ORDER : Ravi Shankar Jha, J. Heard Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel with Shri Ashok Sinha and Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocates for the respondents on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the act of the respondents in installing a high-tension electricity power supply transmission tower on the land bearing khasra no. 297/2 of village Katthonda, Tehsil Panagar, District Jabalpur. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 67 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003. and Rule 3 of the Work of Licensee Rules 2006, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2006") the respondents/authorities are required to obtain prior consent of the petitioner who is the owner of the land of khasra no. 279/2, while proposing to install such a high tension electricity supply transmission tower on his land. It is submitted that in the absence of such a prior consent, the act of the respondents/authorities in continuing with the work of installing of the high-tension transmission tower on the petitioner's land is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. 4. It is further submitted that the action has been taken by the authorities without giving any notice to the petitioner and therefore, in view of the provisions of law as stated above, the act of the respondents/authorities is contrary to the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the respondents/authorities be directed not to use the petitioner's land for installation of a higher tension transmission tower. Elaborating upon the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, on coming to know of the fact that the respondents/authorities were digging a trench for the purposes of installing the transmission tower, issued another notice and submit an objection before the authorities on 7.8.2015 which was received by them on 10.8.2015 and on receiving no response, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents/authorities on 19.8.2015 which was received by the authorities but without looking to the objection of the petitioner, the respondents/ authorities are continuing with the work of installing the high-tension transmission tower on the petitioner's land without his consent and without notice to him. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate prohibitory direction to the respondents/ authorities. 6. The learned senior appearing for the respondents per contra submits that a 132 KV transmission line has to be installed between the Madotal sub station to the processing plant of M/s Essel Jabalpur MSW Pvt. Ltd at Kathonda and for this purpose a notification dated 18.4. 2015 was published in the gazette on 24.4.2015 and the survey was conducted for the purposes of determining the route of the transmission line as the same has to be installed in a urban and semi urban area. It is submitted that two proposals were submitted before the higher authorities and the Chief Engineer has approved the second proposal, according to which one of the transmission tower was to be constructed on khasra no. 279/2 of village Kathonda i.e. petitioner's land. 7. It is submitted that while conducting the survey, in view of the oral objections received by them, the respondents /authorities approached the District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act and rule 3 of Rules 2006 and obtained an order for the purposes of installing transmission line on 4.6.2015, a copy of which has been filed along with the return as Annexure R1/2. 8. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the respondents/authorities have already obtained an order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 as well as provisions of Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act 1948. The learned senior counsel by relying on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Vijay Ramchandra Agarwal v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. submits that the petitioner has no right to object to installation of high tension transmission line and at best he is entitled only to compensation which the respondents/authorities are ready to pay provided the same is determined in accordance with law by the District Magistrate. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to examine the provisions of law relied upon by them. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to examine the provisions of law relied upon by them. A perusal of Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003 makes it clear that for the purposes of placing electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity, the appropriate Government may confer upon any public officer/licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act any of the power which the telegraph authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act gives power to the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across and posts in or upon, any immoveable property and the only condition imposed upon the authority under section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act is that the authority while exercising such powers shall do as little damage as possible while doing so on private property and shall pay full compensation for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. The provision of Rule 3 of Rules 2006 upon which heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner excludes the applicability of the rule as far as exercise of powers under section 164 of the Electricity Act are concerned in specific words contained in Rule 3 (4) which reads as under :- "Rule 3(4) Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under section 164 of the Act." When the aforesaid provisions of law are read conjointly, it is immediately apparent and clear that there are no restrictions upon the authority concerned to enter upon any person's land for placing or constructing a high tension electricity supply line and at best the petitioner may claim compensation in case he is able to establish that some loss or damage has been caused to him. 10. 10. At this stage, it may be clarified that in view of the provisions of Section 10 (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act as the concerned authority does not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the authority places any telegraph line or post and therefore, the petitioner or any other person concerned is not entitled to compensation for land but is entitled to compensation for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of powers. 11. The decision of this Court rendered in Vijay Ramchandra Agawral (supra) which decision has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 299/2010 decided on 19.9.2011 is also in similar terms and this Court in the aforesaid decision, in similar circumstances, has also held that the in view of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act as well as the provisions of the Electricity Act, the authorities concerned have the right to utilise the land for installing the electricity supply line or high transmission tower and that the owner of the land if so required, is entitled to be compensated in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench of this court in the aforesaid decision has categorically held that in view of the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006, which clarifies that the provisions of Rule 3 shall not affect the powers conferred upon the licensee under section 164 of the Act, the contention that prior permission was necessary under Rule 3(1) is devoid of merit and has therefore, rejected such a contention while dismissing the LPA. 12. Another Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.P. No. 8499/2014 (Lalchand Agarwal and another v. Union of India) decided on 23.3.2015 (AIR 2015 NOC 962 MP) has also taken a similar view and after considering the law laid down, has taken a view that neither the acquisition of the land is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the land holders and that the petitioners at best are entitled only to compensation. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of law and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 299/2010 decided on 19.9.2011, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities were required to obtain prior permission of the petitioner before constructing the high tension transmission tower or that the respondents/authorities had no right to enter upon petitioner's land to construct a high tension transmission tower. On the contrary, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of law and the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid matter, the respondents/authorities have the power to enter upon any person's land to install high tension transmission power and the petitioner is at best entitled only to compensation to the extent of damages which he has suffered on approaching the authorities. 14. In the instant case, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the respondents/authorities have already installed transmission tower and only transmission line remains to be installed. This is an additional ground on which the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is however, made clear that in case the petitioner approaches the respondents/authorities claiming compensation for the actual damage if any caused to him on account of installation of the transmission tower, the petitioner's claim shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of law and the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid case, I do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.