The questions whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation against drawing of high tension over head lines over their patta land and if so what would be the quantum are to be answered in the present writ petition. 2. Three writ petitioners who are residents of various places including Geetanagar, Guwahati, Patacharkuchi in the district of Barpeta and Rangla in the district of Kamrup District are sons of Late Krishna Kanta Sarma having permanent residence at village Patasarkuchi in the district of Barpeta. They have jointly filed this writ petition stating that they have joint family property over various Dags including Dag No, 510 of Khiraj Myadi Patta No. 110 situated Village Patacharkuchi under Pub-Bajall Mouza in the district of Barpeta just adjacent to the national highway and they had an intention of making residential construction over the said plot of land. According to the petitioners they do not have any other suitable land to construct their houses. They further stated that without any information and/or prior consent from them, the authorities of the APDCL drew 11KV electric line over the aforesaid plot of land along its mid point. Having found the line drawn over their land, the petitioner No.2 immediately contacted the local authorities of the respondents and registered protest, Thereupon the Assistant Executive Engineer, Patsala asked the concerned contractor to shift the line from the petitioners'land but the same fell on deaf ears. According to the writ petitioner they ran from pillar to post to get the electric line shifted from over their land. The writ petitioners allege that there is ah alternative route along the Government land for drawing of the oyer head lines, yet the authorities of the APDCL chose to draw the line along the middle of the petitioners' land and thereby the user value of the land has been totally destroyed. Under such circumstances the petitioner have approached this court praying for necessary direction to the respondent authorities to shift and remove the electric lines drawn over their patta land referred to above and also to pay adequate compensation to them. 3. As against above averments made in the writ petition, the respondent authorities more particularly, respondent Nos. 1 to 6, have filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 28.2.2003. According to the respondents the line was drawn with due knowledge and consent of the villagers. 3. As against above averments made in the writ petition, the respondent authorities more particularly, respondent Nos. 1 to 6, have filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 28.2.2003. According to the respondents the line was drawn with due knowledge and consent of the villagers. It is stated in the affidavit that under Barpeta there are altogether 25 villages to be electrified and the construction work was started as per the scheme of Rajib Gandhi Gramin Vidyotikaran Yojna launched by the Central Government. The work for construction of the line in question was awarded to the respondent No.9, contractor and during the construction of the said line in the year 2009 no one, including the present petitioners had raised any complaint or obstruction and/or resistance. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit it is claimed as follows : "Rather the villagers were very enthusiastic and they co-operated fully for completion of the work and the right of way for construction of the said 11KV line was ascertained by the villagers, GP President and the local MLA. The deponent respectfully states that the construction of the electricity line in question had been completed in the last part of the year 2010 and subsequently other works like installation of 16 KV Transformer. iT line, service connection to the BPL consumers have also been completed in all respect and presently more than 25 house holders have been enjoying electricity through the aforesaid line. It is also respectfully stated that the petitioners lodged the complain (sic) much after the completion of the construction of the line in question as stated above and shifting/changing the alignment of the line is not feasible as there is no suitable alternative right of way. The deponent further states that under the scheme in reference, there is no provision for payment of compensation to any land owner for carrying the line over their land or for installation of post/transformer, etc. As the electricity is provided to the remote villagers, the villagers willingly allow carrying such line or installation of post, etc., in the present case also the petitioner did not object at the time of putting post over their land, thereby consenting for the same, at this stage, if petitioners' prayer is allowed, it is not possible to shift the line, and as there is no money under the scheme to pay any compensation, entire village will suffer." 4. From the affidavit submitted by the contesting respondents it emerges that the scheme has been launched by the Central Government for electrifying all the villages of the country and beneficiaries being the rural people living under the poverty line the said scheme is important for public interest. It also emerges from the affidavit that the scheme has already been implemented and large number of villages have been connected to electricity supply. The scheme has already come to an end and there is no scope for any compensation under the scheme which is beneficiary in nature. Above all there is no alternative way for shifting the line. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would strenuously argue that for the drawing of over head lines, the value of his land has been totally destroyed and it has become dangerous to live on the land unless the line is shifted. By Wing an additional affidavit on 25.11.2013, which is in addition to the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has brought on record a declaration by the Ex-President of Patacharkuchi Gaon Panchayat and a certificate by Gaon Burah of the said village. In that declaration by the Ex- President it is stated that he had recommended for drawing the line over the agricultural land but the Electricity authority did not accept the same and in the process the petitioner. Dimbeswar Sarma has sustained severe damage. The certificate annexed as Annexure P/2 to the additional affidavit shows that the petitioner, Dimbeswar Sarma is a permanent resident of Patacharkuchi village and that the Gaon Burah did not give any consent for drawing of high tension line along the land of the writ petitioner. Relying on a reported order in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, (2009) 16 SCC 742 . It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the APDCL is a commercial establishment and it is necessary to manage its activity for the protection of environment and pollution control. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel, APDCL Mr. B.D. Das assisted by Mr. D. Nath submits that the APDCL is not a commercial enterprise. It is really discharging the essential need of the society by distributing electricity. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel, APDCL Mr. B.D. Das assisted by Mr. D. Nath submits that the APDCL is not a commercial enterprise. It is really discharging the essential need of the society by distributing electricity. He further argued that being an instrumentality of state it has been discharging the welfare function for the people by way of making electricity available at affordable rate. The learned counsel relied on a case of Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Others v. Asian School of Business Management Trust and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 738 . The learned counsel submits that High Court cannot ascertain the availability of alternative route through which the transmission line could be drawn. The learned senior counsel specifically referred to observation made by the hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 of the said judgment. The learned senior counsel further argued that in the aforesaid reported case the management of Asian School of Business Management Trust challenged drawing of transmission line and indicated cost impediment in the implementation of the scheme of Rajib Gandhi Gramin Vidyotikaran Yojna for which the hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to impose a cost of Rs. 10,00,000. According to the learned senior counsel, the scheme itself is a beneficial one for the rural population living below the poverty line. The respondent authority has not been doing any business inasmuch as electricity is supplied to the rural folk at partly subsidized rate and partly at free. In the case in hand, while objection has come from three persons only, the rest of the villagers are happy with the transmission line. Moreover, the learned standing counsel representing the respondents, submits that the user value of land has not been diminished in any way and the petitioners are at liberty to make use of their land in any way they chose to do. The question of compensation would have arisen only if some injury is caused to the petitioner. According to the respondents they have not taken away the property of the petitioner nor have they damaged the same and as such there is no question of compensation. The learned standing counsel further argues that the transmission line was drawn under a particular scheme and the scheme has already come to an end. According to the respondents they have not taken away the property of the petitioner nor have they damaged the same and as such there is no question of compensation. The learned standing counsel further argues that the transmission line was drawn under a particular scheme and the scheme has already come to an end. Neither anything is left under this scheme nor is there any provision for compensation under the said scheme apart from the fact there is no reason for making compensation. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he could have made out a case for damage and compensation in a competent civil court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that neither under the Electricity Act 2003 nor under the scheme in question there is any provision for granting compensation against drawing of transmission line over any land of private individual. For making out case to get damage and compensation, the petitioners have to make out a case of damage first it has to be established that some loss has been caused to the claimants and then it has to be established as to what would be the quantum of such loss. Then and then only the question of granting compensation may arise. Even thereafter the question may arise as to the mechanism for determining the extent of damage. All these questions are matters of fact and in the present case matter of disputed questions of facts. Exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court cannot determine as to whether there is any loss of user value of land and if so, to what extent. This can be done only by a court of competent civil jurisdiction. 8. In this case, the first prayer in the writ petition is for shifting of the line along any other right of way. The line has been drawn in the year 2009 and for all these years the villagers have been getting benefit of it. Under such circumstances, it would be against public interest to issue an order for withdrawal of the line and for shifting of the same elsewhere. The line has been drawn in the year 2009 and for all these years the villagers have been getting benefit of it. Under such circumstances, it would be against public interest to issue an order for withdrawal of the line and for shifting of the same elsewhere. Perhaps the beneficiaries of the transmission line who would be deprived of electrical connection by such shifting may also be necessary party being real stake holders in regard to a decision for such change of the transmission route. Besides, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents it is asserted per contra that there is no other right of way. The APDCL has got its team of experts to decide as to what should be the appropriate alignment for a transmission line and when an affidavit has been filed on the basis of such expert opinion, High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal over such opinion of experts. 9. On totality of all these circumstances, it appears that no relief can be given to the writ petitioner under present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. However, no order as to cost.