JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and where under the direction has been sought for upon the opposite parties to stop construction over the suit land and to direct to pay compensation for the suit land for utilizing by them along with damaging of standing crops and fruit bearing trees and interest thereupon. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the land in question pertaining to Khata No. 30 comprising of 6 plots measuring an area of Ac.15.140 decs. recorded in the names of Matia Garnayak, Jibodhar Garnayak, Jay Garnayak, S/o. Mana Garnayak, Braja Garnayak, S/o. Kabi Garnayak, Hoguri Garnayak, Suka Garnayak, Loknath Garnayak, S/o. Srikar Garnayak, Hadibandhu Garnayak, S/o. Kirtan Garnayak. Similarly Khata No. 45, Plot No. 80/100 measuring an area Ac. 0.900 decs. recorded in the names of Sukadev Garnayak, Loknath Garnayak, S/o. Haguru Garnayak, Jibodhar Garnayak, Jay Garnayak, S/o. Mano Garnayak, Braja Garnayak, S/o. Kabi Garnayak, Hadibandhu Garnayak, S/o. Kirtan Garnayak in the Hal Record of Right published on 30.03.1976. The copies of the record of rights of Khata No.30 and 45 of Mouza-Baliyani. The suit land are the ancestral property of the family of the petitioners and his co-sharers are the bona fide owner of the land doing their agricultural operation over the suit land and doing all acts of possession. The opposite parties now forcibly constructed electric tower and lay down electric supply line over the plot No.83 measuring an area Ac.3.090 decs. and over Plot No.75 (Bagayat) Ac.1.390 under which 100 nos. of Mango and Jackfruit trees are standing over the said land under Khata No.30, similar over the Plot No.80/100 measuring an area Ac.0.900 dec. entire plot. Opposite parties are constructing 760 KV S/C Anugul Jharsuguda line connecting to Poling Station at Kenapalli, Sundargarh to Baliyani, Angul. Construction activity of the line is in progress, after the approval of the Power Ministry as per Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. 3. entire plot. Opposite parties are constructing 760 KV S/C Anugul Jharsuguda line connecting to Poling Station at Kenapalli, Sundargarh to Baliyani, Angul. Construction activity of the line is in progress, after the approval of the Power Ministry as per Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the provision of Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 which stipulates that the Telegraph Authority shall do as little damage as possible, when it is exercised those power in respect of the property other than refer to Clause-c of Section 10 shall pay full compensation to all person interested for the damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of those power. Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 and as to compensation in case of property other than that of local authority. As per the provision of Section 16, the Telegraph Authority shall be permitted to exercise power only after obtaining permission from the District Magistrate and Sub-Section 3 of Section 16, provides that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of compensation to be paid under Section 10, Clause (d), it shall on application for purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated be determined by him, but in the present case, the opposite parties without following the due procedure are going to forcibly erect electric poll and lay down of electric supply line on the land of the petitioners, hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. Opposite parties have appeared and filed preliminary counter affidavit inter alia there in, it has been stated that in view of the provision conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Government being the Appropriate Government has conferred the powers of Telegraph Authority upon the opposite party no.1 vide notification No.1148 dated 24.12.2003 published in the Gazette of India and in view of such power, the opposite party no.1 has been authorized to lay the poles, wires, posts etc. over or under any immovable property as per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. over or under any immovable property as per Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. As per Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Ministry of Power, Government of India, vide letter dated 29.07.2010 has accorded the prior approval, inter alia for common transmission system associates with East Coast and NCC Power Projects in Srikakulam Area by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vide its letter of approval dated 29.07.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vrs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. and others delivered in Civil Appeal No.10951 of 2016 reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 , wherein in the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the High Court could not have given this task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the provision of Section 16(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which are extended to laying down of electricity lines. It has further been laid down therein that it is the District Judge of the concerned district, upon whom the power is vested for determining the quantum of compensation and in any case this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got no jurisdiction to decide the same. He submits that the opposite party no.1 has acted in pursuance of the provision of law and there is no violation of the same and if the petitioner is in any way aggrieved, he should have approach before the concerned District Judge in place of filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submission, this Court thinks it proper to deal with certain provision or law i.e. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, for ready reference, the same is being reproduced herein below :- “10. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submission, this Court thinks it proper to deal with certain provision or law i.e. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, for ready reference, the same is being reproduced herein 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 purposes 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.” It is evident from the said provision that 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 the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government, 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 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 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. 7. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 stipulates the exercise of power conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority, which is being reproduced herein below, for ready reference :- “16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority- (1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. (2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercise, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to received compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) shall be final : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.” Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides the provision, which is being reproduced herein below :- “67. Provisions as to opening up of streets, railways, etc: --- (1) A licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his licence, within his area of supply or transmission or when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply, without that area carry out works such as – (a) to open and break up the soil and pavement of any street, railway or tramway; (b) to open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway; (c) to alter the position of any line or works or pipes, other than a main sewer pipe; (d) to lay down and place electric lines, electrical plant and other works; (e) to repair, alter or remove the same; (f) to do all other acts necessary for transmission or supply of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this behalf, specify, - (a) the cases and circumstances in which the consent in writing of the Appropriate Government, local authority, owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall be required for carrying out works; (b) the authority which may grant permission in the circumstances where the owner or occupier objects to the carrying out of works; (c) the nature and period of notice to be given by the licensee before carrying out works; (d) the procedure and manner of consideration of objections and suggestion received in accordance with the notice referred to in clause (c); (e) the determination and payment of compensation or rent to the persons affected by works under this section; (f) the repairs and works to be carried out when emergency exists; (g) the right of the owner or occupier to carry out certain works under this section and the payment of expenses therefor; (h) the procedure for carrying out other works near sewers, pipes or other electric lines or works; (i) the procedure for alteration of the position of pipes, electric lines, electrical plant, telegraph lines, sewer lines, tunnels, drains, etc.; (j) the procedure for fencing, guarding, lighting and other safety measures relating to works on streets, railways, tramways, sewers, drains or tunnels and immediate reinstatement thereof; (k) the avoidance of public nuisance, environmental damage and unnecessary damage to the public and private property by such works; (l) the procedure for undertaking works which are not repairable by the Appropriate Government, licensee or local authority; (m) the manner of deposit of amount required for restoration of any railways, tramways, waterways, etc.; (n) the manner of restoration of property affected by such works and maintenance thereof; (o) the procedure for deposit of compensation payable by the licensee and furnishing of security; and (p) such other matters as are incidental or consequential to the construction and maintenance of works under this section. (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made there under, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made there under, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute [including amount of compensation under sub-section (3)] arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. (5) The Appropriate Commission, while determining any difference or dispute arising under this section in addition to any compensation under sub-section (3), may impose a penalty not exceeding the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section.” It is evident from the co-joint reading of Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, that when the electricity poll or the line is being erected over a plot belonging to a particular person having its right and title over the same, the right and title is not to be shifted upon the Central Government rather the right of user will be there and to that effect, the party affected are entitled to get compensation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner cannot get the compensation if the land is being used by the Central Government for the purpose of erecting the electricity line but the question is of the forum as to whether it can be done under the jurisdiction conferred to this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. This Court has examined the issue by going through the judgment in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd vrs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10951 of 2016 reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 , wherein in the self-same issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court by restoring the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of the said High Court, holding therein that under the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules framed there under, the Power Grid was within its right to exercise those powers. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge has been assailed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench has taken the view that once the towers are erected on the area as planned, which falls within the mining lease area, it would cause loss not only to the writ petitioner but even to the State Government which will be deprived of royalty and as such a direction was given to the District Collector to work out the compensation that would be payable to the writ petitioner. It was further observed that if the Collector comes to the conclusion that the compensation is also payable to the State Government, he would refer the matter to the State Government for constituting a High Powered Committee for arriving at the quantum of compensation. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the provision of Section 68 and 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003 fall in Part-VIII with caption as also the provision of Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, has been pleased to set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court by holding therein that the High Court could not have given this task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the provision of Section 16(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which are extended to laying down of electricity lines. As per this provision, such an authority vests with the District Judge and accordingly, while setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has been pleased to observe that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the concerned District Judge for this purpose. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also taken note of the guideline framed by the Central Government dated 15th October 2015 which provides the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines, hence it is open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines. 10. 10. This Court after taking into consideration the legal position as well as the factual aspects and the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for getting a positive direction in this regard, as such this Court declines to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the other remedy available. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.