JUDGMENT S. N. PRASAD, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction upon the opposite parties not to install Electric Tower of 132 KV line over the land under Mouza :- Endua, Tahasil/Thana :- Puri Sadar, District :- Puri, Khata No.133, Plot No.146, Area Ac.0.50 dec. belongs to the petitioner. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioner as per pleading made in the writ petition is that he has a piece of agricultural land under Mouza :- Endua, Tahasil/Thana :- Puri Sadar, District :- Puri, Khata No.133, Plot No.146, Area Ac.0.50 dec., Kisam – Sarad-3, Plot No.495, Area Ac.0.32 dec., Kisam – Sarad-3 which is the only agricultural land available with the petitioner and out of yielding of the said land, the petitioner is maintaining his family and there is no other source of income. The aforesaid land is adjacent to river “Joginai” and there is only one way to enter into the said land for using it for agricultural purpose. The petitioner has came to know that the opposite party no.2 has decided to install high voltage tower of 132 KV at the middle of the said land, for such installation, no notice has been given to him nor any opportunity of hearing was given which resulted into great inconvenience to the petitioner mainly for the reason that the tower, if allowed to be installed, will be in the middle of the land of the petitioner and due to the geographical condition, he cannot use it for agricultural purpose which ultimately lead to loss to livelihood. His further case is that there is alternative arrangement available for the opposite parties for installation of such tower since big patch of land is lying adjacent to his land and also there is availability of government land for such installation, but without taking the aforesaid fact into consideration, decision has been taken for execution of construction of electric tower of 132 KV and since it has been decided to be led without affording any opportunity of hearing, hence this writ petition has been filed. 3. 3. The opposite parties have appeared and filed detail counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL), a Government of Odisha Undertaking is a State Transmission Utility U/s.39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and the deemed transmission licensee for transmission of electricity in the State of Odisha so also license granted by the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The OPTCL has been duly authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the Government of Odisha vide its order dtd.9.3.2006, notified in Extra-ordinary Gazette No.406 dtd.24.3.2006 to exercise all the powers of the Telegraph Authority as are available under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in respect of electrical lines and electrical plants established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraph communication necessary for the proper coordination of the work on and over the land or building as the case may be in the State of Odisha and the procedure to be followed for exercising such power, such as, the procedure of public notification and invitation of representations from the interested persons etc. It has been stated therein that the OPTCL, in exercise of power conferred U/s.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the notification under Annexure-A prepared Transmission Scheme, i.e. “construction of 132 KV S/C Line from 220/132/33 KV Grid Substation, Samagara, Puri to RTSS, Malatipatpur”, in order to facilitate the rail electrification of Puri district and meet the load demand vide notification dtd.13.2.2015. The said transmission scheme was prepared after due and proper survey by the competent experts including the Government Authorities by taking care of all aspects including the proper ground clearance and safety measures as stipulated in the Electricity Act and the Rules framed there under and as per the approved land schedule and route map and was published in two Odia daily newspapers, namely, “The Samaj” and “Sambad” on 16.2.2015 for wide circulation among general public and inviting representation from the general public within period of two months from the date of publication. The said transmission scheme has also been published in the Odisha Gazette inviting representation from the interested persons vide Odisha Gazette dtd.4.4.2016. The said transmission scheme has also been published in the Odisha Gazette inviting representation from the interested persons vide Odisha Gazette dtd.4.4.2016. The name of the village in which the line is to be passed have been indicated in the scheme with the instruction that the whole detail of the scheme and plan are available to be seen and verified in the office of the Deputy General Manager (Electrical), EHT (Construction) Division, Bhubaneswar. No representation from the villagers or from the petitioner was received in response to such notification within the time. The OPTCL, in the meantime, completed some foundation and erection work of the Tower and stringing of electrical wire. According to the opposite party – OPTCL the affected person can only claim compensation U/s.10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if any damage caused to the land on account of construction of electric line but they do not have any right to restrain the licensee from constructing the electric transmission line, which is in exercise of power U/s.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and for the public purpose. It is the further contention of opposite parties that statutory remedy available to approach the District Magistrate or the District Judge having jurisdiction for redressal of the grievance and the OPTCL is ready and willing to pay necessary compensation as may be fixed by the District Magistrate or the District Judge U/s.10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if it is found that any damage to the land sustained due to construction of the line. It has further been stated therein that the line would not cause any problem for agriculture purpose, the plot in question is far away from the river and there is no obstruction of the way of the land. They are only using 550 square feet of the land for tower location – 13 (AP-6) that there would be no apprehension of damage or any other obstruction for agriculture. The officers of the opposite parties have discussed the matter with the petitioner and agreed to pay the compensation which will be determined by the competent authority. It is the further case that no government land is available with the location and any change would cause serious problem in constructing the line which is for public purpose. 4. The officers of the opposite parties have discussed the matter with the petitioner and agreed to pay the compensation which will be determined by the competent authority. It is the further case that no government land is available with the location and any change would cause serious problem in constructing the line which is for public purpose. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein the statement made by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit has been rebutted by stating therein that there is government land and if the tower will be allowed to be constructed the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss since in future there is every likelihood to convert the aforesaid land as homestead and thereby the petitioner will suffer loss in the term of money. It has been stated therein that as per the provision of work of Licensees Rule, 2006 no consent has been taken from the land owner, as such the very initiation of the work over the land in question is illegal. 5. This court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, has found that the dispute raised by the petitioner is regarding installation of tower over the plot in question over 550 square feet of land which according to the petitioner is used for agricultural purposes. The petitioner claims that in view of the Licensees Rules, 2006 the consent from the land owner is required to be taken as provided under the provision of Rule 3 contained therein but no consent has been taken, hence the entire action of the opposite parties related to construction of tower in his portion of land has been said to be illegal and contrary to the statutory provision. While on the other hand, the opposite parties have disputed this contention and submitted that everything has been done in accordance with law, the notice has been given by way of paper publication which has not been responded by the petitioner or even by any local villagers, as such in view of the power conferred to it under the provision of Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with the notification of the State of Odisha conferring power to exercise the power under the Telegraphy Act 1885, the land is now being used for erection of electric line for providing electricity to the railway in the district of Puri. This court before examining the issue which is involved in this writ petition, thinks it proper to deal with certain provision of law which is relevant to be discussed herein. The provision of section 164 of the Indian electricity act, 2003 confers power upon the Appropriate Government by making an order in writing, for placing the electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper coordination of works conferred upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Act with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purpose of telegraph established or maintained, by the government or to be so established or maintained. Thus it is evident from perusal of the provision as contained in section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 that under the Electricity Act the power has been conferred upon the licensee as has been conferred upon the telegraph authority for installing telegraph lines and posts and to that effect notification has been issued by the appropriate government of the state of Odisha on 9th March 2006 under Annexure-A/2 whereby and where under the OPTCL has been conferred with the power to exercise all powers vested on the telegraph authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in respect of electrical lines and electrical plants established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for transmission of electricity or for the purpose or telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for proper coordination of the work, provided that OPTCL shall cause such transmission scheme, which among other things shall contain the estimates of the capital expenditure involved , salient features thereof and the benefits that may accrue there from to be published in the Official Gazette and in such local newspaper as the OPTCL may consider necessary along with a notice of the date not being less than two months after the date of such publication before which other persons interested may make representation on such scheme and the same is duly considered by the OPTCL. The notification dtd.9th march 2006 is being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- No.2353 – R & R. –II-10/2—6 – Whereas the Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited having its registered office at Janpath, Bhubaneswar (herein after referred to as the OPTCL) is a Government of Orissa Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a licensee engaged in the business of Intra-State Transmission of Electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) And whereas the OPTCL is required to establish transmission system and to undertake transmission of electricity through Intra-State Transmission System. And whereas for placing and maintaining of electric lines, electrical plant, cable, chambers, towers and posts under, over, along or across in or upon any immovable property for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic communications necessary for proper coordination of works, the vesting and exercise of the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) with respect to the placing of the telegraph lines and posts established or maintained or to be so established or maintained are required to be conferred on the OPTCL. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State Government do hereby confer upon the OPTCL, i.e. the licensee to exercise all powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in respect of the electrical lines and electrical plant established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper coordination of the works. Provided the OPTCL shall cause such transmission scheme, which among other things shall contain the estimates of the capital expenditure involved, salient features thereof and the benefits that may accrue there from to be published in the Official Gazette and in such local newspapers as the OPTCL may consider necessary along with a notice of the date, not being less than two months after the date of such publication before which other persons interested may make representation on such scheme and the same is duly considered by the OPTCL. Thus Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act provides power to place telegraph lines and posts. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 confers power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts and for doing that under the provision of Section 11, the telegraph authority, may at any time, for the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any telegraph line or post, enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or post has been placed. Section 16 contains the power to resolve the dispute as to compensation, in case of properly other than that of the local authority. Section 16 contains the power to resolve the dispute as to compensation, in case of properly other than that of the local authority. Thus it is evident that under the provision of Telegraph Act, the authorities have been vested with the power to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts and the similar power is to be conferred by virtue of the notification to be issued by the appropriate government by exercising the power conferred U/s.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in the light of the aforesaid provision the notification has been issued by the state of Odisha on 9th March 2006. 6. So far as the fact of this case is concerned, the OPTCL has decided to install the electric tower of 132 KV line over the land under Mouza :- Endua, Tahasil/Thana :- Puri Sadar, District :- Puri, Khata No.133, Plot No.146, Area Ac.0.50 dec. who is a deemed transmission licensee as per the provision of section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and exercising the power conferred under section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with notification dtd.9.3.2006 has prepared a transmission scheme for construction of 132 KV S/C Line from 220/132/33 KV Grid Substation, Samangara, Puri to RTSS Malatipatapur in order to facilitate the rail electrification of Puri district. The said transmission scheme was prepared after due and proper survey by the competent expert including the government authorities. A notification in the light of the provision of section 164 read with the notification dtd.9.3.2006 was published in daily newspaper, namely ”The Samaj’ and ‘Sambad’ dtd.16.2.22006 for its wide circulation among the general public by inviting representation from them within period of two months from the date of publication. The aforesaid transmission scheme was also been published in the Odisha Gazette inviting representation from the interested person vide Odisha Gazette on 4.4.2016. It is evident from the pleading made in the counter affidavit at paragraph 5 that no representation has been submitted in terms of the notice published or the gazette notification made for apprising the public regarding installation of the High Tension Wire. The petitioner s sole grievance, upon whose land the tower by taking an area of 550 sqft. is to be installed, is that he has not been given opportunity of hearing since no specific notice has been issued. The petitioner s sole grievance, upon whose land the tower by taking an area of 550 sqft. is to be installed, is that he has not been given opportunity of hearing since no specific notice has been issued. He has rebutted the statement made at paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit which has been responded to by him in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder stating therein that the paper publication does not contain any plot specifically the plot of the petitioner has not been referred and further the requirement in the gazette notification or the paper publication is to ask the persons interested to make representation and it is not with the stipulation that the representation is to be made by way of objection by the aggrieved party, as such it has not been objected to and it is on this ground alone the entire action has been said to be illegal. 7. This court, after taking into consideration the provision of section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 read with notification dtd.9.3.2006 wherein the stipulation has been made is regarding the paper publication or by wide notification through gazette notification to apprise the people in general so that person interested may file representation within two months. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that they are not aware about the paper publication, rather only contention that the representation has not been sought for from the person aggrieved rather it has been sought for from the person interested, whether aggrieved or interested there is no material difference since if any land is being taken for any purpose by the transmission company the interested person will also include the aggrieved person if the person is interested in getting compensation or if not interested to get the compensation in both ways the particular person will be said to be person interested. This court is only to consider the requirement of law as to whether before utilizing the land of the petitioner the procedure as laid down has been followed or not, according to my considered view as per the provision as contained U/s.164 of the Act, 2003, a notification was issued by the State of Odisha on 9.3.2006 whereby and where under strictly in terms of the provision contained in the statute as also in the notification the paper publication has been made giving two months time seeking representation from the interested persons as also in the gazette notification but the admitted position is that none of the villagers have filed any representation as also the petitioner has not filed, and thereafter the construction work has been started. In view thereof it cannot be said that the process as stipulated in the statutory provision has not been followed before utilizing the land of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the provision of Odisha Licensee Rules, 2006 as contained under provision of rule 3 prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building is required, but this aspect of the matter has been considered by this court as also by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vrs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. and Others, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 wherein the Hon ble Apex Court by discussing the issue in detail in the case of like nature, has given a finding with an observation at paragraph 26 as also by reversing the issue of taking prior consent by rejecting it as would be evident from paragraph 30 of the said judgment. This court has examined the judgment rendered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case specifically paragraph 26 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the electricity line should be straight to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. The electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilized for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced / obstructed in any manner. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed over private lands to the minimum and least extent possible. The electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilized for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced / obstructed in any manner. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed over private lands to the minimum and least extent possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in the case of the Power Grid Corporation notice was given but here notice was not given so, on fact, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable. This court after going through the judgment in Power Grid Corporation of India (supra) as also going through the pleading made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, has found that the land of the petitioner to the extent of 550 sqft. has been taken for construction of the tower. It is not in doubt that it is agricultural land but only 550 sqft. area has been acquired with specific assertion by the Opposite Party that the agricultural work will not be prejudiced in any way and moreover the river since is in adjacent to the plot in question there will be no difficulty in going across the river and further all precautionary measure has been taken to avoid any danger to life and there is least suffering so far firming is concerned. This has not specifically been rebutted by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit rather it has been stated that in future there is likelihood of converting the land to that of homestead, meaning thereby the petitioner is more concern in terms of money. The other judgment has also been placed rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court which pertains to this Court passed in Spl. Leave to Appeal No.8168 of 2013 and while reversing the finding of this court, Hon ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, after taking into consideration the fact that no representation, no objection against the scheme has been filed by any of the villagers as also the petitioner of that case and the High Court since without considering that aspect of the matter has restrained the work, the same has been said to be not proper and accordingly direction passed by this court for change in the alignment has been said to be not proper. Exactly the same prayer is being made herein also by the petitioner to change the alignment but this court sitting under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to act as an expert and it is the exclusive domain of the expert who has prepared the map, design and thereafter taken decision to install the tower considering the alignment position, hence on this ground no interference can be shown by this court. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that his interest has been given go bye but merely on that account the opposite parties cannot be restrained from executing the work for the reason that the purpose for which the transmission line is being installed is to provide electric line to the railway traffic in the district of Puri which is in the larger interest and it is settled position of law that wherever larger interest of the public is involved, individual interest is to be given go bye and that is also the spirit of Land Acquisition Act either old or new one. Now the only question is how the person interested is to be compensated. It has already been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Power Grid Corporation (supra) as also under the provision of Indian Telegraph Act that the land which is being used remains the land of the owner and the transmission company is only taking its user right and for user right, compensation, if admissible, can be allowed, meaning thereby a land can be used for interest of the public at large and so far as compensation is concerned, it has specifically been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties that they are ready to pay compensation but for that proper application is to be made as per the statutory provision either before the Collector or before the concerned District Judge. Taking into consideration the public interest at large and the purpose for which the transmission line is being installed, according to my considered view, the construction work of transmission line cannot be put at hold. 10. Taking into consideration the public interest at large and the purpose for which the transmission line is being installed, according to my considered view, the construction work of transmission line cannot be put at hold. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated herein above and taking into consideration the fact that the action of the transmission company is in consonance with the statutory provision, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, however, the petitioner, if so wishes and if occasion arises, he may ventilate his grievance for getting compensation under the statutory provision. Interim order dated 16.2.2017 stands vacated. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.