JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appeal is filed by the writ petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petitioners are owners of various bits of land. They approached this Court seeking the following two reliefs: “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no. 1 from illegally and forcibly erecting towers for laying transmission line on petitioners land. (ii) in alternative a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to proceed with erecting of towers only after acquisition of land, which is being effected by erecting of towers and after payment of compensation of their loss and after payment of further compensation for the land which will be effected by the restrictions which will come along with aligning transmission line.” 2. According to them, they had resisted the drawing of the line across their property; but, it is their complaint that respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation, is going on to forcefully draw the line. As far as the second prayer is concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Electricity Act, 2003 does not contemplate grant of compensation, as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. As far as the resort to power under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is concerned, at one place in the judgment, the learned Single Judge finds that there is no resistance; but, at the same time, the learned Single Judge has left it open to the parties to work out their remedies under the Act. It is feeling aggrieved by the same that the writ petitioners are before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners and Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1, Power Grid Corporation. 4. During the course of the appeal, certain documents have been produced. From the documents produced by the Power Grid Corporation, it would appear that the appellants / writ petitioners had resisted at the time of drawing. This led to the Power Grid Corporation moving the Magistrate for permission under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 4. During the course of the appeal, certain documents have been produced. From the documents produced by the Power Grid Corporation, it would appear that the appellants / writ petitioners had resisted at the time of drawing. This led to the Power Grid Corporation moving the Magistrate for permission under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. According to them, a notice was issued calling upon the appellants to appear before the Magistrate on 16.08.2014 and there was no response on the part of the appellants. The Magistrate was persuaded to grant security and they proceeded to put up the towers. It is the further case of the respondents that this is a case, where survey was done and the line is being drawn from Bareilly to Kashipur. It is submitted that ‘ 450 crores have been invested in the project and towers have already been put up on the property of the appellants / writ petitioners and, having regard to the fact that, at the time of the survey, there was no resistance, this Court may not interfere in the matter. It is also suggested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation that the appellants/ writ petitioners were offered compensation, which they have accepted. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, would point out that they had, indeed, resisted the drawing of the line, which necessitated proceedings being taken under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 culminating in permission and there was no such order granting permission within the meaning of Section 16. It is also pointed out that, with reference to the communication, whereby the appellants/writ petitioners were asked to appear on 16.08.2014, the parties went to the office of the Officer and the Officer was not there and no order granting permission was anyway granted. As far as the survey is concerned, it is pointed out that the survey was not done with any notice to the parties as such. 6. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation, would submit that the Power Grid Corporation is empowered under law to use the property for constructing towers and no consent of the owners is required. 7. 6. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation, would submit that the Power Grid Corporation is empowered under law to use the property for constructing towers and no consent of the owners is required. 7. It is true that no consent, as such, of the owners is required; but, under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 16 thereof, if the drawing of the line or doing the acts by the agency, like the Power Grid Corporation in this case, is resisted; they cannot, unilaterally and overruling the resistance, draw the line or put up the towers on the property of a person. The lawful resolution of this dispute is to be done through the mechanism of the District Magistrate being approached, the District Magistrate hearing the parties and taking a decision as per law as to whether permission is to be granted or not. It is only after the District Magistrate decides to grant permission, the authority concerned, which in this case is Power Grid Corporation, could lawfully carry out the acts, which it may, otherwise, be empowered to do. The District Magistrate is expected to apply its mind to the proposal, which is put before it, and the objections to the proposal and to consider the same, as it involves incursion into the property rights of the parties. It is, undoubtedly, true that, for carrying out the acts, compensation, as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, need not be paid; but, that is not to say that the property owner does not suffer an injury. By the acts of the Power Grid Corporation, it may be that a valuable property may be divided into valueless pieces. It is possible that, on hearing the parties, the parties may be in a position to point out that there is a better, viable, cost effective alignment, which may also equally serve the purpose. These are all matters ultimately for the District Magistrate to consider. Permission is not to be granted in a routine fashion. The decision must reflect application of mind by the District Magistrate to the relevant aspects and the contentions of the parties. An order granting permission of the nature, which the law contemplates, is not forthcoming in this case. We are told that the Magistrate has granted police protection. An order of permission is what the law predicates. The decision must reflect application of mind by the District Magistrate to the relevant aspects and the contentions of the parties. An order granting permission of the nature, which the law contemplates, is not forthcoming in this case. We are told that the Magistrate has granted police protection. An order of permission is what the law predicates. If, after permission is granted and if there is a resistance, may be, protection could be ordered. But, without there being permission when, admittedly, the authority has approached the Magistrate, we would think that it cannot be countenanced in law as permission by the District Magistrate. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation submitted that the resistance was only to claim that the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must be given and, therefore, no purpose will be served. What is relevant is that, whether there is a resistance. Once there is resistance, it was for the District Magistrate to have decided the matter. 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that, without permission being granted, the Power Grid Corporation cannot be permitted to carry out further acts. It is brought to our notice, on the one hand by the appellants / writ petitioners, that the towers were not erected at the time when the writ petition was filed. On the other hand, it is brought to our notice by the learned Senior Counsel for the Power Grid Corporation that seven towers have been erected as things stand. The matter is of considerable urgency according to the Power Grid Corporation. 10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal must be allowed to the extent of directing that the District Magistrate must take a decision on the petition filed by the Power Grid Corporation, with opportunity of hearing to the appellants/writ petitioners. In view of the urgency, we pass the following order: The appellants/writ petitioners and the officials of the Power Grid Corporation will appear before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, on 16th March, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. No further notice need be issued by the District Magistrate either to the appellants or to the Power Grid Corporation. The District Magistrate will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two weeks. The District Magistrate will take a decision in the matter in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two weeks. The position, as of today, will be maintained and further proceedings will depend upon the decision to be taken by the District Magistrate. The putting up of the towers on the property of the appellants/writ petitioners will be subject to the decision of the District Magistrate. We make it clear that the learned Single Judge is right in holding that compensation under the Land Acquisition Act need not be paid. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.