JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking quashment of the Notification dated 19.06.2006 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 28 and Clause (e) of Section 18 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are stated hereinafter. 2. The appellant No. 1 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 91 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas, Sy. No. 109/30B measuring 0.20 guntas and Sy. No. 91 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, whereas, appellant No. 2 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 110/3, 110/6, 110/4, 110/5 measuring 10 guntas, 24 guntas, 0.09 guntas and 1 acre and 10 guntas respectively of Kumbalagodu Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which is ear marked for industrial purpose. 3. The respondent No. 2 viz., Executive Engineer of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) published a scheme on 19.06.2006 for High Tension line of 66/11 KV sub-station at Kengeri. Thereafter, a notice in the newspapers was published on 24.06.2006 for the establishment of High Tension line connecting to Kengeri sub-station. Another publication was made on 25.06.2006 in Deccan Herald. It is the case of the appellants that without disclosing the particulars of the land which were required for the aforesaid purpose and only mentioning the name of the village in the Notification issued under Section 28 & Section 18(e) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Notification was published for drawing a line for establishing 2x20 MVA 66/11 KV sub-station at Kengeri Satellite Town in Bangalore. It is the case of the appellants that the officials of respondent No. 2-Corporation in order to dig the pits in the lands unauthorizedly entered into the lands of the appellants on 29.12.2006. 4. Thereupon, the appellant No. 1 lodged a complaint with the respondents and it was brought to the notice of the officials of respondents that there were standing crops on the land in question as well as coconut trees, which are more than 20 years old. The appellant No. 1 also lodged a complaint in the police station of Bidadi. 4. Thereupon, the appellant No. 1 lodged a complaint with the respondents and it was brought to the notice of the officials of respondents that there were standing crops on the land in question as well as coconut trees, which are more than 20 years old. The appellant No. 1 also lodged a complaint in the police station of Bidadi. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition before this court seeking a writ of certiorari namely. WP No. 19026/2006 for quashment of the Notification dated 19.06.2006, which was published in the gazette on 17.08.2006 and also sought for a direction prohibiting the respondent to desist from drawing high tension electricity lines as well as a direction to draw the said line on the Government land as well as the lands of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). This court by order dated 22.01.2007 disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the appellants to approach the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District for redressal of his grievance. 5. The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner seeking removal of obstruction caused by the respondents in erecting the tower and also sought for a direction to put the concrete platform to erect the towers for drawing of the electricity lines. The appellants filed detailed statement of objections before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 03.03.2007 allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and permitted the respondents to proceed with work of erection of towers. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this court seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 19.06.2007, which was published in Karnataka Gazette on 17.08.2006. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.12.2009. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this court to the application for production of additional documents on record submitted that the work of erection of the towers and drawing of electricity lines is complete. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this court to the application for production of additional documents on record submitted that the work of erection of the towers and drawing of electricity lines is complete. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in utilizing the land of the appellants without payment of compensation is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellants under Articles 14 and 21 as well as the constitutional right guaranteed to the appellants under Section (sic Article) 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondents are liable to pay just and fair compensation to the appellants in accordance with law. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has justified the action of the Corporation in making use of the property of the appellants. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS. DARIUS CHENNAI, (2005) 7 SCC 627 held that in view of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of power of eminent domain may interfere with the right of the property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. In N. PADMAMMA VS. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY', (2008) 15 SCC 517 , it was held that right to hold the property is a human right as also a constitutional right and the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India protects the right to hold the property. Similar view was taken in DELHI AIR TECH SERVICES (P.) LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P.', (2011) 9 SCC 354 . The aforesaid principles were reiterated with approval in VIDYA DEVI supra. It is equally well settled in law that this court on the analogy of principles contained in Order VII Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure can mould the relief. [See: 'BHASKAR LAKSHMAN JHADAV VS. KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY', (2013) 11 SCC 531 ]. 8. The respondent No. 1 is the instrumentality of the State and respondent No. 2 is its officer. [See: 'BHASKAR LAKSHMAN JHADAV VS. KARAMVEER KAKASAHEB WAGH EDUCATION SOCIETY', (2013) 11 SCC 531 ]. 8. The respondent No. 1 is the instrumentality of the State and respondent No. 2 is its officer. The action of the respondents in making use of the land of the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be countenanced in the eye of law and is in flagrant violation of the constitutional right guaranteed to the appellant under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the appellants have been deprived of their right to property. The respondent No. 1 and its officers cannot be permitted to act like private bodies and cannot be permitted to grab the property of the citizens, such a conduct on the part of respondent No. 1 and its officers deserves to be deprecated in the strongest possible terms. 9. Admittedly, the provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885 are applicable to the fact situation of the case for determination of the compensation. The aforesaid legal position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the parties. Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 requires the telegraph authority to do as little damage as possible while maintaining a telegraphic line, which passes through any immovable property and requires the same to pay full compensation for all the persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. 10. Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that 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, and the aforesaid dispute shall be determined by the District Judge. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, the telegraph authority viz., respondent No. 1 has not made payment of any compensation to the appellants who have been deprived of their right to enjoy their immovable property. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, the telegraph authority viz., respondent No. 1 has not made payment of any compensation to the appellants who have been deprived of their right to enjoy their immovable property. Therefore, at the first instance, the telegraph authority is directed to determine the amount of compensation in respect of the damage caused to the appellants by drawing up of transmission lines over the lands of the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today by a speaking order and to pay the same to the appellants. 12. Needless to state that incase, the appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, which will be paid to them, it will be open for them to make a reference to the Deputy Commissioner who shall refer the dispute which may be raised by the appellants for adjudication to the District Judge. 13. In view of subsequent events, which have taken place during the pendency of this appeal viz., the fact that the transmission line had already been laid down and the same has been charged and in view of the fact that the appellants have confined their submission only to payment of compensation, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.