JUDGMENT : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. 2. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged the action of respondent No.1Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO), in changing the alignment of the High Tension (HT) lines, so as to cover the land of the petitioner at Block No.66 of Village Kathor, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. The petitioner has further prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 15.01.2014, issued by respondent No.1GETCO, regarding the change of alignment of the HT lines in order to minimize the loss caused to respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3.1 The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land situated at Block No.66, admeasuring 3.37.72 sq. meters, in Village Kathor, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. The said land is agricultural in nature and the petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities thereupon. GETCO wanted to lay certain HT lines and construct electrical towers for this purpose. As per the original plan, the HT lines were to pass through land bearing Block No.65 of Village Kathor, belonging to respondent No.2. However, GETCO changed the alignment of the HT lines, which would now pass over a part of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to GETCO on 24.12.2013, stating that the change in alignment is illegal and arbitrary as it has been made to facilitate respondent No.2. 3.2 GETCO replied to the petitioner vide the impugned communication dated 15.01.2014, stating that respondent No.2 has converted her land into non agricultural land, therefore, the alignment has been changed so as to minimize the loss caused to the said respondent. Aggrieved by the change in alignment of the HT lines as proposed by GETCO, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for Mr. Aggrieved by the change in alignment of the HT lines as proposed by GETCO, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that upon making inquiries, the petitioner has learnt that the entire land of respondent No.2 has not been converted into nonagricultural land. Only a part thereof has been so converted, for the construction of a farm house. In any case, as per the conditions of the order granting Nonagricultural Use Permission to respondent No.2, the said respondent was to complete the construction within three years, which has not been done. The Nonagricultural Use Permission is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground. 4.1 That no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner by GETCO before changing the alignment of the HT lines. The petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities and growing crops on the said land. If HT wires were to pass over the land, the fertility of the crop grown by the petitioner would be adversely affected. In future, if the petitioner wants to convert the land for nonagricultural use, she would have to seek a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from GETCO and the construction would be obstructed by the HT lines passing over the land. 4.2 That GETCO has changed the alignment of the HT lines solely to favour respondent No.2, in spite of the fact that there is no justifiable reason to do so. Due to the change in alignment, the petitioner will face civil consequences. 4.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralI & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 308. 4.4 On the above grounds, it is prayed that the petition be allowed. 5. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for respondent No.1GETCO, has taken the Court through the affidavit inreply filed on behalf of the said respondent and has submitted that, when the original plan for laying the HT lines was finalised, it was not in the knowledge of GETCO that the land of respondent No.2, has been converted for nonagricultural use. 5. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for respondent No.1GETCO, has taken the Court through the affidavit inreply filed on behalf of the said respondent and has submitted that, when the original plan for laying the HT lines was finalised, it was not in the knowledge of GETCO that the land of respondent No.2, has been converted for nonagricultural use. When respondent No.2 informed GETCO in this regard, a slight change in alignment was required to be made, in view of the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (“the Telegraph Act” for short), which require that while exercising power under this provision of law, the Authority is to ensure that as little damage as possible would be caused to the property of the person(s) concerned. 6. It is submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that GETCO has favoured respondent No.2 is baseless and incorrect. The work of the HT lines came to be approved somewhere in the month of January, 2009. Respondent No.2 informed GETCO regarding the conversion of the land for nonagricultural use only when the work reached the relevant location. 6.1 It is further contended that electricity towers have been constructed in the land of respondent No.2, therefore, it is not as though no damage has been caused to the said respondent. As respondent No.2 was to construct a farm house on the portion of the land over which the HT lines would originally have passed, the alignment was shifted slightly so as to ensure as little damage as possible would occur. The angle point No.28/2 has now been shifted to angle Point at place 28A/2, and both the towers are now almost complete. 6.2 That none of the towers are situated on the land of the petitioner. Moreover, the HT line is passing at a height of more than 40 feet from ground level, and that too, over a corner of the petitioner’s land. It is not as though the HT line is passing over the entire land of the petitioner. There is no superstructure on the land of the petitioner, therefore, there is no difficulty in growing crops or doing agricultural work. No actual loss has been caused to the petitioner, as of today. However, while erecting the line, if any crops are damaged, the necessary compensation would be paid. There is no superstructure on the land of the petitioner, therefore, there is no difficulty in growing crops or doing agricultural work. No actual loss has been caused to the petitioner, as of today. However, while erecting the line, if any crops are damaged, the necessary compensation would be paid. 6.3 It is further submitted that GETCO has taken all care to see that minimum loss and damage would occur to the petitioner, while the HT line over her land are laid. The loss of respondent No.2 is much greater, as two towers have been constructed on her land and a larger area has been covered. The work of construction of towers is almost complete, therefore, there can be no deviation in the alignment, at this late stage. 6.4 In support of the above submissions, learned advocate for respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment in the case of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel Vs. Chief Engineer (Project) Gujarat Energy Transmission and Ors. reported in 2011(2) GLH 781 . 6.5 On the above grounds, it is prayed that the petition be rejected. 7. Mr. M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for respondent No.1. In addition, he has submitted that the map of the Town Planning Authority, Surat, shows that the HT electricity line does not pass from the middle of the land of the petitioner but only over one coroner of it. Two towers have been constructed on the land of respondent No.2. There is no tower on the land of the petitioner, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to her by the passing of the HT lines over a corner of her land. The agricultural activities of the petitioner or the crops cultivated by her would not be affected in any manner. 7.1 That the map prepared by the Town Planning Authority further reveals that there is a road between the land of respondent No.2 and the petitioner. At the time of the implementation of the Town Planning Scheme, some land of both the petitioner and respondent No.2 is bound to be deducted and a large area would go under the Town Planning Scheme, for the road. 7.3 It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed therewith. 9. 7.3 It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed therewith. 9. Admittedly, GETCO has exercised powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act as authorised by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“the Electricity Act” for short) for the purpose of placing HT electricity lines and constructing towers on private lands. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act reads as below: “10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property: Provided that (a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purpose of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The proviso (d) to Section 10 of the Telegraph Act makes it clear that while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the Telegraph Authority (in this case GETCO) shall cause as little damage as possible. As per proviso (b) of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the Telegraph Authority shall not acquire any right other than that of user in the property upon which it places any telegraph line or post. As per proviso (b) of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the Telegraph Authority shall not acquire any right other than that of user in the property upon which it places any telegraph line or post. The right of the Telegraph Authority under the said provision of law is, therefore, limited to the user of the land and is not a right of acquisition. There is a legal obligation upon the Telegraph Authority to pay full compensation to the interested persons for any damage caused to their property by virtue of the exercise of power under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. 11. In the present case, undisputedly the original alignment for construction of two towers and placing of the HT lines was altered, as respondent No.2 represented to GETCO that the land over which the HT lines were to be placed had been converted as non agricultural land, for the purpose of constructing a farm house. It has been stated in the affidavit-in reply filed by GETCO that this fact was not known to it until the HT lines were actually being laid over the land of respondent No.2. On coming to know that the relevant portion of the land had been converted for nonagricultural use for the construction of a farm house, GETCO changed the alignment, in order to minimize the loss/damage that could have been caused to respondent No.2. Due to such change in alignment, the HT lines now pass over a corner of the agricultural land owned by the petitioner. 12. Two towers have already been constructed by GETCO on the land of respondent No.2 and HT lines also pass through some portion of the land of the said respondent. Admittedly, no towers have been constructed on the land of the petitioner. This factual position goes to show that the change in alignment by GETCO was not done to favour respondent No.2, as alleged by the petitioner but to minimize and balance the damage/loss that would occur to respondent No.2. The allegation of the petitioner regarding favour being shown to respondent No.2 is not supported by any material on record. GETCO is the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act and has no axe to grind with the petitioner or respondent No.2. The allegation of the petitioner regarding favour being shown to respondent No.2 is not supported by any material on record. GETCO is the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act and has no axe to grind with the petitioner or respondent No.2. It is an independent authority which would carry out its work as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, therefore, no ulterior motive can be attributed to it. 13. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that GETCO did not inform the petitioner regarding the proposed change in alignment before undertaking work in this regard, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. 14. In this regard, reference may be made to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel vs. Chief Engineer (Project) Gujarat Energy Transmission and Ors. (Supra), wherein it has been held as below: “32. We have exhaustively dealt with this issue in the above referred paragraphs and we have explained as to why consent is not necessary. The paragraph which has been relied upon by the learned counsel of the above referred judgment itself makes it clear that principles of natural justice can be read into a statute which is silent unless a statutory provision specifically or by necessary implications dispenses with the principles of natural justice. These observations are important. 33. As explained earlier that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land, they are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines, for which, full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the polls or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them. 52. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. 52. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the respondent Company to proceed with laying high tension electric lines or electric polls for the transmission of electricity on or over the lands belonging to the appellant herein subject to the right of the appellant to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of laying such high tension electric lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the appellant. Hence, no mandamus can be issued restraining the respondent Company from proceeding with the erection of polls and transmission lines through the land of the appellant. However, this shall not preclude the appellant to claim compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law in case any damage is sustained to his property.” (emphasis supplied) 15. From a perusal of Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the only right that the petitioner may have is that of receiving full and fair compensation for any loss or damage sustained by her due to the laying of the HT electricity lines by GETCO. 16. In view of the principles of law laid down in the judgment of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel vs. Chief Engineer (Project) Gujarat Energy Transmission and Ors. (Supra), no prior notice or consent is required to be given to the petitioner, as the Telegraph Authority has not acquired her land but is only making use of it for the purpose of laying HT electricity lines. GETCO has stated that it would pay full compensation to the petitioner for any loss or damage to her property due to the laying of the HT lines. 17. A submission has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that if the HT electricity lines are laid over the land of the petitioner, the fertility of the land would be adversely affected and the crops would suffer. 18. 17. A submission has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that if the HT electricity lines are laid over the land of the petitioner, the fertility of the land would be adversely affected and the crops would suffer. 18. It may be noted that the HT lines do not pass over the entire land of the petitioner, but only over a corner of the land. Moreover, the lines are at a height of 40 feet from ground level. No material has been placed on record to show that the fertility of the land would be diminished due to the passing of the HT electricity lines over a portion of the land of the petitioner, at the height of 40 feet from the ground. There is nothing on record to indicate that the crops cultivated by the petitioner would be adversely affected by the laying of the said lines. The petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities over the land in question as of today, and the laying of the HT lines has not prevented or compromised this activity. 19. It has further been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in future, if the petitioner wants to convert the land for non agricultural purposes, she would have to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from GETCO, and the line passing over her land would hamper the proposed construction. This submission of the petitioner is presumptive and bears no relation to the factual situation prevailing as of today. Hence, this Court is not required to deal with it. 20. Emphatic submissions have been made by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that the entire land of respondent No.2 has not been converted for nonagricultural use, but only a portion thereof. As per the original alignment, the HT electricity lines were to run over the very portion of the land of respondent No.2 which has now been converted for nonagricultural use. This is precisely why the alignment has been altered by GETCO after respondent No.2 represented to it. Though the entire land owned by respondent No.2 has not been converted for nonagricultural use, this aspect would not be relevant as it is only the portion of the land over which the HT lines would pass, that is to be taken into consideration. Though the entire land owned by respondent No.2 has not been converted for nonagricultural use, this aspect would not be relevant as it is only the portion of the land over which the HT lines would pass, that is to be taken into consideration. Two towers have already been built on the land of respondent No.2; meaning thereby that much more of her land has been affected than that of the petitioner. 21. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that respondent No.2 has not constructed a farm house, within the stipulated period of time as per the condition attached to the order granting Non agricultural Use Permission. According to him, as more than three years have passed and respondent No.2 has also admitted this fact in her affidavit-in-reply, the Nonagricultural Permission is liable to be set aside for breach of condition. 22. In this regard, it is only to be stated that the validity of the order granting Nonagricultural Use Permission is to be looked into by the Competent Authority that granted it. That is a matter between the said authority and respondent No.2. As the order granting Nonagricultural Use Permission to respondent No.2 is not under challenge before this Court, no opinion can be expressed whether there is a breach of condition by respondent No.2, or whether the permission is liable to be set aside on that ground, or not. 23. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has held that an order under Section 142 (2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, entails civil consequences, and even in the absence of express provision, an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to the assessee is necessary. The principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court on the factual and legal aspects of that case cannot be disputed. However, in the present case, there is no issue of pre-decisional hearing. The Telegraph Authority has taken action, as empowered under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, which is the specific provision governing the case of the petitioner. 24. In M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr. However, in the present case, there is no issue of pre-decisional hearing. The Telegraph Authority has taken action, as empowered under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, which is the specific provision governing the case of the petitioner. 24. In M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I & Anr. (Supra), the Supreme Court has referred to a judgment in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy reported in AIR 2005 SC 2090 by quoting following paragraph: “14.... Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied in from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression ‘civil consequences’ encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil ‘liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life.” 25. From the above, it is clear that civil consequences encompass the infraction of not merely property or personal rights but also of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In the present case, the damage, if any that may be caused to the crops/land of the petitioner while laying down the HT electricity lines overhead, would be adequately compensated. No material has been placed on record to show that the fertility of the land or the crops would be adversely affected, or diminished, by virtue of the passing of the HT electricity lines over a corner of the petitioner’s land. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner would face civil consequences due to the passing of the overhead HT lines. 26. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner would face civil consequences due to the passing of the overhead HT lines. 26. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and for reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of GETCO in proposing to lay the HT electricity lines over a portion of the land of the petitioner. 27. Further, the communication dated 15.01.2014 issued by GETCO suffers from no illegality or infirmity, as it merely states the reason for the change in alignment of the HT electricity lines. As already discussed hereinabove, no material has been produced by the petitioner to show that any undue favour has been shown by GETCO to respondent No.2. 28. It cannot be disputed that GETCO has the technical expertise regarding the laying of HT electricity lines and construction of towers. It has been submitted before this Court by GETCO that there is no scope for any further change in alignment, as per the desire of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that in matters pertaining to technical expertise, when the action of the concerned authority does not reveal any infraction of the provisions of the relevant statutes, no interference is required to be made by the Court. The present is just such a matter. 29. For the above reasons, this Court finds no merit in the petition, which deserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. 30. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.