regulations. It is submitted that already a line is existing, Nellore-Gooty 400 KV Line, which is to be crossed over as per the Central Electricity Authority Regulations. The cost of the project being Rs.1600 crores and timely completion of the project is necessary to ensure availability of power to the districts of Nellore, Cuddapah and Kurnool and if any delay occurs, the project cost also will go up costing huge loss to the exchequer. The Corporation has duly followed the procedure laid down under the Act. It is also stated that the transmission lines proposed to be laid do not have any impact on human beings, animals, plants etc., or on the geological or ecological system. The lines are laid by adhering to the statutory clearances/norms provided by CEA Regulations and shifting of tower lines is not possible and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Reply is filed denying the averments made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that without issuing notices and opportunity of hearing and without acquiring the lands of the petitioners, the first respondent-Corporation is going ahead with the erection of towers for laying transmission lines, which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. He also contends that Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Act, is not followed. He also contends that there is adjacent banjaru land belonging to the Government and the first respondent should have laid the transmission lines through the said land. He also contends that some persons have filed representations contending that there was deviation in erection of towers, which would have also been considered by changing the alignment of erection of transmission lines, but the first respondent authorities without considering their request, is going ahead with the erection of towers for laying transmission lines. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that they have followed the procedure laid down under the Act for laying transmission lines and the respondent-authorities have also taken into account the representation of the petitioners and informed the petitioners that there is no possibility of changing of alignment of transmission lines and it is not technically feasible. However, they have raised height of the towers than specified. He also contends that crops can be raised since the height of the tower is high. 12. However, they have raised height of the towers than specified. He also contends that crops can be raised since the height of the tower is high. 12. He also contends that the respondent-Corporation can exercise power to lay transmission lines across the property of the petitioner, except claiming compensation petitioner cannot validly challenge the action of the Corporation on the ground that it affects his valuable rights. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and another, 2004 (4) ALD 291 (DB). 13. He would further contend that there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of such owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. He also contends that the Corporation would not be required to either initiate acquisition of land or obtain consent from the owner. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Devisetty Ramaswamy v. Chief Engineer, 400 KV Line, A.P. TRANSCO, 2013 (4) ALD 88 . 14. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the land in Sy.Nos.172 and 127 in Gopavaram Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The first respondent contended in his counter that it is a Government of India Enterprise and Central Transmission Utility under the aegis of Ministry of Power, which is incorporated as a Government Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 by Government of India with a view to develop an efficient Power Transmission System Network throughout the country. 15. Section 164 of the Act reads as follows: "164. 15. Section 164 of the Act reads as follows: "164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.––The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the 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 coordination 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 and impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possess 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." 16. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 164 of the Act has passed order dated 24.12.2003 vide Gazette of India No.1148 authorizing Power Grid Corporation to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The present lines referred to above in this writ petition which are proposed to be laid by the first respondent Corporation are a part of the approved scheme under Section 68 of the Act for common system associated with Simhapuri, Meenakshi, Krishnapatnam (Navayuga) and APDCL projects for establishment of 765/400 KV, 2 x 1500 MVA pooling station at Nellore by LILO of Simhapuri Nellore 400 KV Quad D/c Line, as per the approval given by the Government of India. It is contended by the first respondent-Corporation that crops can be raised beneath the lines or tower as the height of the tower is 68 meters and the minimum clearance from the land level for the power line is 15.5 meters. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that they cannot raise crops and if the same are raised, they will be damaged, if the towers established in the middle of their lands. Moreover, the land referred to in this writ petition in Sy.No.127 does not belong to the petitioner. 17. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that they cannot raise crops and if the same are raised, they will be damaged, if the towers established in the middle of their lands. Moreover, the land referred to in this writ petition in Sy.No.127 does not belong to the petitioner. 17. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contends that changing of alignment is not possible as foundations for towers have already been completed and they have made all the efforts to provide more clearance by increasing the height of the tower in respect of Loc.63/0 in Sy.No.172. Admittedly, by virtue of orders in WP No.4972 of 2013 the respondents-Corporation has considered the representation of the petitioners dated 11.2.2013 and informed them that the shifting of the towers is not possible. However, the first respondent-Corporation has incurred huge expenditure for laying foundation stones for the erection of towers. Therefore, it is very difficult for the Corporation to change the alignment of the towers from the land of the petitioners to any other place, as alleged by the petitioners. 18. It is true that prior to commencement of the earmarking and commencing the works of laying of the foundation pits itself, the Corporation had duly issued notices dated 11.1.2013 to the land owners/occupants under the Telegraph Act. When the land owners/occupants have declined to receive the said notices, the Tahasildar, Gopavaram had sent the said notices once again along with his letter, dated 15.7.2013 to the land owners/occupants. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not informed about the same. The respondent-Corporation has followed the procedure contemplated under the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation would further contend that the laying of the towers will not harm the men or animals as line laying rules as prescribed by the law are strictly adhered to, giving paramount importance to safety of the habitat, inhabitants and the surroundings. 19. Admittedly, the petitioners have not pointed any violations of any procedure to be followed by the first respondent-Corporation under the Act or the Telegraph Act or the rules thereunder. What all the petitioners contend is that the respondent-Corporation should have laid the lines in the adjacent land belonging to the Government. They also state that the value of the land would come down, if the lines are laid and the line was deviated in respect of some land owners. What all the petitioners contend is that the respondent-Corporation should have laid the lines in the adjacent land belonging to the Government. They also state that the value of the land would come down, if the lines are laid and the line was deviated in respect of some land owners. 20. This Court, in Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and another (supra), upheld the validity of Section 164 of the Act and held that the respondent-Corporation can exercise enough power to lay transmission lines across the property of the petitioner, except claiming compensation petitioner cannot validly challenge the action of the Board on the ground that it affects his valuable rights. 21. This Court in Devisetty Ramaswamy v. Chief Engineer, 400 KV Line, A.P. TRANSCO (supra), it is held as follows: "28. On the above analysis, this Court finds that there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of such owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. Section 17 postulates that such a right would arise only after laying of the lines or posts and upon the failure of the authority concerned to act upon a requisition to remove or relocate such lines or posts etc. 29. Insofar as Section 164 of the Act of 2003 is concerned, the judgments of this Court in G.V.S. Rama Krishna's case (supra) and K. Subba Raju's case (supra), put it beyond doubt that while exercising powers thereunder, the A.P. TRANSCO would not be required to either initiate acquisition of land or obtain consent from the owner. It was also held that in such a situation, Section 67 of the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2006 framed thereunder would have no application. This Court respectfully agrees." In view of the above decision, there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of giving any notice to the petitioners herein. However, the petitioners have given notice. However, the petitioners have given notice. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they have not been put on notice about the laying of electrical lines is not correct. 22. It is pertinent to note here that the District Collector, Y.S.R. District Kadapa, issued proceedings Ref.No.El/2520/2013, dated 28.9.2013 under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, wherein it is informed by the District Collector that the petitioners have objected for laying of transmission lines in their lands, it was ordered to place the towers of 765 KV double circuit line as reported by the Manager, Power Grid in Sy.No.172 and in Sy.No.127 of Gopavaram Village and Mandal, subject to condition the compensation should be paid to the land owners as per the provisions of the Act and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and as per the rules in force. 23. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners failed to establish any violation on the part of the first respondent-Corporation in following the due procedure as laid down under the Act. In the present case on hand, the issue of entitlement of the petitioners for compensation would arise at later date and therefore, it cannot be a ground at this stage to interfere with the completion of the project of laying transmission lines. 24. In view of the above discussion and coupled with reasons alike in the decisions of this Court referred to supra, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to claim compensation as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.