JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Vide notification published in Extraordinary Gazette of India on 24th December, 2003, Power Grid Corporation of India was authorised to exercise all the powers of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Notification dated 24th December, 2003 was issued under Section 144 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Vide Notification dated 16th November, 2009, Government of India, while exercising the power under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, was pleased to permit the Power Grid Corporation of India to lay down 400 kV Bareilly-Kashipur-Roorkee-Saharanpur line with the stipulation that implementation agency will commence project within three years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Power Grid Corporation of India has changed the route of transmission line between pole No. 111/0 to 190/0 to save the properties of others and having diverted the route of the line, they are proposing to lay down line over/ through the property of the petitioner. 3. Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contends that transmission line cannot be diverted at the whims and wishes of any Officer and while laying down the transmission line that too of heavy capacity, Power Grid Corporation of India undertakes technical survey to avoid all the future accidents and to ensure uninterrupted transmission of the power. He seems to be correct in submitting that Officers of the Power Grid Corporation of India have no enmity with the petitioner and route of the transmission line was prepared and finalized by the technocrats who are experts in the field. 4. This Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not supposed to examine the technical part of the route of the transmission line. Moreover, as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act all the official act done shall be presumed having been done in accordance with law unless proved otherwise. Therefore, presumption is attached with the correctness of transmission line route. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to what is the illegality or technical fault with the route of the transmission line, in question. Moreover, petitioner shall get compensation for the loss/damage of crops, trees or structure. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. 5. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to what is the illegality or technical fault with the route of the transmission line, in question. Moreover, petitioner shall get compensation for the loss/damage of crops, trees or structure. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. 5. CLMA No. 12622 of 2014 and IA No. 373 of 2015 also stand disposed of accordingly.