JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief : "...To issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 vide Ref.No.11082/LA/NH-16/Pkg.III/PIU/V/NHAI/2023-24/94, dated 20.04.2024 is not paying the revised compensation fixed by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner land in RS No.639/1A1 to an extent of Acs.2250 cents in Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural fallen HT lines, without any Authority as arbitrary, illegal and as unjust and issue a consequential direction directing the respondent No.3 to pay revised compensation (Rs.1,90,57,500/- - Rs.26,56,376/- = Rs.1,64,01,124/-) to the petitioner by implementing order in Rc.Coord-3/977/2002, dated 19.02.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 not to take any steps for any for installation of electrical towers in the land of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders..." 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows : 3. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land situated in RS.No.639/IAI to an extent of Ac.0.2250 Cents in Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, NTR District and he has been cultivating the subject land since long time and due to fast urbanization, he made an application seeking for conversion of subject land for non-agriculture purposes, but, the said application is pending for consideration before the respondents/concerned authority. Pending his application, respondent No.3 addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 on 15.07.2022 for fixing the compensation in respect of lands to be affected, in view of shifting/erection of electrical High Tension (HT) lines, pursuant to the laying of a National Highway bypass road from Chinna Avutapalli Village to Gollapudi in Vijayawada, Gundugolanu Section of NH-16 in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Bharatmala Pariyojana on Hybrid Annuity Mode. Respondent No.3 also addressed a letter to the Electrical Department Authorities requesting for taking steps for such shifting of Electrical HT lines, as per the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. 4. Respondent No.3 also addressed a letter to the Electrical Department Authorities requesting for taking steps for such shifting of Electrical HT lines, as per the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 herein passed an award vide proceedings dated 23.11.2022 without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate the nature of lands of the petitioner and unilaterally determined the compensation as Rs.26,56,376/- as if the land of the petitioner is an agricultural land, ignoring the nature of the land which is situated within the urban agglomeration and also adjacent to the Corporation core area. He further submits that respondent No.4 while passing the award dated 23.11.2022 neither observed the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 nor observed the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act No.30 of 2013) and also not adhered to the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Counsel further submits affirms that the land of the petitioner situated in Rs.No.639/1A to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents of Nunna Village was converted from Agriculture to non-agriculture purposes as ordered by the competent Authority vide proceedings dated 24.08.2022, which is much prior to the proceedings of the award passed by respondent No.4. Moreover, the compensation fixed in respect of the petitioner's land is in two categories, one is for payment of compensation for the land occupied by the Tower Base Area i.e., Ac.0.225 cents as Rs.26,43,750/- and the second category is Right of Way (ROW) Area Compensation as Rs.1,78,600/- towards damage of crops due to Right of Way as electrical HT lines are passing through the petitioner's land. 6. Learned Counsel also submits that the entire award passed in respect of the petitioner is contrary to the facts in hand and contrary to law. Moreso, without observing the principles of natural justice and also the principle of fair and reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case. Having suffered with the illegal award dated 23.11.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein for consideration of the claim of the petitioner and placed evidence before the respondents. Moreso, without observing the principles of natural justice and also the principle of fair and reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case. Having suffered with the illegal award dated 23.11.2022, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein for consideration of the claim of the petitioner and placed evidence before the respondents. While so, after having an enquiry and after the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural Mandal and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, the respondent No.4 revised the compensation in respect of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 19.02.2024 awarding an amount of Rs.1,90,57,500/- towards compensation of land covered under Tower Base Area as affected land and issued direction to respondent No.3 to deposit an amount, after deducting the amount already deposited i.e., Rs.26,56,376/- out of Rs.1,90,57,500/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for remaining balance of Rs.1,64,01,124/-. 7. Learned Counsel further reiterates that even though the said proceedings were issued on 19.02.2024, so far respondent No.3 neither challenged the proceedings of respondent No.4 on any ground nor deposited the amount as directed. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent Authority addressed a letter to the respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 20.04.2024, wherein it is observed that the shifting of electrical HT lines is taken up on 15.07.2022, as such, the rate should be taken as per the current rates at the time of evaluation of the tower on position but not at the present rate, as such the enhancement of compensation at this juncture is not acceptable and contrary to the scheme of the Act. Whereas, the respondent No.4 rightly determined the compensation amount as per the G.O. Rt. No.83, Energy, Infrastructure and Investment (Pr.II.A2) Department, dated 20.06.2017 and passed an award on 23.11.2022. Having no other option, the petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 20.04.2024 addressed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to respondent No.4. 8. Learned Counsel further contends that the proceedings of respondent Nos.2 and 3, dated 20.04.2024 are contrary to the material evidence placed before respondent No.4. It is a fact which cannot be rebutted that the petitioner's land was converted for the purpose of non-agricultural much before to the determination of compensation and award by respondent No.4 herein. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Authority cannot contend that the award vide proceedings dated 23.11.2022 is right enough and it cannot be interfered with is contrary to law and facts in hand. 9. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Authority cannot contend that the award vide proceedings dated 23.11.2022 is right enough and it cannot be interfered with is contrary to law and facts in hand. 9. Learned Counsel further submits that the G.O. Rt. No.83, dated 20.06.2017 which is a basis for awarding compensation is not at all applicable to the petitioner since it is exclusively meant for the licensees defined under the Electricity Act, 2003. The respondent herein is not a licensee as defined under the Act. As such, the determination of the compensation in terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 is contrary to the facts in hand and also not applicable to the petitioner herein. He also affirms that respondent No.4 herein rightly corrected and modified the old award and passed new Award in favour of the petitioner by applying the provisions as contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act No.30 of 2013"). As such, the same cannot be found fault with. He further contends that once respondent Nos.2 and 3 acted upon and paid the compensation to other affected parties pursuant to the proceedings of respondent No.4, dated 23.11.2022, now they cannot canvass that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to revise the compensation in favour of the petitioner is nothing but taking "U" turn by the Public Authority more particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3, as they neither preferred any appeal proceedings against the orders of respondent No.4 dated 19.02.2024 nor paid the amount as was done in respect of others is nothing but in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 10. Whereas, the conversion of the land of the petitioner took place after the letter addressed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 to respondent No.4, dated 29.06.2022 and also issued proceedings for determination of compensation and initiated shifting/erection of electrical HT lines on 15.07.2022 are denied for want of knowledge and the petitioner was never issued any notice for appearance and for passing compensation award. He further submits that since respondent No.4 passed an order modifying the Award in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of respondent No.4. On the other hand, the petitioner is ready to accept the revised compensation as directed by respondent No.4. He further submits that since respondent No.4 passed an order modifying the Award in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is not aggrieved by the order of respondent No.4. On the other hand, the petitioner is ready to accept the revised compensation as directed by respondent No.4. Therefore, the petitioner need not be questioned the proceedings dated 19.02.2024 as contended by the respondents. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is stated that in the process of laying six-lane bypass road from Chinna Avutapalli Village to Gollapudi in Vijayawada Gundugolanu Section of NH-16 in the State of Andhra Pradesh under Bharath Mala Pariyojana on Hybrid Annuity Mode (PKG-III), the shifting of electrical HT lines were proposed in the interest of public safety. Pursuant to the said proposal, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein addressed a letter to respondent No.4 vide letter dated 29.06.2022 for determining the compensation to be payable to the affected parties/land owners due to the shifting of electrical HT lines and shifting of line was also initiated by the authorities on 15.07.2022. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for NHAI also submits that pursuant to the request of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.4 determined the compensation as per the information submitted by the Electricity Department for shifting of electrical HT lines. 13. Admittedly, respondent No.4 herein followed the terms of G.O. Rt. No.83, dated 20.06.2017 passed by the Department of Energy, Infrastructure & Investment Department and respondent No.1 for determining the total compensation to be paid to the affected land owners for the subject shifting of electrical HT lines; including compensation for Tower Base Area, ROW area and crop damage. After determination, he passed an Award, accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein deposited the award amount in respect of affected land owners towards their compensation. She further submits that in case of any difference/dispute in relation to the amount of compensation, the aggrieved party should approach the Appellate Authority i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission as provided under the Electricity Act, 2003. Without availing the statutory alternative remedy as enumerated under the Act, the petitioner invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for implementation of the enhanced compensation by respondent No.4 is contrary to the rules in vogue. 14. Without availing the statutory alternative remedy as enumerated under the Act, the petitioner invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for implementation of the enhanced compensation by respondent No.4 is contrary to the rules in vogue. 14. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that there is no need for the acquisition of land for laying electrical HT lines, for the reason the electricity authority would make use of the land either for installing a tower in a small extent of land or right of way for the lines as per the plan but the entire ownership of subject land including land under tower base area and the land under Right of Way of electrical lines with the landlord only. As such, the landlord can make use of the subject land as per his wish and there is no requirement of acquisition as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. She further submits that since it is not an acquisition of ownership from the landlord, therefore, applicability of the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 does not arise. The said issue was clarified and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "n" number of judgments rendered by it. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Act No.30 of 2013 should be made applicable in respect of the land of the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act apart from provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act where under Right of Way (ROW) was provided. She further submits that all the affected parties had attended the meetings conducted by respondent No.4 and gave their respective consent for such utilization of land for the erection of electrical HT lines. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI further submits that the proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 23.11.2022 determining the compensation regarding affected properties is in accordance with the terms of G.O. Rt. No.83, dated 20.06.2017 as well as under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 only. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards the petitioner was also determined as per terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 and under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 only, but not under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 as alleged by the petitioner. No.83, dated 20.06.2017 as well as under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 only. Accordingly, the compensation awarded towards the petitioner was also determined as per terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 and under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 only, but not under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 as alleged by the petitioner. She further affirms that the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 is not at all applicable to make use of the land of the affected parties for laying of electrical HT lines, for the reasons stated above. She further submits that the impugned proceedings cannot be issued by respondent No.4 revising the old determination of compensation in respect of the petitioner on the ground that land of the petitioner was converted for non-agricultural purposes land is during the pendency of Award. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the time of Award on 23.11.2022 and more so, the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 is also not made applicable, while determining the compensation and Award dated 23.11.2022, which is in accordance with the facts in hand and as per law in force. Therefore, the revised order dated 19.02.2024 by respondent No.4 is invalid, illegal, and void. 16. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI further submits that the entire revised order came to be passed due to the only reason that the Agricultural land was converted into non-agricultural purposes due to which the compensation was enhanced but the said conversion proceedings have been issued on 24.08.2022, after the initiation of the erection/shifting of electrical HT lines by the respondents on 15.07.2022. Therefore, at the time of initiation of shifting and laying of electrical HT lines, the subject land is agricultural land only. Even as per the survey report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 26.03.2024, specifically states that the land of the petitioner is still in agricultural land only. Therefore, getting conversion before determination of compensation after initiation of steps for shifting the electrical HT lines is an afterthought of the petitioner and he is not entitled to a revised order by respondent No.4 which is contrary to the facts and law in force. 17. Therefore, getting conversion before determination of compensation after initiation of steps for shifting the electrical HT lines is an afterthought of the petitioner and he is not entitled to a revised order by respondent No.4 which is contrary to the facts and law in force. 17. The learned Standing Counsel for NHAI also relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Limited and another, (2022) 6 SCC 401 , has categorically held as follows : "Para 48. Even while entertaining the writ petition and/or granting the stay which ultimately may delay the execution of the Mega projects, it must be remembered that it may seriously impede the execution of the projects of public importance and disables the State and/or its agencies/ instrumentalities from discharging the constitutional and legal obligation towards the citizens. Therefore, the High Courts should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercise of its discretion while entertaining such petitions and/or while granting stay in such matters. Even in a case where the High Court is of the prima facie opinion that the decision is as such perverse and/or arbitrary and/or suffers from mala fides and/or favouritism, while entertaining such writ petition and/or pass any appropriate interim order, High Court may put to the writ petitioner's notice that in case the petitioner loses and there is a delay in execution of the project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with the damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be due to such frivolous litigations initiated by him/it. With these words of caution and advise, we rest the matter there and leave it to the wisdom of the concerned Court(s), which ultimately may look to the larger public interest and the national interest involved." 18. The learned Standing Counsel for NHAI also relied upon the judicial decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. N.G. Projects Limited v. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, (2022) 6 SCC 122, wherein it is observed as under : "Para 21. Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision should be kept in view even by the writ Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 19. The learned Standing Counsel for NHAI also relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and others (Central Vista Project Case), (2022) 11 SCC 1 , wherein it is held as follows : "Para 575. Deviating from constitutional obligation of the Court, we may also note that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 aligned the view of the Legislature in this direction with the insertion of Section 20-A and clause (ha) to Section 41 which prohibited the grant of injunction against infrastructural projects. The underlying legislative intent of the Legislature is to protect such projects from inappropriate use of Court processes. Therefore, there is no doubt that the broad approach of a Constitutional Court in dealing with a public interest matter has to be a vigilant one to further larger public interest. The laws delay due to tardy flow of Court processes (for variety of reasons attributable to different stakeholders or duty holders or so to say systematic one) must not let itself become an impediment in the fulfilment of development goals of our hallowed nation and consequently to the future generation. Depending on the subject-matter, the constitutional Courts must address the legal challenges at the earliest opportunity without being bogged down by technicalities, in national interest." 20. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI also relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and others, (2018) 17 SCC 324 , wherein it is observed as under : "Para 58. In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to point out that there may be situations where conflict may arise between two fundamental rights. Situation can be conflict on inter fundamental rights, intra fundamental rights and, in certain peculiar circumstances, in respect of some person one fundamental right enjoyed by him may come in conflict with the other fundamental right guaranteed to him. Situation can be conflict on inter fundamental rights, intra fundamental rights and, in certain peculiar circumstances, in respect of some person one fundamental right enjoyed by him may come in conflict with the other fundamental right guaranteed to him. In all such situations, the Court has to examine as to where lies the larger public interest while balancing the two conflicting rights. It is the paramount collective interest which would ultimately prevail." 21. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI further submits that pursuant to the revised order of respondent No.4 dated 19.02.2024, respondent Nos.2 and 3 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 on 20.04.2024 seeking clarification regarding the method and manner of refixing the compensation in respect of the petitioner herein. But, so far, respondent No.4 had not replied. But, in meanwhile, the present writ petition is came to be filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.4 dated 23.11.2022 determining the compensation in respect of the affected parties including the property of the petitioner is in accordance with law and in terms of G.O. Rt. No.83, dated 20.06.2017. It does not require any modification. The impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is contrary to the facts in hand and law in force more particularly contrary to the terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 and also applying the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 is nothing but contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated supra. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 22. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for NHAI/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also perused the material placed on record. 23. No representation on behalf of respondent No.4 and no counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.4 to substantiate his proceedings dated 19.02.2024. 24. In fact, the proposed action of shifting of electrical HT lines for laying of Road from Chinna Avutpalli Village to Gollapudi in Vijayawada, Gundugolanu Section of NH-16 is meant for public interest only. It is an admitted fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 in compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 for determination of the compensation in respect of affected parties for shifting of electrical HT lines on 29.06.2022. It is an admitted fact that respondent Nos.2 and 3 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 in compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 for determination of the compensation in respect of affected parties for shifting of electrical HT lines on 29.06.2022. Pursuant to which respondent No.4 initiated steps on 15.07.2022 and conducted meetings with the affected property holders and after their respective consent, he proceeded further and determined the compensation in terms of G.O. Rt. No.83, wherein the procedure for determination of compensation was enumerated and also in compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. 25. It is also observed that the compensation award dated 23.11.2022 issued by respondent No.4 purely in terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 and as per the provisions contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003 only but not under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013. It is an admitted fact that the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 neither invoked nor applied in determining the compensation by respondent No.4, while passing the Compensation Award on 23.11.2022 in respect of all other affected parties. 26. It is a settled proposition of law that the compensation shall be determined for laying of electrical HT lines as per the terms of G.O. Rt. No.83 and as per the provisions under the Electricity Act, 2003 apart from Right of Way for erection HT lines as provided under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. As such, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions under Act No.30 of 2013 were applied in respect of all the affected parties including the petitioner vide Award dated 23.11.2022 by respondent No.4 is contrary to the law and on facts. Hence, liable to be rejected. 27. On perusal of the impugned proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 19.02.2024, revising of the compensation on the basis that the subject land of the petitioner was converted into the non-agricultural purposes and applying the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013, is contrary to the settled law, for the reason that the petitioner as well as other affected parties are not parting their ownership except allowing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make use of subject land for laying electrical lines. Even after erection of electrical HT lines, the ownership of the land is vested with the petitioner as well as the other affected property holders. Even after erection of electrical HT lines, the ownership of the land is vested with the petitioner as well as the other affected property holders. Moreso, no acquisition proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013. In the absence of any acquisition proceedings under Act No.30 of 2013, the claim of the petitioner for determining of compensation under the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 is erroneous and contrary to the facts and liable to be set aside and also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since the Award dated 23.11.2022 was passed as per G.O. Ms. No.83 only. 28. In respect of determining the value of the affected land of the petitioner which is converted into non-agricultural purposes, after initiation of steps for shifting of electrical HT lines and before passing an award for compensation, the conversion of land of the petitioner into non-agricultural purposes was happened. But, the said fact was not considered by respondent No.4 while passing award on 23.11.2022, whereas the same was considered pursuant to the representation and revised the compensation on the ground of the nature of land of the petitioner is non-agricultural land before to the Award is valid and reasonable, since the land is non-agricultural land before to the Award. 29. It is further observed that the revision of Compensation Award dated 19.02.2024 in respect of the petitioner applying the provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 is contrary to the law in respect of multiplying the compensation and total compensation arrived by respondent No.4 on the basis that subject land is non-agricultural land. 30. The other contention of learned Counsel for the respondents is that in case of any dispute or for difference of compensation as claimed by any affected party, after such determination by the competent authority/respondent No.4, the further appeal lies to Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is valid, in view of the provisions mentioned herein. 30. The other contention of learned Counsel for the respondents is that in case of any dispute or for difference of compensation as claimed by any affected party, after such determination by the competent authority/respondent No.4, the further appeal lies to Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission is valid, in view of the provisions mentioned herein. The relevant Sections of the Electricity Act, 2003 are as follows : "Section 2 :--Definitions (4) "Appropriate Commission" means the Central Regulatory Commission referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 76 or the State Regulatory Commission referred to in Section 82 or the Joint Commission referred to in Section 83, as the case may be; (64) "State Commission" means the State Electricity Regulatory Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 82 and includes a Joint Commission constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 83; Works of licensees 67. Provision as to opening up of streets, railways, etc.-(3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. (4) Where any difference or dispute [including amount of compensation under sub-section (3)] arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission." 31. Therefore in view of the availability of the statutory alternative remedy, the aggrieved party shall approach to the State Regulatory Commission as referred above. 32. The case in hand that the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since respondent No.4 already revised the compensation and passed an order dated 19.02.2024 is only seeking implementation of the same, but not seeking any further enhancement. On the other hand, the petitioner filed this writ petition for implementation of the same. Therefore, the petitioner is not aggrieved party in view of the revised proceedings dated 19.02.2024. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to proceed further if they are aggrieved. As such the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 33. It is further observed that in compliance of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and with reference to the G.O. Rt. It is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to proceed further if they are aggrieved. As such the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 33. It is further observed that in compliance of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and with reference to the G.O. Rt. No.83, respondent Nos.2 and 3 requested respondent No.4 for determination of compensation and accordingly after such determination by respondent No.4 they complied the same and now ignoring the same and issuing the proceedings dated 19.02.2024, revising the Award in respect of the petitioner is nothing but an action of Approbate and Reprobate and to blow hot and cold. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 3 should be acted upon regarding the revised compensation proceedings in accordance with law. 34. On the above analysis, the revised compensation proceedings issued by respondent No.4 dated 19.02.2024 is contrary to the law in respect of the application of provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 for determining the compensation. But, in respect of considering the nature of land i.e., conversion of land as non-agricultural purposes much before to the determination of compensation proceedings dated 23.11.2022 and determination of compensation as non-agricultural land is valid and reasonable. 35. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is allowed-in-part, with the following directions : (i) The revised order of compensation issued by respondent No.4 vide Proceedings Rc.Coord-3/977/2022, dated 19.02.2024 is hereby set-aside in respect of the application of provisions of Act No.30 of 2013 i.e., multiplication of 2.5 times of compensation. (ii) Further, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the revised compensation on the ground of non-agricultural land and an amount of Rs.76,23,000/- as determined by respondent No.4, within a reasonable period. (iii) However, since the statutory alternative remedy is available, it is further directed both parties are at liberty, if they aggrieved to invoke the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, as stated supra, in accordance with law. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 36. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.