JUDGMENT 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard Mr.S.Meenakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent and Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 3. This Writ Petition is filed praying to forbear the respondents from erecting high power grid line Tower in the land of the petitioner measuring an extent of one acre and 70 cents, comprising at Survey No.216/6A situated at Tiruvalangadu Village, Tirutani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, inclusive of further construction and completion of Grid. 4. According to the petitioner, he purchased the land bearing Survey No.216/2A measuring an extent of 1 acre and 70 cents situated at Tiruvalangadu Village, Tirutani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, from the legal heirs of one Mr.Balaraman (Late) through the Sale Deed dated 12.05.2008, which was registered at the Thiruvalangadu Sub-Registrar Office. Patta bearing No.1490 was issued in the petitioner's name by the Revenue Department of Thiruvallur District on 04.08.2009 to the said property. Thereafter, the land was in his continuous possession and he intended to promote the aforesaid land for the purpose of residential plots. 4a. The petitioner was shocked to hear when a few persons were digging the aforesaid land at some marked places and on 04.01.2013, he went there and enquired the persons, who were working on his land. He was told that they are doing digging work in order to erect Electrical Towers in his land as per the instructions of the 2nd respondent. Immediately, he asked them to stop the work by approaching the Police Station. However, the work proceeded. On 04.01.2013, the petitioner sent representations to the respondents and sought their intervention in the matter and to take action to stop the unauthorized work being carried out in his private patta land, without giving any notice to him. 4b. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents did not give him any notice or provide him with compensation. The petitioner has kept that land for residential plots and has prepared layout sketch for dividing residential plots in that land. Further, the erection of such transmission tower will pose danger to his land and it will affect the purpose for which it has been kept. 5. The petitioner has kept that land for residential plots and has prepared layout sketch for dividing residential plots in that land. Further, the erection of such transmission tower will pose danger to his land and it will affect the purpose for which it has been kept. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent is making an attempt to erect the tower without hearing the petitioner's objections. He would contend that when the authorities are bound to consider the objection statutorily, the action of the authorities in not even hearing the objections of the petitioner is unsustainable in law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/Power Grid Corporation would contend that 90% of the construction work of the tower is completed and therefore, there cannot be any interim injunction to restrain the respondents from proceeding further, as the Power Grid line is on national interest and it has to be erected without any delay. 7. After elaborate arguments and discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner at the end of his arguments made a plea that as per the provisions under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is the obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent to refer the objections to the District Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner's objections shall be considered by the District Magistrate concerned and the District Magistrate will decide the same in accordance with the provisions. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. 9. When a similar issue was raised before this Court in W.P.No.25793 of 2011 (Les Ateliers De Pondicherry Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pondicherry Electricity Department ( 2011 (6) CTC 465 ), this Court, by an order dated 10.11.2011, held as follows: "14. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act deals with the exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation in case of property other than that of a local authority. Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act provides that 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. Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act provides that 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. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act deals with the power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts, and it contemplates that 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 immovable 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. 15. 15. A comprehensive reading of the above provisions makes it crystal clear that while exercising the power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the competent authority should exercise the powers mentioned in Section 10 of the said Act in respect of the property referred to in clause (d) of that section and if it is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them, and therefore, the authority competent to look into the resistance or any obstruction by the land owners, is the District Magistrate concerned, for which, this Court time and again has taken a categorical view that unless the District Magistrate decides about the resistance or obstruction by the land owners, no proceedings shall be initiated by the concerned authority dealing with the erection of towers. 16. In the instant case, though the general provisions are invoked under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, when certain procedures are specifically contemplated under that Act which are to be followed for considering the resistance or obstruction or any valid objections of the land owners, the same have to be adhered to, in the manner as provided therein, which are also conspicuously not followed. 17. In the given situation and looking into the manner in which the impugned notice is issued contrary to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notice cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. However, as the erection of transmission lines is for a public purpose and that purpose is to be exercised in the manner known to law, the authority competent is duty bound to refer the matter to the District Magistrate concerned, for consideration. Accordingly, the notice impugned is set aside. However, as the erection of transmission lines is for a public purpose and that purpose is to be exercised in the manner known to law, the authority competent is duty bound to refer the matter to the District Magistrate concerned, for consideration. Accordingly, the notice impugned is set aside. The petitioner is directed to file his objections to the first respondent afresh within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, if such objections are received by the first respondent, the same shall be referred to the District Magistrate concerned within a period of two weeks thereafter, who, in turn, shall cause notice to the parties concerned, hear them, conduct an appropriate enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, particularly considering Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, the parties to the present Writ Petition are directed to maintain status quo as on today, in respect of the subject lands alone." 10. The above said decision of this Court has also been followed by this Court in W.P.No.22820 of 2012, by an order dated 14.09.2012. 11. In the light of the above said decision of this Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the 5th respondent to refer the petitioner's objection to the 4th respondent within a period of two (2) weeks and in turn, the 4th respondent is directed to issue notice to the parties concerned, hear their objections, hold an enquiry and also on verification of the photograph produced by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law taking note of the provision contemplated under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. Till such time, the parties to the Writ Petition are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the petitioner's land alone. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.