ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs, “(a) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus and be further pleased to direct respondent no. 3 to produce all the documents, materials, papers, surveys, maps, etc. relating to their proposed route before my Lordships to satisfy/verify that the said proposed route is finalized after following due process of law and this is the only best opinion available with respondent no. 3 to lay down a 765KV overhead high tension lines which will pass from the petitioner's land and from the Village Amreshwarpura, Taluka Waghodia, District Vadodara. (b) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari and be pleased to quash the proposed route of respondent no. 3 if it is not in accordance with the law and is proposed without following due process of law. (c) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus and be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to reroute/alter the subjected hightension electricity line upon the alternate route. (d) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus and be further pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to submit their representations before respondent no. 5 raising their grievances which may be considered and appropriate decision be taken by respondent no. 5 after giving an opportunity to the petitioners as well as in accordance with the law. (e) Till the admission, pendency, final hearing, and disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to restrain respondent no.3 from installing/erecting any transmission lines and towers and/or felling any trees or removing any agricultural produce upon and in the petitioners' agricultural lands from their proposed route and further be pleased to restrain respondent no. 3 from acting contrary to the Act and the Rules. (f) xxx xxx xxx. (g) xxx xxx xxx.” 2. 3 from acting contrary to the Act and the Rules. (f) xxx xxx xxx. (g) xxx xxx xxx.” 2. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Saket A. Waghela for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Ronak Raval for respondent No.2 and 5 and learned advocate Mr.S.P. Hasurkar for respondent No.3. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners has referred the averments made in the memo of the petition and, thereafter, contended that the petitioners are owners of the agricultural lands situated at Villages : Amreshwarpura, Taluka : Waghodia, District : Vadodara, details of which, are given in Paragraph No.4.1 of the petition. It is submitted that officer of respondent No.3, without conducting any proper inquiry, highhandedly entered into the land of the petitioners on 15.12.2020 and, thereafter, the petitioners were informed that respondent no.3 is proposing to lay down a 765 KV D/c overhead hightension lines from their lands. It is submitted that when the petitioners resisted said unreasonable action of the officer of respondent No.3, he had given threats to the petitioners. He submitted that thereafter, the petitioners have issued notice dated 16.12.2020 through their advocate to respondent No.3 and thereby the petitioners have objected to the action of the Officer of respondent No.3. At this stage, learned advocate has also referred to the reply dated 26.08.2020 given by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that because of the laying down of the transmission line in question, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss. It is also contended that request was made to the respondents to change the route of the said transmission line, however, no response is given by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also made a representation for grant of compensation. However, respondent No.3 has not awarded any compensation to the petitioners. At this stage, learned advocate has referred the chart for tentative compensation amount which was given by respondent No.3 to the petitioners and contended that respondent No.3 has offered very meager amount of compensation and, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.3 to grant compensation to the petitioners. 4. At this stage, learned advocate has referred the chart for tentative compensation amount which was given by respondent No.3 to the petitioners and contended that respondent No.3 has offered very meager amount of compensation and, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.3 to grant compensation to the petitioners. 4. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioners has referred the provisions contained in Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (“the Act” for short) and, thereafter, submitted that it is the duty of respondent no.3 to see that minimum damage takes place because of the installation of the transmission line in question, however, no survey has been carried out by respondent no.3 before laying down of the transmission line. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon an order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.18334 of 2011 and allied matters (Dilip Singh Chauhan Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited). Learned advocate has more particularly placed reliance upon Paragraphs Nos.59 and 60 of the said decision. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has, therefore, urged that this Court may grant reliefs as prayed for in the present petition by giving appropriate direction to respondent No.3. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.S.P. Hasurkar appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 caveator has referred the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4. It is mainly contended that though the petitioners have made representation in writing to respondent no.3 for change of route of the transmission line in question, no specific route is suggested. It is further submitted that it is not possible for the authority to change the route as the route for installation of tower and the transmission line has been decided after obtaining opinion of the experts and, therefore, this Court may not accept the said request. It is further submitted that the chart for giving tentative compensation amount to the petitioners was already supplied to the petitioners and as per the said chart, respondent No.3 will make the payment for compensation in three different stages. It is further submitted that the chart for giving tentative compensation amount to the petitioners was already supplied to the petitioners and as per the said chart, respondent No.3 will make the payment for compensation in three different stages. It is contended on the basis of the affidavit that amount of compensation will be calculated on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 14.08.2017 issued by the State Government and the said amount of compensation will be paid stagewise i.e. foundation, erection and stringing and out of it, last installment of entire remaining compensation will be paid within fifteen days of completion of stringing. It is also contended that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the petitioners can file appropriate proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Act before the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that respondent no.3 has not committed any illegality and tried to see that minimum damage takes place to the lands of the petitioners and, therefore, this Court may not entertain the present petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that before starting the installation work of transmission lines and towers, respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 15.12.2020 to the petitioners. It is further revealed that though the petitioners have prayed in the petition that respondent no.3 be directed to reroute the subject hightension electricity line from the boundaries of the agricultural lands of the petitioners, no specific route is suggested by them and when the query has been raised by this Court, learned advocate is not in a position to answer the same. Thus, it appears that the petitioners have not suggested any alternate route for the subject hightension electricity line from the agricultural lands of the petitioners. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners has also contended that RoW Officer of respondent no.3 forcibly entered into the land of the ownership of the petitioners and misbehaved with them and, therefore, learned advocate has argued that appropriate action is to be taken against the said Officer. However, it is pertinent to note at this stage that the petitioners have not joined the said Officer by name in the present petition nor any relief is prayed in the petition for taking any action against the said officer. 9. However, it is pertinent to note at this stage that the petitioners have not joined the said Officer by name in the present petition nor any relief is prayed in the petition for taking any action against the said officer. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioners thereafter contended that respondent No.3 has not awarded any compensation to the petitioners. However, with regard to the said contention, it is required to be noted that as stated by learned advocate, Mr. Hasurkar appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4, as per Government Resolution dated 14.08.2017 issued by the State Government, appropriate amount of compensation will be calculated and it will be paid stagewise i.e. foundation, erection and stringing and out of it, last installment of entire remaining compensation will be paid within fifteen days of completion of stringing. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the petitioners to contend that respondent No.3 has not awarded any compensation. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 has placed reliance upon the affidavitinreply filed by the authority in a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.15209/2020 having identical issue and copy of which is placed on record at Page No.283 of the compilation. In the said affidavitinreply, it is specifically stated as under: “....With reference to the contentions, in paras E,F,G,K center of grievance of the petitioner is regarding compensation. It is humbly submitted that, so far as the line in question is concerned I assure the Hon'ble court and petitioner also that he will be paid compensation at the same rate and at par with other land owners according to rates prescribed by government. Exact calculation of the compensation is not possible as of now since it would be commensurate with damage sustained to the land and can measured only after damage is occurred. It is practice of the in any law that we pay the compensation stage wise viz. foundation, erection and stringing. Within fifteen days completion of stringing last installment of entire remaining compensation is paid. I also assure petitioner as well as Hon'ble Court that we are paying as per government rate as decided by Government Resolution date 14082017 which takes in to sweep all aspects damages contended in the petition.....” 10. foundation, erection and stringing. Within fifteen days completion of stringing last installment of entire remaining compensation is paid. I also assure petitioner as well as Hon'ble Court that we are paying as per government rate as decided by Government Resolution date 14082017 which takes in to sweep all aspects damages contended in the petition.....” 10. Thus, from the aforesaid averments made on affidavit, it is clear that respondent no.3 has shown willingness to pay the compensation to the petitioners in three stages and the amount of compensation will be calculated as per the Government Resolution dated 14.08.2017. Thus, apprehension shown by the petitioners with regard to this point is also misconceived. However, it is required to be noted that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation, which will be paid by respondent No.3 to the petitioners, it is always open for them to file proceedings under Section 16(3) of the Act before the District Judge. 11. At this stage, this Court would like to refer the provisions contained in Section 10(d) of the Act, which reads as under: “10(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.” 12. In the case of Dilip Singh Chauhan Vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra), this Court has held in Paragraph Nos.59 and 60 as under: 59. As per Section 10(d) there are two mandatory requirements; (1) Telegraph Authority shall do as little damage as possible; and (2) to pay full compensation to all persons interested for the damage sustained by them by the reasons of the exercise of those powers. The next aspect is what will be the scope of as little damage as possible and what will be the scope of ‘full compensation’. Before we address on the said aspect, it will not be out of place to mention that Indian Telegraph Act came to be enacted in the year 1885, much prior to not only Independence of our country, but could rather be said as the law enacted in 19th Century. Before we address on the said aspect, it will not be out of place to mention that Indian Telegraph Act came to be enacted in the year 1885, much prior to not only Independence of our country, but could rather be said as the law enacted in 19th Century. There are far more development not only in the rights of the citizens, but also in the obligation and the way of discharge of duty by the authority and more particularly, after the Constitution has come into force in the country. Further, there are far more development of science, the method and way of enjoyment of the properties by the citizens and so is for various scientific method developed for laying down the lines. Telegraph lines are by now outdated on the date when we are to pronounce the judgement and they are to be substituted for the electricity lines. Therefore, we need to keep in mind the said aspect too. As against the same, the Act of 2003 and more particularly Section 164 of the Act are the laws of 21st Century. At the first brush we may say that by the laws of 21st Century i.e. Electricity Act, the power so conferred by the Act of 19th Century are continued. If the Act of 21st Century providing the method and mechanism under Section 67 of the Act read with the Rules of 2006 are considered, it does require the consent of the owner and also in absence of the consent, if the Police Commissioner or the Magistrate is to grant permission simultaneous assessment of the compensation and the payment thereof subject to revisional power by appropriate Commission, whereas the mechanism so provided under the Telegraph Act is different, but while interpreting the provisions of the Telegraph Act for exercise of the power by any person as that of the Telegraph Act for laying down of the lines of electricity we need to keep in mind the rights and obligations so prevailing in 21st Century and it cannot be as that of 19th Century when the position of the country, including the development in the society and the science was far behind. 60. We may now further proceed to examine the matter, keeping in view the aforesaid backgrounds: (a) The interpretation of the words “authority shall do as little damage as possible”. 60. We may now further proceed to examine the matter, keeping in view the aforesaid backgrounds: (a) The interpretation of the words “authority shall do as little damage as possible”. As such the language itself is clear for showing that the obligation is cast upon the authority to do as little damage as possible. Therefore, attempt on the part of the authority shall be to minimal damage, taking into consideration the whole scheme of laying down of the line. As per the provisions of the Act when the licensee is to lay down the lines for supply or transmission or even for maintenance of electricity generating power station, approval is to be granted by the competent authority or the appropriate Government, as the case may be. Therefore, while granting approval the competent authority or the appropriate Government, as the case may be, would discharge the duty objectively, taking into consideration the larger public interest. Even after the approval is so granted, the attempt on the part of the authority would be to do least damage or as little damage as possible. Such would include that the authority shall not lay down the line over the property of owner or occupier unless it is genuinely required and the lines shall be organized in a manner, which will result into least possible damage. Further, if any change is possible in the line without disturbing, the main object of passing of electricity, the same shall also be taken into consideration. We make it clear that it would not mean that the owner or occupier will have a right for adjudication against the decision of the Electricity Company, more particularly because his suggestion is not accepted for alternative way or that nonacceptance of suggestion of the owner or occupier would give a cause in the Court of law. But the obligation so created by the statute upon the authority to do as little damage as possible should be discharged with the expertise knowledge, keeping in view the objective purpose of safety, the curtailment of the rights of the owner or occupier for the enjoyment of the property and the necessity to lay down the line. But the obligation so created by the statute upon the authority to do as little damage as possible should be discharged with the expertise knowledge, keeping in view the objective purpose of safety, the curtailment of the rights of the owner or occupier for the enjoyment of the property and the necessity to lay down the line. If the laying down of the line in spite of the apparent, alternative way available on the face of it, is insisted by the authority, it may not meet with the test of “as little damage as possible”, but if after taking into consideration of the aforesaid aspect an objective decision is taken to lay down the line over the property of the owner or occupier such would be permissible and it can be said that the obligation to do as little damage as possible is sufficiently discharged. (b) Authority shall pay full compensation to all interested by the reason of exercise of the power” The language itself is apparent, inasmuch as the obligation is so created for payment of full compensation. There would be various methods of assessment of the compensation, but unless it is identified that what damage is sustained, it may not be possible to assess the compensation. Therefore, the words “any damage” is required to be interpreted to mean “all type of damage”. If the land is an agricultural land, the actual occupation of the area for construction of tower is one type of damage, whereas the right curtailed of the owner or occupier to utilize the land for agriculture is another type of damage. If there is exclusive occupation for construction of tower, the damage can be said to be to the fullest extent, since no rights whatsoever remains with the owner to enjoy the property, whereas if the use is permissible in part, there may be damage to that extent to the rights of the owner or occupier for enjoyment of the property. Further, if it is an agricultural land in the peripheral area or nearby area of city it will have the potentiality for nonagricultural use and even if the towers are not constructed, but only overhead line is installed, such may result into curtailment of the rights of the owner or occupier of the property to the fullest extent. Further, if it is an agricultural land in the peripheral area or nearby area of city it will have the potentiality for nonagricultural use and even if the towers are not constructed, but only overhead line is installed, such may result into curtailment of the rights of the owner or occupier of the property to the fullest extent. In the same manner, if on account of the construction of the tower or laying down of the lines, including overhead lines, the actual construction or utilization of the line by making any type of construction is not permissible as per the laws of the local authority, such would also result into a damage to the rights of the owner or occupier. The same principles would apply with more vigor in a case where the line is already located in the urban area or the urban agglomeration or within the area of the local authority, municipality or corporation, as the case may be.” 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law and decision rendered, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is revealed that though the petitioners have made representation to respondent No.3 in writing that route of the subject transmission line be changed for a particular reason, no specific route is suggested. Further, it is the case of respondent No.3 that route of the transmission line in question is decided after taking expert opinion. Thus, in absence of any specific route pointed out by the petitioners, no direction can be issued to respondent No.3. However, the petitioners have pointed out by way of placing map at Page No.77 of the compilation that alternate route is available for laying down the transmission line. The respondent authority is therefore directed to look into the feasibility of the said route, which is suggested by the petitioners in the present petition for the first time and, thereafter, take appropriate decision in accordance with law and after taking advice of the Experts as early as possible. Further, when respondent No.3 has specifically stated on affidavit that compensation for the loss caused to the petitioners will be given to them, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 14. Therefore in view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the present petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.