JUDGMENT The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The writ petitioner is the absolute owner of an agricultural land, situated at Chinnavarikkam Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, comprised in Survey No.172/1B, measuring extent of 0.45.0 hectares (1.11 acres) and in Survey No.186/2A, measuring extent of 0.69.5 hectares (1.72 acres), totally measuring extent of 2.83 acres. She is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and she is also cultivating her land with pleasure till date. The petitioner further submits that she is an agriculturist and that is the only avocation known to her to lead her life. Moreover, agriculture is the only source of income to her and her family. She further submits that there are well grown mangroves in part of the lands and the remaining lands are being used for cultivation of groundnut, which are yielding now. Except the said land, she does not have any other land. While so, to her shock and surprise, during third week of March 2014 some persons, who are representing themselves as contract employees of the respondents Department have attempted to erect a High Tension Electricity Tower in her lands and they further informed her that they will draw the line across / above her lands, thereby cutting all the well grown mango trees under the lines. She was really astonished as to how the respondents are entering into her lands and erecting tower without notice to her. 2. The petitioner further submits that immediately after she objected for erection of High Tension Electricity Tower in her lands without any notice to her, the aforesaid employees informed her that they are carrying out the work at the instructions and instance of their higher ups, viz., the respondents herein and she was advised to approach the respondents and to get necessary relief from her plot being subjected for erecting High Tension Electricity tower and also from drawing High Tension Electricity Lines. Immediately, she went to the office of the respondents 3 and 4 to explain and ventilate grievances and also about her poor economic status, that apart to request them to erect and draw lines in the Government lands, which are suitable just adjacent to her lands, in that event, it would not cause any loss or damage to any public. Immediately, she went to the office of the respondents 3 and 4 to explain and ventilate grievances and also about her poor economic status, that apart to request them to erect and draw lines in the Government lands, which are suitable just adjacent to her lands, in that event, it would not cause any loss or damage to any public. Unfortunately, the respondents had failed to give her an opportunity to meet them in person and she returned with great disappointment. 3. The petitioner further submits that since the respondents refused to meet her in person, she sent a detailed representation, dated 15.04.2014, to the respondents putting forth her grievances and also requesting them to drop the erection and drawing of the tower line in her lands and also requested them to do the same in the adjacent Government land. She further submits that she categorically informed the respondents that they have not issued any notice to her before commencing the erection of High Tension Electricity Tower and Line through her lands, as the drawing of line causes permanent damage to her cultivation. Having received the notice, the respondents have not considered her representation till date for the reasons best known to them. Further there are sufficient Government lands available just adjacent to her lands and the respondents can very well erect the Electricity Tower and draw the High Tension Lines in the Government lands without causing any trouble or damage to her and others from cultivating the lands. She further submits that once the respondents had erected the tower and drawn the line then, she cannot use the land under the tower and line for cultivation or any other purpose and it will cause permanent loss to her. That apart, the drawing of line across land will reduce or diminish the utility and value of the land. Though there is an alternative lands available for the respondents to draw the line just adjacent to her lands, but without even considering the above aspect and without taking into consideration or account the loss caused to her, the respondents have unilaterally decided to erect the Electricity Tower and High Tension Line across her lands without any notice to her, in order to defeat her right and interest over the said lands. The respondents ought to have issued notice to her before commencing their erection work in her lands, as they are causing permanent damage to her lands and also to her income by demolishing her well grown mangrove, Teak and tamarind trees, which are more valuable and they are the only income to enable her to lead her day to day life. Unfortunately, the respondents by their high handedness refused to hear her and also threatening her to take criminal action, if she prevents them from carrying on their work in her lands, which is highly unjustifiable and untenable. Even though the work or project of the respondents is for public purpose, the respondents cannot take the laws into their hands under that guise, so as to trespass into private properties like hers, and thereby trying to cause huge loss. 4. The petitioner further submits that since the respondents have refused to receive her objections, she immediately sent a representation to them requesting them to stop the proposed work and also requested them to consider her objection before proceeding with the same. Having received her representation cum objections, the respondents miserably failed and neglected to consider the same. The respondents are bound to consider her objections and take necessary action on it. In spite of her aforesaid valid and reasonable objections, the respondents are still trying to proceed according to their plan, which is totally against her interest and the principles of natural justice. The respondents cannot even claim that the project is for the benefit of the public at large. Moreover, if there is no alternative safe passage or place for erection of Electricity High Tension Tower for drawing High Tension Lines available, only then the respondents can justify their action. On the contrary, there is a convenient space and Government lands are available just adjacent to her lands and that will not cause any hindrance to any one including the public in general. But the respondents wanted to do the same across her lands, which will cause irretrievable loss and damage and prejudice to her basic and fundamental right to have a property and also violation of principles of natural justice. 5. But the respondents wanted to do the same across her lands, which will cause irretrievable loss and damage and prejudice to her basic and fundamental right to have a property and also violation of principles of natural justice. 5. 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. 6. 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). 7. 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). 7. 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. 8. 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. 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. He further submits that if the line is delayed the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) will be put into irreparable loss and will cause much hardships to general public and TANTRANSCO (TNEB). 9. The highly competent counsel, Mr.R.Munusamy appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having an extent of 2.83 acres of lands and she is doing cultivation over the said lands. She depends upon her income derived from the lands for her livelihood. She is a small agricultural land owner and as the respondents have erected High Tension Tower Line over her land, she is unable to do cultivation of her land in a proper manner. Further, the activities of the respondents in erecting High Tension Tower and Line 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. 10. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that without prior notice to the land owner and without conducting an enquiry, the respondents have forcibly acquired the petitioner's property for erecting High Tension Tower and Line over the said property and this act of theirs are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The respondents herein are State Government concerns and they are operating their big machinery against the poor agriculturist for acquiring her land unlawfully. Further, the petitioner has raised a number of mango trees, teak and tamarind trees. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to direct the respondents to remove the High Tension Tower Lines from her lands and prevent them from doing any other activities. 11. The very competent Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, submits that the respondents had erected a High Tension Electricity Tower Line on the petitioner's land, for the welfare of the general public in large. 11. The very competent Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, submits that the respondents had erected a High Tension Electricity Tower Line 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 High Tension Tower Line, for which, prior notice is absolutely not necessary. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, she 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 Tower which is being erected is to serve the public. 12. 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 tower is being erected belongs to the petitioner. Further, the respondents have been erecting the High Tension Tower to and 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 tower. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in completion of their project over the said land. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.