JUDGMENT Krishna Murari and Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, JJ. – Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs. (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay to the petitioner the compensation for the use of land of the petitioner installing 4 big high voltage electric towers over his land rendering the same as permanently uncultivable without any acquisition of the same and without paying any compensation to the petitioner for the same. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and consider proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of the instant petition to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims to be bhoomidhar of Gata No. 447, area 1.239 hc., situate at village and Post Gadhima, Tehsil Kiraoli, District Agra. According to the pleadings, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') has installed 4 towers of high voltage covering an area of 50x50 feet, over the land of the petitioner in June, 2011 making the entire land unfit for cultivation. It has further been submitted that when the petitioner approached the Corporation seeking payment of compensation for the loss sufferred by him, a sum of Rs.6000/- towards loss of paddy crops and an amount of Rs.13000/- for the loss of crops of Mung and Arhar etc. were paid to the petitioner. A further sum of Rs.16,000/- was also paid for the loss of wheat crop. 3. It is alleged that apart from paying meager compensation for the loss of the crops, no amount has been paid towards compensation of the loss, which has been caused by installation of the tower and also for rendering the entire area as unfit for cultivation. 4. Power Grid Corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and the shares are owned by the President of India and it is a Central Government Company. In view of the notification dated 24.12.2003 issued by the Central Government, the Corporation is entitled to exercise the same powers as a telegraph authority has, while placing lines or poles under the Telegraph Act. 5. In view of the notification dated 24.12.2003 issued by the Central Government, the Corporation is entitled to exercise the same powers as a telegraph authority has, while placing lines or poles under the Telegraph Act. 5. Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act empowers the appropriate Government to confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to 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. 6. The Central Government has issued a notification dated 24.12.2003 under Section 164 of the Act in favour of the Corporation. Thus, the Corporation has been empowered under Section 164 of the Act to exercise powers of the telegraph authorities including power under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act provides as under. “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.” 7. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to pay compensation to the petitioner for the loss sufferred by him. The petitioner alleges that some compensation for loss of the crops has been paid to him, but it is not adequate and no compensation has been paid for the loss caused by erecting tower and the area becoming uncultivable. 8. In this respect, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 16 (3) of the Act, which reads as under. “If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.” 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Act, the petitioner may approach the District judge for redressal of his grievances. 10. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Act, the petitioner may approach the District judge for redressal of his grievances. 10. This writ petition is not liable to be entertained on the ground of existence of effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, accordingly, stands dismissed.