JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India being the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is stated by the parties that the respondent No.2, the APDCL had wrongly been arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition and as such, the said respondent need not be heard for the purpose of adjudicating this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is an owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 7 bighas in village Nishchintapur, Lala Road in the district of Hailakandi. The said land had been given on lease for a period of 30 years to a trust for constructing and operating a residential school by the name of Spring Valley Central School. For the purpose, a deed dated 22.07.2010 was executed between the parties. It is stated that since then the school had been made operational and it has been successfully running with about more than 500 students and staffs. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while the school was being so operated, the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India had erected a tower for transmission of 400 KV power line over the land of the petitioner and that the said power line is located within 10 to 12 meters from the concerned school. It is stated that the school has a large number of students as well as staffs and there is also a girl’s hostel in the northern side of the school, apart from plantations and other available trees. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that before the installation of the tower, the petitioner had made several objections/representations before the respondent authorities, but the respondent authorities did not give a due consideration to the same. It is stated that one such representation is dated 26.02.2014 made before the respondent No.4, which is still pending. 5. On a perusal of the said representation dated 26.02.2014, it is noticed that one of the grounds taken therein is that the distance between the school and that of the over head power line would be about 10 to 12 meters. 5. On a perusal of the said representation dated 26.02.2014, it is noticed that one of the grounds taken therein is that the distance between the school and that of the over head power line would be about 10 to 12 meters. It is also stated that the petitioner school authorities desire to construct a girl’s hostel on the northern side of the available land and the said construction would be just under the over head power line. A grievance has also been raised that although at the time of construction of the tower, the petitioner had raised objections and the respondent authorities had assured that adequate compensation will be paid, but no such compensation was paid to the petitioner. It is also stated that because of the operation of the over head power line, the guardians of the students of the school are not willing to further admit their children in the school and as a result of the same, the petitioner had suffered a huge loss. In the aforesaid premises, this writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay an adequate compensation to the petitioner for the purported huge financial loss that they had incurred because of the installation of the overhead power line for transmission of 400 KV of tower. 6. The respondent Power Grid Corporation of India on the other hand had filed an affidavit in opposition, wherein in paragraph-6, it had been stated that after the survey of the land in question was completed in the year 2010 and all preparations were made for payment of compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner had been creating a problem in exercise of the right of way by demanding exorbitant compensation and as a result of such obstruction, the construction of the overhead power line could be completed only in the year 2013. 7. In paragraph-7, a stand has been taken that in any view of the matter, the boundary wall of the school is located at a distance of 35 meters from the center of the transmission line and to that effect a sketch map has also been annexed. 7. In paragraph-7, a stand has been taken that in any view of the matter, the boundary wall of the school is located at a distance of 35 meters from the center of the transmission line and to that effect a sketch map has also been annexed. It is also stated that the actual location of the school premises is situated in the southern side of the plot of land in question and it is much further away from the transmission line. 8. Further stand has been taken that as per the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules framed there-under, the right of way (RoW) for erecting an overhead power line is 23 meters on either side of the center of the line and in the instant case, the boundary wall of the petitioner’s school is located much beyond the required 23 meters. It is stated that in such view of the matter, the concerned school is located outside the right of way corridor of the overhead power line in question and therefore, under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, no compensation is payable to the school in question. 9. In the affidavit in reply, the petitioner takes a stand that although he had raised an objection regarding the installation of an electricity tower by the respondent corporation, the said objection had not been given its due consideration. A stand has also been taken that the respondent authorities as per their own admission had stated that consideration for payment of compensation had been made under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and therefore, the said respondents now cannot deny the entitlement of the petitioner for receiving compensation. 10. On a reading of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is noticed that Section 16(1) of the Act provides that 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. Section 16(2) further provides that if, after the making of an order under sub section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or does not give all facilities for the power to be exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The further provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is that under section 16(3), if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), an application for that purpose, by either of the disputing parties would be maintainable before the District Judge of the concerned jurisdiction for appropriate determination. 11. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the relevant provision of the law is that when an overhead power line is sought to be erected by the concerned authority, no person, be it the owner of the land can either resist or obstruct to such construction and in the event of such resistance or obstruction be made, it would be for the District Magistrate to exercise his jurisdiction to allow the concern authority to go ahead with the construction. If, even after exercising such discretion by the District Magistrate, the concerned person still further resists such construction, such act shall be deemed to be an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In view of such stringent provisions of Section 16(1) and (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, this Court is of the considered view that the owner of the land, like that of the petitioner, cannot obstruct or object to the construction of an overhead power line. 13. In such view of the matter, one of the contention raised by the petitioner that in spite of several objections being made, the same was not given its due consideration is found to be unacceptable. 14. The aforesaid view of this Court also finds place in paragraph-21 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 . 14. The aforesaid view of this Court also finds place in paragraph-21 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 . In paragraph-21 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, expressed the view that all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in installation of power transmission lines is also available to the authority installing the overhead power line. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also was of the view that the legislature having not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving this objective, the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is also applicable in respect of erecting the overhead power line. 15. In such view of the matter, the paragraph-21 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be interpreted in a manner that it is a statutory provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 that a concerned person is not empowered to either cause impediment or obstruct the installation of an overhead power line and therefore, any objection to the installing of such line would not be maintainable. 16. Another aspect of the matter as referred in paragraph-26 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is regard to shifting of the overhead power line, which had already been established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that it is apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment and that such overhead power line had to be in a straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. But, such considerations can be raised only at a stage before the overhead power lines are being erected, so as to enable the authorities to explore the feasibility of a change in the alignment. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also of the view that electricity lines are usually drawn over agricultural land, where minimum lands are utilized for erecting the towers and the agricultural activities are not prejudiced and only where it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on private lands. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also of the view that electricity lines are usually drawn over agricultural land, where minimum lands are utilized for erecting the towers and the agricultural activities are not prejudiced and only where it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on private lands. Such view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also leads us to a conclusion that it is not wholly impermissible to locate the towers and the overhead power lines over any private land, provided the technical aspects so require. 18. It is noticed that no such specific stand had been taken by the petitioner at a stage prior to the installation of the overhead power line for requiring the respondent authorities to change the alignment. 19. The only statutory remedy made available to a prospective land owner, who may suffer any damage because of the installation of the over head line is to claim for appropriate compensation under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the instant case, the second prayer in the writ petition is that appropriate compensation be paid to the petitioner keeping in view the huge financial loss that may have suffered due to drawl of over head electricity line. 20. In view of the statement made by the petitioner that appropriate compensation had not been paid to the petitioner although he has suffered damage, it is provided that the writ petitioner shall file an appropriate application before the District Judge having competent jurisdiction over the matter under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and upon such application being filed, the said application would be given its due consideration by following the due procedure of law including the procedure of hearing the petitioner/claimant as well as the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.