JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad assisted by Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, learned Advocates, Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary for Bihar Grid Company Limited and Mr. Rakesh Ambastha for the State. 2. The appellant is the land owner, on whose land the respondent no. 4 and 5/Bihar Grid Company Limited has proposed to erect a tower for completing the transmission line of electricity. 3. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that this could have been avoided by shifting the situs to a nearby plot which is by the side of the road which would not have created any resistance in the transmission of the electrical energy. Another via media was suggested by the appellant that for the stretch of the wire which would otherwise be stringed overhead on the land of the appellant, for such stretch, the Grid Company could consider taking/firing the wire underground. 4. Both of these suggestions did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. 5. The reason for rejecting such proposal was the stand of the Bihar Grid Company Limited that for laying such high tensile wires for such a long distance which in this case is 200 metres, it has to be, as far as possible, in a straight line. Any deviation would cause loss of electrical energy. 6. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Bihar Grid Company Limited that out of 69 towers which were proposed to be erected for the transmission line, 67 towers have already been erected. Any deviation in the plan at this stage, even if it causes some difficulty for one of the land owners through whose land the electric line would be stringed, the same cannot be changed. 7. The suggestion of the appellant that for that stretch, the Grid Company could have thought of underground wiring is also not acceptable for the reason that if major part of the transmission line which is to be laid, is overhead, then for a small stretch, it would be simply impracticable to make it underground. 8. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of the appellant. 9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. At this point, Mr. 8. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of the appellant. 9. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 10. At this point, Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, learned Advocate addressing this Court has invited our attention to the fact that the ratio of a judgment which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge does not apply to the facts of this case. 11. We do not wish to get into that issue for the reason that we do not find the contention of the appellant to be acceptable for the reasons that we have noted above. 12. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that in case the appellant would like to be restituted/compensated, there is a procedure delineated for it which could be invoked by him as and when he desires. We agree. 13. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.