JUDGMENT : Y. G. Khobragade, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are owners of their respective lands and affected by installation of towers for electric transmission of 132 KV electric line erected in the year 1981 under the scheme known as Ujani Umerga line, pray for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.07.2018 passed in Case No. 138 of 2018 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and praying rental compensation. 3. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of land bearing Gat Nos. 57/B admeasuring 1 H 51 Are, Gat No. 49/K admeasuring 3 H 8 Are, Gt No. 59/1/2/5 admeasuring 5 H. 50 Are, Gat No. 60/3/6 admeasuring 1 H 19 Are, Gat No. 247 admeasuring 1 H. 47 Are and Gat No. 46/2/3/4/5/ admeasuring 2 H situated at Wangi and Ashiv Tq.Ausa Dist. Latur respectively. In the year 1981, the respondent- Transmission Company erected total 11 high tension electricity 132 KV transmission towers under Ujani Omerga line scheme i.e. three towers in the filed of the petitioner No.1, two towers in field of the petitioner No.5 and one tower each in the fields of petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 7. Due to erection of said towers, approximately area about 15 x 15 sq. ft. occupied by each tower and 10 ft. area surrounding to the each tower is also under non-cultivation Therefore, they are deprived of use and enjoyment of agricultural yields of their land to the extent land occupied by the towers since 1981. The Respondent - Transmission Company neither initiated any proceeding for acquisition of land for installation of towers nor they paid compensation. So also, the Revenue Authority has not mutated name of the respondent- Transmission Company to the extent of said area. According to the petitioners, their consent was not obtained while erecting the towers. Therefore, they approached to the respondents- authorities and payed for award of compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010. So also, the Revenue Authority has not mutated name of the respondent- Transmission Company to the extent of said area. According to the petitioners, their consent was not obtained while erecting the towers. Therefore, they approached to the respondents- authorities and payed for award of compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010. Further, on 25.11.2013, when the officials of the respondent-Transmission Company entered into the their agricultural land for trimming of trees branches standing near towers, at that time also they lodged their grievance about non payment of compensation for installation of high tension transmission line, but their grievance has not been considered. Therefore, on 17.11.2014, they filed an Appeal with the District Collector, Latur for compensation and rent, however, on 30.01.2015 the said appeal was rejected for want of jurisdiction and their claim barred by limitation. 4. Being aggrieved by said decision, they preferred Writ Petition No. 9674/2016 before this Court, but on 06.09.2017, the said petition came to be disposed of on ground that the petitioners have alternate remedy under the Statute. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ('the Electricity Regulatory Commission' for short) by filing Case No. 138/2018. On 04.07.2018, the Electricity Regulatory Commission rejected their claim on the ground that the electricity towers in the fields of the petitioners are erected in the year 1981 and compensation claimed for acquisition of land for erection of high tension lines was after lapse of several years and Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010 does not have retrospective effect for the land acquired in the year 1981. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1981 132 KV transmission towers are erected in the agricultural fields of the petitioners without their permission and without payment of compensation. The State Government issued Resolution dated 01.11.2010, which provides for grant of compensation to the agriculturists whose lands are affected due to erection of high tension electricity line but the respondent-Transmission Company failed to pay the compensation. The State Government issued Resolution dated 01.11.2010, which provides for grant of compensation to the agriculturists whose lands are affected due to erection of high tension electricity line but the respondent-Transmission Company failed to pay the compensation. Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates the authority to obtain consent of the land owner before carrying out any such work but the respondent- transmission company neither sought consent nor paid any compensation to the petitioners and entered in the fields of the petitioners and cut down the trees, due to which, crops were damaged, but the Electricity Regularity Commission failed to consider said fact as well as relevant provisions of law and rejected the claim of the petitioners only on the ground that claim of the petitioners was barred by limitation, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the same. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioners further submitted that Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010 empowers the District Collector to direct the respondent- Transmission Company to pay appropriate compensation to the agriculturists who are affected due to erection of high voltage electricity transmissions lines/towers, however, the Electricity Regulatory Commission failed to consider said Government Resolution, though the respondents authority paid compensation to other agriculturists for erection of towers under Ujani - Kaijgavhan, Chakur - Ahmedpur, Nilanga – Umerga and Harangul – Ujani lines. Therefore, the impugned order is violative of principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the same. 7. Per contra, the learned AGP submits that towers are already installed and appropriate compensation has already been paid to the original owners of the respective fields for the damages incurred due to erection of towers in their field while execution of the work in the year 1981. The respondent- electricity authority using the land in exercise of powers provided under section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and it is not necessary to issue notice to the land owners before construction of towers nor any consent is required from the land owner as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act. The petitioners have claimed for compensation first time in the year 2016 for erection of 132 KV transmission towers in their lands in the year 1981. The petitioners have claimed for compensation first time in the year 2016 for erection of 132 KV transmission towers in their lands in the year 1981. Therefore, the Electricity Regulatory Commission rightly rejected claim of the petitioners on ground that claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation and Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010 has no retrospective effect. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that 132 KV Ujni-Umerga line was constructed and commissioned in the year 1981. The petitioner No.8 who is subsequent purchaser, purchased Survey No 57/B in the year 2008 from the original owner and work of erection of 132 KV transmission towers was carried out in the year 1981 with consent of the agriculturists but neither the original owners nor the subsequent purchasers of lands raised any objections nor they ever claimed for compensation for almost 37 years. The petitioners have slept over their right for years together, hence, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation after long decades. Therefore, the Regularity Commission rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners, hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 following decisions: i. Vivek Brajendra Sing Vs. State Government of Maharashtra, 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. 625 . ii. Vijaykumar s/o Prithvirajji Panpalia Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Board, Amravati & ors, 2009 (6) MH.LJ. 172 . 10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners are owners of the land Gat Nos. 57/B , 49/K, 59/1/2/5, 60/3/6, 247 and 46/2/3/4/5/ situated at Wangi and Ashiv Tq. Ausa Dist. Latur respectively. It is not in dispute that, in the year 1981, the respondent- transmission company erected total 11 towers of 132 KV transmission line in agricultural fields of the petitioners and approximately 15 x 15 sq. ft area occupied by each towers, so also, 10 ft land around four sides of the towers not utilized for cultivation or plantation of trees. However, for more than 35-37 years, neither the petitioners nor their predecessors in title raised any grievance for non receipt of compensation. It is needless to say that, on 25.01.2013 one Shri Rajendra Sopan Bansode had filed a complaint against the officials of the respondent- transmission company but he was not party before the Electricity Regulatory Commission. However, for more than 35-37 years, neither the petitioners nor their predecessors in title raised any grievance for non receipt of compensation. It is needless to say that, on 25.01.2013 one Shri Rajendra Sopan Bansode had filed a complaint against the officials of the respondent- transmission company but he was not party before the Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petitioner No. 8 is a subsequent owner who purchased the land in the year 2008, but at that time, 132 KV towers were already in existence in said field. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner No.8 never raised any such grievance. Though the petitioner No.8 was very much aware about existence of high tension electricity towers in the purchased field but only in the year, 2013 he raised objection when the officials of the respondent-transmission company entered in his field for trimming the trees below the high tension. 12. In the case of Vivek Brajendra Singh (Supra), it has been held that no notice or hearing to the public at large or to specific land owner at the stage of planning of the route is necessary. So also, action on the part of the respondent-transmission company in placing the electrical lines over the lands of the petitioners without obtaining the consent of the owner or occupant is not violative of section 12(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The provisions of the Telegraph Act with regard to laying electric wire are applicable to the Transmission Company. The provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 nowhere contemplate acquisition of property, depriving title of the petitioners as observed by this court in the case of Vijaykumar Prithvirajji Panpalia (Supra). Therefore, no question arises for acquisition of the land for installation of towers for electric line. 13. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent-transmission company that, the work of transmission line was carried out with consent of the agriculturists in the year 1981 and 'no objections' were obtained from the respective agriculturists prior to 37 years and compensation was paid to the land owners as per the prevailing policy, but nothing has brought on record to substantiate said submission. 14. 14. It is settled position of law that when electricity board exercises powers under section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 read with section 10 of the Telegraph Act 1885, the authority is not required to obtain consent and no procedure required to be followed for acquisition of the land. Therefore, the submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioners about not obtaining consent of the petitioners prior to acquiring their land, does not appear substantial. 15. Nonetheless, the petitioners are claiming compensation on account of acquisition of their portion of lands for erection of 132 KV transmission in the year 1981 but the petitioners first time raised said grievance after 37 years. Sections 87 and 91 of the Limitation Act provides three years period for recovery of damages/compensation from the date of trespassing or wrongfully taking possession of immovable property. However, the petitioners failed to claim compensation within the statutorily period and there is no recurring cause of action. 16. On perusal of impugned order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Regularity Commission, it shows that the learned Commission observed that the petitioner No.8 cannot claim compensation for the land used in 1981 as he is subsequent purchaser, having purchased the said land in the year 2008 and rejected the claim of the remaining petitioners on ground of delay and laches. Moreover, it is the case of the respondent-authority that the work was done with consent of the owners/agriculturists and compensation has been already paid to them as per the prevailing policy. No doubt the petitioners claimed compensation on account of acquiring their portion of land for erection of 132 KV transmission lines in the year 1981 on the basis of Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010 but the petitioners failed to show that said Government Resolution having retrospective effect. Therefore, the Electricity Regulatory Commission passed the impugned order and rejected claim of the petitioners, which does not appear illegal, arbitrary. 17. In view of the above discussion, we find that the impugned order passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission is just and proper and no interference is called for and there is no merit in the petition. 18. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.