JUDGMENT : Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Annexure-E report dated 3.6.2008 of the Manager, Nalbari Electrical Sub-Division-I addressed to the Sr. Manager, Nalbari Electrical Division in reference to the representation that was made by the petitioner making a grievance against installation of three concrete poles over his plot of land. The petitioner has also challenged the Annexure-E1 communication dated 23.6.2008 of the Sr. Manager, Nalbari Electrical Division, by which it was conveyed that the Annexure-E report dated 3.6.2008 would speak for itself. For a ready reference, both Annexure-E and E1 are quoted below: "Annexure-E O/O The Manager, Nalbari Electric Sub-Division-1 No. LAEDCL/MANAGER/NESD-1/APDRP 08....653. Dated 03.06.08 To, The Sr. Manager Nalbari Electrical Division LAEDCL, Nalbari Sub: Representation by Shri Prahlad Singania, Nalbari Ref: Your letter No. SM/NED/C-75(G)/08/55 Dated: 29.05.08 Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to inform you the following fact regarding complaint lodged by Prahlad Singania. As per APDRP proposal a VIP Feeder is under construction to cater load of existing Nalbari Town 11 kv feeder No. 1. Due to lack of sufficient space in regards of right of way in the proposed alignment, we proposed the alignment by converting the existing 11 kv Nalbari Toad Feeder No. 1 to double circuit. In doing so we have proposed to replace some of the old Sal pole to increase the strength of the feeder. Accordingly 2 Nos. of single Sal pole have been replaced by new Psc poles. Out of these two poles, structure of one has been converted to double pole structure. These poles are erected strictly in the same position as the Sal poles were keeping the alignment of the line unchanged. Single line diagram of the system is enclosed herewith which will clear the picture. Under the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the allegation as made by Shri Prahlad Singania is baseless. Further the fact as narrated to him at site when progress works were undergoing. Keeping the existing alignment intact only 3 Nos. (1 No. Single pole & 1 pair of DP structure) are erected for strengthening the line. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Enclosed: A single line diagram. Yours faithfully Manager NESD-1" "Annexure-E1 Office of the Senior Manager Nalbari Electrical Division LAEDCL, Nalbari No. SM/NED/C-75(G)/08/15/Dt. Keeping the existing alignment intact only 3 Nos. (1 No. Single pole & 1 pair of DP structure) are erected for strengthening the line. This is for favour of your information and necessary action. Enclosed: A single line diagram. Yours faithfully Manager NESD-1" "Annexure-E1 Office of the Senior Manager Nalbari Electrical Division LAEDCL, Nalbari No. SM/NED/C-75(G)/08/15/Dt. 23.06.08 To Shri Prahlad Rai Singhania S/o Late Gopiram Singhania Nalbari Ward No. 2 Nalbari, Assam. Sub: Shifting of concrete poles from your land. Ref: Your representation Dtd. 11th April/2008 Sir, Reference above, I received your representation to shift the concrete poles from the present place to the side of the municipality road at the eastern side of boundary wall. In pursuant to your letter, a report was called for from the Manager, NESD-I an accordingly he submitted his report which is self explanatory (copy enclosed) Enclo: As above. Your's faithfully Senior Manager Nalbari Electrical Division" There is no dispute that three concrete electric polesare installed over the plot of land of the petitioner measuring 1 bigha 3 kathas 10 lechas at Nalbari Town, Ward No. 2 covered by Patta No. 36/37, Dag No. 998/999 under Mouza-Khata Vill-Khatabari Khanda (Part) in the district of Nalbari. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondents had earlier installed wooden electric poles over his aforesaid land for supply of electricity. Inspite of several request being made to the respondent No. 4 for shifting of the wooden poles, nothing was down, but the petitioner was assured of doing the needful in the event of replacement of the same by concrete poles. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he had already relinquished a strip of land measuring 6 ft. width and 161 ft. length in the eastern side of the plot of land to provide alternative way to draw electric wire by installing poles. In paragraph-5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was shocked to find some labourers along with Junior Engineer of the ASEB, Nalbari engaged in installing concrete poles to the replacement of the earlier wooden poles. It was on 5th April, 2008. According to the petitioner, he raised objection to the same, but the respondents did not pay any heed. It was on 5th April, 2008. According to the petitioner, he raised objection to the same, but the respondents did not pay any heed. It was in such circumstances, he had gone to the office of the ASEB at Nalbari and requested the officials to shift the concrete poles from his patta land. 3. According to the petitioner, when the officials did not give any attention to his request, he made the Annexure-B representation dated 11.4.2008 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Nalbari Electrical Division, ASEB, Nalbari. For a ready reference, the representation is quoted below: "Sir, With due honour, I would like to state before you that 1 with my wife jointly own and possess land measuring 1 bigha 3 katha 10 lechas at Nalbari Town, Ward No. 2 and this land is covered by tow different pattas 36 and 37 under two different dag Nos. 998 and 999. Both the dags are adjacent dags. The electric poles (wooden) were installed by your department to supply electric connection in the locality inside my patta land. At that time and at several times, 1 verbally asked the authority to shift the wooden poles from my patta land. At that time I was told by the authority that the place of installment of the piles will be shifted at the time of replacing the wooden poles. But to my utter surprise on 5th April, 2008 some of the labourers along with the J.E. of ASEB Nalbari installed the concrete poles at my patta land even after I objected to them. Then on 8th April, 2008 I went to the office of the ASEB at Nalbari and requested to the SDO to shift the concrete poles from my patta land. But the authority did not pay any heed to my request. Now I fervently request you to shift the concrete poles from the present place to the side of the municipality road at the eastern side of my eastern boundary wall. Yours faithfully (Prahlad Rai Singhania)" 4. After the aforesaid representation dated 11.4.2008, the petitioner made a further representation (Annexure-C) to the Chairman, ASEB, Guwahati with the prayer for direction/order to immediately stop the aforesaid wok being carried out by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, ASEB, Nalbari. As it appears, the representation was endorsed by Chief Engineer with the note "please take necessary as discussed today". After the aforesaid representation dated 11.4.2008, the petitioner made a further representation (Annexure-C) to the Chairman, ASEB, Guwahati with the prayer for direction/order to immediately stop the aforesaid wok being carried out by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, ASEB, Nalbari. As it appears, the representation was endorsed by Chief Engineer with the note "please take necessary as discussed today". In paragraph-8 of the writ petition, referring to the impugned Annexure-E report dated 3.6.2008, the petitioner has contended that the respondents did not care to install the concrete poles on the strip of land measuring 6' X 161' on the side of the plot relinquished by the petitioner, but instead installed the concrete poles inside his land. In paragraph-11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that having regard to the location of the land in question, if the concrete poles are allowed to stay, the land would be useless and the petitioner will not be enable to construct his residential house. In Annexure-F report of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari dated 31.5.2008, the value of the land has been estimated at Rs. 38,75,000/- @ Rs. 25 lakhs per bigha. It is in the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quash the impugned report and the communication with the further prayer for a direction to the respondents to shift the electric lines to the strip of land already relinquished by the petitioner, about which mention has been made above. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 6.2.2009, it has been stated that electric line was drawn nearly 40 years back installing wooden electric poles, not over the petitioner's land, but on its eastern boundary side by the side of a village road. The respondents have denied that the petitioner has relinquished a strip of land measuring 6 feet with and 161 feet length in the eastern side of his land to provide alternative way of drawing electric wire. According to the respondents at the time of replacement of the wooden poles by concrete poles, the petitioner was present at the side and did not raise any objection. It is the stand of the respondents that since the wooden poles were in existence over the land for years together and the respondents had only replaced the same by concrete poles, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the respondents. 6. It is the stand of the respondents that since the wooden poles were in existence over the land for years together and the respondents had only replaced the same by concrete poles, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the respondents. 6. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit on 10.3.2010 reiterating their earlier stand that electric line in question was drawn about 40 years back on wooden electric poles on the eastern boundary side of the petitioner's land by the side of a village road and not over the petitioner's land. For a ready reference, the aforesaid stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit and additional affidavit are quoted below: Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit "4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, your humble deponent denies that the petitioner on several times requested the respondent No. 4 to shift the wooden poles from his land. In this regard, your humble deponent begs to state that the electric line was constructed nearly 40 years back on wooden electrical poles not over the petitioner's land, but on its eastern boundary side by the side of a village road. Neither at the time of the above construction nor on subsequent times, any request was made by the petitioner to the respondents to shift, the wooden poles of the above line and no promise as mentioned by the petitioner was given to him for shifting of the line at the time of replacement of the poles." Paragraph-2 of the additional affidavit. "2. That the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition in the matter stating inter alia that the electricity line in question was constructed about more than 40 years ago on wooden electric poles on the eastern boundary side of the petitioner's land by the side of a village road and not over the petitioner's land and neither at the time of the aforesaid construction any request was made by the petitioner to the respondents to shift the electric lines, nor any promise was made to him by the respondents for shifting of the same at the time of construction of the wooded poles or replacement of the poles by PSC poles. It was further stated in the affidavit by the respondents that the above construction was made by strictly following the norms and there was no objection by the petitioner at that time." 7. It was further stated in the affidavit by the respondents that the above construction was made by strictly following the norms and there was no objection by the petitioner at that time." 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 4.6.2015, noticing the aforesaid contradictory stand, the following order was passed: "Heard Mr. S.P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. While according to the petitioner the electric poles, in question, were replaced with PVC poles over his land because of which he is not in a position to utilize the land in a proper way by making construction etc. but according to the respondents, the poles, in question, are not over the land of the petitioner, but are on the eastern boundary of the petitioner's land by the side of a village road. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-E letter, dated 03.06.2008 and the trace map (a single line diagram) enclosing therewith. Referring to the said two documents, he submits that it is absolutely clear that the poles, in question, are on the land of the petitioner and not by the side of his land as contended by the respondents. Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL, referring to the provisions of Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, will be the appropriate authority to cause an inquiry and furnish a report as to which version of the above is correct. In view of the above, the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, is requested to cause an inquiry in respect of the claim and counter-claim of the parties referred to above. Necessary expenses shall be borne by the APDCL. The inquiry shall be conducted in association with the petitioner and/or his representative and also the representative of the APDCL. Let the report be furnished as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month. Mr. P.S. Deka, learned State counsel for the petitioner takes notice of the order, he may be furnished with a copy of this order. Another copy of the order may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. Heard in part." 8. After the aforesaid order, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev), Nalbari in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari (Land Records Branch) has submitted report. Another copy of the order may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. Heard in part." 8. After the aforesaid order, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev), Nalbari in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari (Land Records Branch) has submitted report. In the report, while not denying that the land in question belongs to the petitioner, it has been stated that upon physical verification of the entire land, it was found to be bounded by boundary walls on all four sides and well in possession of the petitioner along with his wife. The report further reveals that 3 Nos. of high voltage double lined concrete poles are in existence and were erected on the eastern side of the plot of land inside the boundary wall. The report also reveals that earlier there were wooden poles, which were replaced by 3 concrete poles. According to the report, the wooden poles were in existence since about 50 years back. 9. I have heard Mr. S.P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the entire materials on record. 10. The question for determination is as to whether in view of installation of wooden/concrete poles and drawing of electricity over the land of the petitioner making it unusable, the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and/or direction to the respondents to shift the line and for that matter electricity wires said to be high voltage double lines. When the Annexure-E impugned report dated 3.6.2008 was submitted, the same was accompanied by a single line diagram, a copy of which is available along with the Annexure-E report at Page-26. On a bare perusal of the report and the diagram with the relevant indication in writing would clearly reveal that the lines have been erected right over the plot of land of the petitioner. 11. The above quoted order of this Court dated 4.6.2015 was passed taking note of the definite stand of the respondents that the electric poles were not erected over the plot of land of the petitioner, but on its eastern boundary side by the side of a village road. Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit and paragraphs of the additional affidavit have been quoted above. Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit and paragraphs of the additional affidavit have been quoted above. It is in such circumstances, the above quoted order dated 4.6.2015 was passed to find out as to which version of the story is correct. According to the petitioner, the electric lines have been drawn over his plot of land, but according to the respondents, the same were drawn through wooden/concrete poles not over the plot of land of the petitioner, but by the side of the eastern boundary of the land of the petitioner by the side of a village road. 12. The report of the ADC (Rev), Nalbari dated 6.7.2015 has clearly reveals that the poles have been erected over the plot of land of the petitioner and not by the side of the road as was depicted in the said two affidavits filed by the respondents on 6.2.2009 and 10.3.2010 respectively. Thus there was falsification of truth. However, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents submits that irrespective of the said report and the stand of the respondents in their affidavits, the existing fact cannot be altered. According to him, the lines and for that matter, the poles in question being in existence over the plot of land in question since long back, the said position cannot be altered at the instance of the petitioner. 13. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submits that when the concrete poles were erected in April, 2008, the petitioner duly raised objection, but the respondents did not pay any heed and thus everything was done forcibly and in the process the land belonging to the petitioner has been rendered useless. He submits that if the respondents confine with the electric poles with high voltage electric wire over the plot of land of the petitioner, in that case, the petitioner would have to be adequately compensated. Alternatively they will have to shift the electric poles from the land of the petitioner. 14. As noted above, even in the impugned report dated 3.6.2008, which was submitted along with a single line diagram, there was clear indication that the electric wires were drawn through the wooden/concrete poles over the plot of land of the petitioner. Alternatively they will have to shift the electric poles from the land of the petitioner. 14. As noted above, even in the impugned report dated 3.6.2008, which was submitted along with a single line diagram, there was clear indication that the electric wires were drawn through the wooden/concrete poles over the plot of land of the petitioner. However, the above quoted order was passed on 4.6.2015 in view of a contradictory stand taken by the respondents in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit and paragraph-2 of the additional affidavit, quoted above. 15. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondents referring to the report referred to above submits that since the lines were in existence over the land even before the same was purchased by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot make a grievance towards installation of electric poles over the said land. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does not admit the said position and submits that the land was purchased by the petitioner way back in 1969 and that the petitioner was assured of shifting of the electric lines at the time of installing concrete poles. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner stared with the installation of concrete poles in April, 2008 and when his representation failed to evoke any response from the respondents. It was in such circumstance, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 16. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 2458 (Indore Vikash Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.). In the said case, when it was found that the petitioner was deprived of his property by the State authority direction was issued either to restore the possession of the land or to pay compensation. Following the said decision, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents either to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner in respect of entire land for making it unusable or to shift the electric poles/lines from the land of the petitioner to some other area. In the process, the ASEB may also utilize the aforesaid land which the petitioner has already relinquished. 17. Let the entire exercise be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. In the process, the ASEB may also utilize the aforesaid land which the petitioner has already relinquished. 17. Let the entire exercise be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.