JUDGMENT : M.M.SUNDRESH, J. This present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge, who while setting aside the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the third respondent on the premise that in the absence of any damage to the trees, crops, building or permanent structure in the land, the other questions pertaining to damages cannot be decided under Section 10d of the Indian Telegraph Act,1855 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order impugned remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the third appellant for fixing the compensation for dilution of the value of the land caused due to the overhead lines. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 10d which comes under part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 does not deal with either damage or compensation to the property per se except those involving trees, crops or permanent structure, as the case may be. On facts, it is submitted that even otherwise there is no damage. Therefore, the only remedy open to the first respondent/writ petitioner is to invoke Section 16(3) of the Act or by way of filing a suit before the District Court. Reliance has been made on the judgment of the Apex Court in Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others ( (2017) 5 SCC 143 ) with specific reference to the following paragraphs:- 23. We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the writ Petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 24. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed by the time the writ Petitioner started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilised for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds etc. while laying down these transmission lines, it is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lines to the minimum and least extent possible. That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case. Another important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that no blasting is permissible within 300 mts. from the 400KV line (already existing) or the tower structure. Mining of limestone can be taken up by adopting the methods other than use of explosive/blasting-without damage to the tower foundation/tower structure or the line, which can be accomplished by using jack hammer/pneumatic hammer with compressor so as to avoid any damage to the line or tower. This aspect has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment dated March 11, 2008. The Division Bench did not differ with any of these findings. Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2016 preferred by the writ Petitioner stands dismissed. 25. At this stage, we deal with the direction of the Division Bench regarding compensation payable to the writ Petitioner, or for that matter to the State Government. In the first instance, no such claim was laid by the writ Petitioner in the writ petition or by the State Government before the High Court. Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the provisions of Section16(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. 26. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear 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. 26. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear 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. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ Petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted that what is not available under Section 10d of the Act cannot be introduced while interpreting the statutory provision. The aforesaid section only speaks of the property and, therefore, the damage has to be recovered to the property and not meant to be restricted to a standing crop, tree or permanent structure. The learned Senior Counsel lays emphasis on the word “any property” and “any damage”. Therefore, even assuming Section 16(3) of the Act is applicable, which may not be to the case on hand since the sufficiency has not been dealt with, there is nothing in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Incidentally, it is submitted that inasmuch as the ultimate decision lies with the District Court, the law governing will have to be clarified so that the first respondent/writ petitioner will have an opportunity to get the adequate compensation without going into the question of entitlement. 5. We are concerned with the interpretation of two provisions, namely, Section 10(d) and 16(3). Section 10(d) comes under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, which deals with the power of the Telegraphic Authority to place telegraphic line and posts. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, Section 10(d) imposes a responsibility on the telegraph authority to make sure that any property which it deals with is put into a little damage as possible while exercising its power. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has widened the scope to include “any property” and, therefore, “any damage”. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has widened the scope to include “any property” and, therefore, “any damage”. As the provision is couched with a wider connotation, restrictive meaning is contrary to the object and rationale leading to its interpretation. 6. Section 10(d) has to be read in conjunction with Section 16(3). Section 16(3) speaks of “any dispute”. Therefore, one has to concern with the disputes between the owner and the telegraphic authority. We cannot define the dispute in a restrictive way. Such definition is not meant to be introduced under Section 16(3) and that is the reason why it clearly says that any dispute between the parties while exercising the power by the telegraphic authority under Section 10(d). Therefore, Section 10(d) imposes an element of responsibility to the telegraphic authority asking it to exercise caution and restraint with respect to a possible damage to any property, any dispute in the exercise of such a power would be amenable to Section 16(3). The word 'sufficiency of compensation' has also to be given a wider interpretation. When we speak about the sufficiency of compensation it will also include the case of no-compensation as well. Otherwise not only Section 10(d) but Section 16 would become redundant and otiose. There is no difficulty in understanding the aforesaid provision in Section 16(3), which confers the power on the District Court to adjudicate upon any dispute between the telegraphic authority on the one hand and the owner on the other hand. 7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to permit the first respondent/writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by invoking Section 16(3) by making an application. On such application, we expect the jurisdictional District Court to decide all the issues on the question of sufficiency of the compensation provided the writ petitioner would be able to show the damage. 8. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. In view of the limited scope involved, we expect the jurisdictional District Court to dispose of the application to be filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such application.