Judgment : The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The petitioner is the owner of the land in S.No.909/3A-24.5 acres and S.No.925-1-43.5 hectares at Pasumathur Revenue Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. These properties hereditarily belong to the petitioner and presently under the enjoyment of the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the first respondent herein served a notice dated 05.01.2014 through the second respondent to him without particulars. It was also assured that they would conduct a meeting along with him and other farmers regarding this issue. Bus evasively, the second and third respondents had attempted to erect transmission pole in his land. The petitioner further submits that he objected for erection of transmission pole without acquiring the land or obtaining permission from him. But still the respondents are taking efforts to install transmission pole in his land and hence, the above writ petition has been filed. 2. The fourth respondent has filed a counter statement stating that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 164 and Section 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003, the Board shall have the powers of the Telegraphic Authority under the Telegraphic Act, 1885 (Central Act XIII of 1885) with regard to laying of the telegraphic lines and erecting poles. As such the Board, the transmission licensee, is not bound to give prior notices to the land owners before drawing overhead lines or erecting towers for transmission of electricity. He further submits that the Scheme was approved vide B.P.No.8, dated 04.02.2013 and published in both Tamil and English in Indian Express and Dinamani dated 27.03.2013 for wide publicity. He further submits that before the scheme is sanctioned by the Full Board, TANTRANSCO (TNEB) have scrutinized the data collected during the survey regarding environmental considerations, road crossing and river crossing and the inhabitants. Further, while conducting the surveys mentioned above, special cares were taken to avoid routing the transmission lines through reserve or protected forests, villages, bulk storage oil tank, oil pipeline, airports, cluster of hamlets to avoid or to minimize the damages. 3. The fourth respondent further submits that any notice need not be given to land owner before laying extra high tension (EHT) line on their land. The line could not be deviated due to technical feasibility, the work is carried out as per the approved route, and as per the Rules. 3. The fourth respondent further submits that any notice need not be given to land owner before laying extra high tension (EHT) line on their land. The line could not be deviated due to technical feasibility, the work is carried out as per the approved route, and as per the Rules. He further submits that the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) is now facing much more problems to provide the electricity power supply to the public due to the scarcity of electric power and the demand raising day to day development activities. Considering the present scarcity of Electric Power Supply and future development activities, the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) has planned to establish the new 400 KV sub stations along with the associated lines. Out of which, one of the 400 KV EHT line of Dharmapuri 400 KV sub station to Thiruvalam 400 KV sub station is being erected by the TANTRANSCO (TNEB). 4. The fourth respondent further submits that the new 400 KV line of Dharmapuri to Thiruvalam 400 KV sub station is very much essential to transmit the electric power from Northern states of India to Tamilnadu and also wind power from Southern region of Tamilnadu. So, this line is very much essentially required to facilitate the uninterrupted electric power supply to the public. He further submits that the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) has proposed to erect the EHT lines most probable in agricultural lands because the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) is not acquiring any lands but for making only use of it for laying tower foundation and drawing the line over the lands as per Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act 2003, the exercise of power of Telegraph authority in certain cases. He further submits that the compensation will be paid for actual damages caused during the execution of work according to the provision of Act for crops and trees whenever trees are required to be cut and removed from the line to have the adequate vertical and horizontal clearance for having safety of livelihood. No compensation for the land is offered by the TANTRANSCO. 5. The fourth respondent further submits that the agriculturists can cultivate any crops like paddy, sugarcane, turmeric, banana, high breed variety of mango trees etc., so there is no restriction for cultivation of crops and also the compensation will be paid when the live trees are removed at the time of execution. 5. The fourth respondent further submits that the agriculturists can cultivate any crops like paddy, sugarcane, turmeric, banana, high breed variety of mango trees etc., so there is no restriction for cultivation of crops and also the compensation will be paid when the live trees are removed at the time of execution. He further submits that recently there is a judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.No.18367 of 2009, dated 29.10.2009, wherein, it is clearly ordered vide para 13 as follows:- "a. No notice is necessary to the land owner before laying High Tension Line in their land. b. The permission of the land owner for laying High Tension wire over the above land of the petitioner is not necessary under Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. c. Such permission is required only in the case of the land owned by the local authority." The fourth respondent further submits that the above work was commenced on 20.11.2013 and the same is under progress. As on date about 70% works have been completed and the TANTRANSCO has invested Crores of rupees 450 crores out of 700 crores in this project. 6. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.Margabandhu appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having an extent of land in S.No.909/3A-24.5 acres and S.No.925-1-43.5 hectares at Pasumathur Village and he is doing cultivation over the said lands. He depends upon his income derived from the lands for his livelihood. He is a small agricultural land owner and as the respondents have erected transmission pole over his land, he is unable to do cultivation of his land in a proper manner. Further, the activities of the respondents in erecting transmission pole on the land amounts to trespass and is an illegal act and their occupation is an unlawful one even though it is for public purpose. 7. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has served a notice to the petitioner on 05.01.2014. The respondents herein are State Government concerns and they are operating their big machinery against the poor agriculturist for acquiring his land unlawfully, without considering the damage and permanent deprivation of use of property and adequate compensation for the said property. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 05.01.2014. 8. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 05.01.2014. 8. The very competent Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, submits that the respondents had erected transmission pole on the petitioner's land, for the welfare of the general public in large. As per the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 under Section 10, the respondents have ample power to enter into the immovable property for erecting transmission pole. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he is entitled to receive an adequate compensation from the respondents after making proper representations. Further, the erection work being undertaken in the petitioner's lands is at an incomplete stage and therefore, the respondents shall be permitted to carry out the unfinished work for the welfare of the general public, which is absolutely necessary. Hence, the highly Competent Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition as the petitioner's fundamental and personal rights had not been affected. Further, the question of trespass or illegal occupation does not arise in the instant case, since the transmission pole which is being erected is to serve the public. 9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the affidavit of the petitioner and on scrutiny of typed-set of papers, this Court is of the view that the property on which the transmission pole is being erected belongs to the petitioner. Further, the respondents have been erecting the transmission pole to and in the interest of the general public. However, the aggrieved petitioner is entitled to receive adequate compensation from the respondents after making necessary application. Hence, this Court directs the petitioner to file an application before the respondents for compensation and after receipt of the said application for compensation, the respondents shall assess the compensation after taking into consideration the damage caused to the crops and the extent of loss caused due to use of land for erection of the said transmission pole. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in completion of their project over the said land. 10. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.