ORDER : SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J. By this application, the applicant, has alleged that the opponent, is guilty of willfully disobeying the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed in captioned Special Civil Application no.14759 of 2023 as well as the order dated 10.10.2023 passed therein. In view of the above, it would be apt at this stage to refer the order, which reads thus:- “Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 has stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the electricity line is not passing through the petitioner’s land bearing Block / Survey Nos. 146, 148, 150, 165, 167 and 169 of Mouje: Salatpur, Tal.: Talod, Dist.: Sabarkantha, which is owned by the petitioner herein. In view thereof, the cause does not survive. In view of above, Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. Petition stands disposed of, as withdrawn.” 2. In this background, following submissions are made:- 2.1 Mr Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that somewhere in the month of August 2023, the applicant, learnt that the officers of the Gujarat State Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘GETCO’) have started foundational work for erection of the electric pole and overhead line on the land bearing block/survey no.146 of mouje Salatpur, taluka Talod, district Sabarkantha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the land in question’) belonging to the applicant. It is submitted that as a result, a representation was also made, bringing it to the notice that the land in question is a non-agricultural land and plans for construction of residential plots have also been sanctioned. Since the request was turned down and the officers of the GETCO continued with the process of erection, that captioned writ petition was filed before this Court, inter alia, praying for direction to the GETCO and its officers not to erect electric pole on the land in question. 2.2 It is submitted that in the pending writ petition, reply was filed, inter alia, stating that the electric line is not passing through the petitioner’s lands, including the land in question. It is submitted that accepting the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the GETCO, that the petition was withdrawn. 2.2 It is submitted that in the pending writ petition, reply was filed, inter alia, stating that the electric line is not passing through the petitioner’s lands, including the land in question. It is submitted that accepting the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the GETCO, that the petition was withdrawn. It is further submitted that despite giving an assurance before this Court, once again, at the very same location, the officer of the GETCO, started erecting the pole. Repeated requests were made by the applicant. The aspect of the writ petition and the order passed were brought to the notice of the officer of GETCO; however, the opponent continued with the erection of the electric pole, which would be in defiance of the undertaking given before this Court, so also the statement made. It is therefore, submitted that clearly, the opponent has willfully disobeyed the statement/undertaking made in the reply filed in the captioned writ petition and the order dated 10.10.2023. 3. On the other hand, Mr S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that initially, the revenue record with respect to the land in question made available, by the District Inspector of Land Records (hereinafter referred to as ‘DILR’), was considered. As per the map, the line, was laid between survey nos.175 and 146, i.e. in the land bearing survey no.160 which is owned and possessed by one Kadwa Patidar Vadi and Salatpur Patel Dhanjibhai Parshottamdas. It is submitted that requisite notices, were issued to the owners of survey no.160; however, no notice was issued to owner of survey nos.146, 175 as, according to the opponent, line was not passing through the land in question. 3.1 It is submitted that the applicant somewhere in the month of December 2023 applied for measurement and it was noticed that the line is passing through the land in question. It is submitted that it was subsequently, realized that the line, is passing through survey no.146 and the reason behind, is clear from the communication issued by the office of DILR dated 12.02.2024. It has been stated that old survey no.290 and survey no.297/p1 were assigned survey no.146; whereas survey no.297/p2, was assigned new survey no.160. It is submitted that it was subsequently, realized that the line, is passing through survey no.146 and the reason behind, is clear from the communication issued by the office of DILR dated 12.02.2024. It has been stated that old survey no.290 and survey no.297/p1 were assigned survey no.146; whereas survey no.297/p2, was assigned new survey no.160. It has also been stated that since there were some discrepancies, that the land owner had filed an application dated 02.02.2016, seeking rectification and accordingly, an order dated 20.02.2016, was passed to carry out the necessary correction. Letter dated 04.03.2016 was addressed to the Mamlatdar together with durastipatrak no.1, with a request to give effect of the said correction in the village map. It has been stated that inadvertently, the effect, has not been given in the village map and the old map with mistake, continued on the record. It is this village map which was made available by the officer of DILR, and on the basis of this map, statement was made. 3.2 While inviting the attention of this Court to the village map of Salatpur (page 55 of the compilation), it is submitted that clearly, the line is passing through survey no.160 and more particularly, the locations 2A/2 and AP-03, were indicated in the said survey number. On the basis of map prepared by the office of DILR and provided to the GETCO, harbouring a bona fide impression, a statement was made that GETCO, is not undertaking any construction of electric pole and the line is not passing through the land in question and is passing through survey no.160. 3.3 It is submitted that there was never any intention to mislead this court by making a false statement. It was purely on the basis of the instructions and documents provided by the office of DILR that the statement was made. It is subsequently upon further verification that the mistake in the map, was unearthed. It is, however, urged that considering the importance of the project, the bona fide mistake on the part of the opponent, be condoned. It was purely on the basis of the instructions and documents provided by the office of DILR that the statement was made. It is subsequently upon further verification that the mistake in the map, was unearthed. It is, however, urged that considering the importance of the project, the bona fide mistake on the part of the opponent, be condoned. It is also submitted that the construction and erection of 66 KV Ujediya Madhavgadh Pumping Station transmission line work, is to be undertaken for providing quality supply to Madhavgadh Pumping Station (PS-1) under Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited and the pumping station, in turn, is required to distribute the water from the Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam through various canal branches to various village of Talod, Prantij and Himmatnagar taluka of district Sabarkantha. It is submitted that the project is in the public interest and therefore, the stay may kindly be vacated and the GETCO be permitted to proceed ahead with the work. It is also submitted that there was never any intention on the part of the opponent to mislead this Court by making a false statement. The bona fide error be condoned and the proceedings be closed. 4. Heard Mr Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the opponent and considered the documents available on record. 5. Pertinently, since the officers of GETCO had undertaken the foundational work for erection of electric pole on the land in question, belonging to the applicant, that a representation was made. As the request was turned down, captioned writ petition was filed before this Court, seeking direction to the respondents therein not to erect the electric line and poles on the land in question. In the said proceeding, reply came to be filed, placing on record the map. In paragraph 6 of the reply, statement was made that generally, the GETCO identifies and fixes the route. Line was approved in the year January 2023 and was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 10.08.2023 and the notification for laying down of the line was published in daily newspaper on 11.08.2023. Paragraph 6 reads thus:- “6. In paragraph 6 of the reply, statement was made that generally, the GETCO identifies and fixes the route. Line was approved in the year January 2023 and was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 10.08.2023 and the notification for laying down of the line was published in daily newspaper on 11.08.2023. Paragraph 6 reads thus:- “6. I state that petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in laying down the transmission line in question from his land described in the petition on the ground that, A) line in question is causing hardship and irrecoverable loss as the line is passing through the land of the petitioner which is a non-agricultural land for residential purpose as averred in the petition. B) The respondents have not complied with statutory procedure. Apropos to A) above, it is stated that the line was approved in the year Jan-2023 and it was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on 10-Aug-2023 and the notification of the laying down of the said line was published in daily newspaper named “Gujarat Samachar” on 11-Aug-2023. A copy of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 10.08.2023 along with publication in daily newspaper is annexed herewith to this petition and marked as ANNEXURE-R3 COLLECTIVELY. Generally, GETCO identifies and fixes the route for the line by utilizing various survey techniques and fixing the angle point by using latitude and longitude of that particular location. These locations are superimposed on official approved DILR village map. In this way, in the case on hand, village map of Salatpur clearly indicates that no poles are laid down in the land of the petitioner. Therefore, it is pertinent to note that line is not passing through the land of the petitioner as alleged in the petition. Even the overhead line is not passing through the land of the petitioner. Copy of maps showing the route of line is annexed herewith to this affidavit in reply and marked as ANNEXURE-R4 COLLECTIVELY. Albeit as according to settled law in the judgment of Himmatbhai Patel V/s Dy. Engineer reported in 2011 GLH 781 no notice is required to be given. Even otherwise, as the line does not pass through the land of the petitioner, no notice was required to be given. Albeit as according to settled law in the judgment of Himmatbhai Patel V/s Dy. Engineer reported in 2011 GLH 781 no notice is required to be given. Even otherwise, as the line does not pass through the land of the petitioner, no notice was required to be given. In this set of circumstances petition may not be entertained and the work of public utility may go on despite the proceedings are pending before this Hon’ble High Court. Apropos to B) above, it is stated that the petitioners have not stated which provision of law or which statutory provision, respondents have not complied with. The petitioners have vaguely stated that raised allegations against the respondents herein. The said line is being laid down after complying all necessary formalities, permissions and there is no allegation of the respondent that any particular mandatory provision of law is violated.” 6. It has been explained that GETCO identifies and fixes the route for the line by utilizing various survey techniques and fixing the angle point by using the latitude and longitude of the location. It is thereafter, the locations are superimposed on officially approved village map prepared and provided by the office of the DILR. It has been further stated that by superimposing it on the village map of Salatpur, a statement was made that no poles are erected on the land in question of the applicant. Further statement was also made that the line is not passing through the land in question of the applicant, as alleged. It was also pointed out that even the overhead line is not passing through the land in question of the applicant. Accepting the said statement made in the reply, that the learned advocate, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by passing an order dated 10.10.2023 recording the statements of respective learned advocates appearing for both sides. 7. It is thereafter, somewhere in the month of December 2023, the officers of GETCO initiated the process of erecting the pole on the land in question of the applicant. As a result, the applicant issued a notice, requesting to stop the work. The order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court and the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply, were also brought to the notice of the opponent. As a result, the applicant issued a notice, requesting to stop the work. The order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court and the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply, were also brought to the notice of the opponent. It is the case of the applicant that despite drawing attention of the opponent that the land in question, on which the work is being carried out, covered by the wire fencing, belongs to the applicant, the opponent, continued with the work which, led to the filing of the captioned application. 8. Reply was initially filed by the opponent, inter alia, stating that the line is not passing through survey no.146, but is passing through survey no.160, which is owned and possessed by one Kadwa Patidar Vadi and Salatpur Patel Dhanjibhai Parshottamdas. Reference is also made to the village form no.7/12 of survey no.160 to substantiate that the line is passing through survey no.160 and not survey no.146. Besides, the applicant before filing the present application, had applied for measurement. By using drone camera, pictures were taken and according to the applicant, it reflects that the electric poles are passing through the land in question. It is on the basis of the said information provided, that the applicant, has alleged that despite having made a statement before this Court that the line is not passing through the land in question, once again that the work, has been carried out which, would be in defiance of the statement made in the reply before this Court, and which led to the passing of the order dated 10.10.2023. 9. During the course of hearing of the captioned application, from the documents, it emerged that line is passing through survey no.146. Stand taken by the opponent now, is that under mistaken belief a statement was made. Otherwise, back then, statement made was in conformity with the record of the office of DILR which, is clear from the communication dated 12.02.2024, (page 103 of the compilation) inter alia, stating that letter dated 04.03.2016 was addressed to the Mamlatdar, sending the durastipatrak no.1; however, the effect of the durasti was not given in the village map. Therefore, the map as on 29.04.2014, was in currency. Such stand, is justified by filing a sur-rejoinder, inter alia, referring to the revenue record, i.e. village form no.7/12 of survey no.146, placed on record, so also the necessary entries. Therefore, the map as on 29.04.2014, was in currency. Such stand, is justified by filing a sur-rejoinder, inter alia, referring to the revenue record, i.e. village form no.7/12 of survey no.146, placed on record, so also the necessary entries. Unconditional apology has been tendered. Considering the said stand, that order dated 07.03.2024 was passed by the co-ordinate bench. Relevant paragraphs 8 to 14 are thus:- “8. Reading the letter would indicate that GETCO is uncertain of the fact whether the line itself is passing through Survey No.146, and therefore, a request was made to the D.I.L.R. to confirm whether the line i.e. passing through, in their perception through Survey No.160 is in fact not passing through Survey No.146 and a clarification was sought for from the D.I.L.R. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Dholariya in the rejoinder has pointed out that despite being uncertain of their own stand of the location of the transmission lines on the lands in question, the work was carried out. Photographs have been placed on record, which according to us, prima facie, indicate that the assertion of GETCO that the transmission line is passing through Survey No.160 belonging to Kadva Patidar Vadi does not meet the eye. Survey No.160 of the Kadva Patidar Vadi is a fully constructed temple campus whereas Survey No.146 is the land in question which is fenced. In fact, from one of the communications annexed with the additional affidavit filed by the learned advocate for GETCO, it would indicate that on 31.01.2024, the Collector issued notice under the provisions of relevant acts i.e. Telegraph Act and Electricity Act asking the petitioner not to obstruct carrying out the works of installation. (Evidentally, it is on the basis of an application made by the Executive Engineer (Bandhkam), GETCO). Astoundingly, what is evident from the remark in the notice which when translated into English would mean that it is the defence of GETCO that there has been a re- arraignment of survey numbers of the land in question and since there is a discrepancy, the D.I.L.R. has been asked to ascertain whether the transmission line is passing through Survey No.160, and/or 146 and therefore, the D.I.L.R. has been asked to clarify whether the assertion of the petitioner that the land through which the lines are passing is of the petitioner i.e. of Survey No.146 or that of the Kadva Patidar Vadi 1.2. 10. 10. This evidentally, therefore, suggests that a blatant power under the provisions of the Acts was exercised by the respondent No.2 through its officers without actual verification of the survey numbers of the lands in question, the owner-ships and even as on date post these contempt proceedings, the Collector is unsure of whether the transmission line is in fact passing through Survey No.146 i.e. of the petitioner or that of the Kadva Patidar Vadi. 11. We are prima facie of the opinion that the statement made by the deponent on the affidavit, the respondent No.2 herein misled the court in passing the order prompting the petitioner to withdraw the petition. The respondent No.2 and its officers have misdirected themselves in misleading this Court in passing an order encouraging the petitioner to withdraw the petition based on the statement so made. 12. We are, therefore of the view, that the respondent No.2 has committed contempt of the orders of this Court. Therefore, issue Rule in prescribed format for this purpose only to the respondent No.2, making it returnable on 20.03.2024. Registry to issue notice under the Contempt of Courts Act in the prescribed format to the respondent No.2. 13. It is clarified that till the date of hearing of this contempt application, no further construction or installation shall be made by the concerned company. 14. Learned advocate Mr. S. P. Hasurkar requests that the implementation and execution of the present order be stayed for a period of four weeks.” 10. Keeping in forefront the importance and object of the project and the urgency expressed by the opponent, the matter was heard. Owing to lack of clarity, with a view to ascertaining the correct position and finding out as to whether the opponent has intentionally made incorrect statement or was a genuine mistake, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was requested to take instructions. Revenue record was placed before us, with a copy to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. There appeared discrepancy in the area of survey no.146 as per the village form nos.7/12 of different years. As per the copies provided of the 7/12 form, the area mentioned was 8,607 sq. mtrs. and in another 7/12 form, the area mentioned was 49,237 sq. mtrs. Similarly, in the 7/12 form with respect to survey no.160, was 63,804 sq. mtrs and 7/12 form of another year, it was 23,057 sq. mtrs. As per the copies provided of the 7/12 form, the area mentioned was 8,607 sq. mtrs. and in another 7/12 form, the area mentioned was 49,237 sq. mtrs. Similarly, in the 7/12 form with respect to survey no.160, was 63,804 sq. mtrs and 7/12 form of another year, it was 23,057 sq. mtrs. Huge variation was noticed in the area which aspect, was difficult to understand. The learned advocates for the applicant and the opponent when were confronted, they could not explain the discrepancy, so also the variation in area and hence, once again the learned Assistant Government Pleader was required to take instructions. Upon instructions, Mr Niraj Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted a compilation of documents, with a copy to the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. The documents are not disputed by either of the parties. 11. Compilation reveals that on 25.09.2012, Maheshkumar Ratilal and others have purchased the land bearing survey no.290 admeasuring 13,057 sq. mtrs. and survey no.297/p1 admeasuring 68,306 sq. mtrs. Mutation entry nos.1817 and 1816 were posted in the revenue record respectively. On 05.03.2013, the Mamlatdar has passed an order, merging survey no.290 with survey no.297/p1 and were assigned a new survey no.290 admeasuring 81,363 sq. mtrs. During the promulgation, survey no.290 was assigned new survey nos.146 and 176 admeasuring 49,237 sq. mtrs. and 19,993 sq. mtrs. respectively. Discernibly, during the proceedings of promulgation, the area mentioned of survey no.146 was inadvertently shown as 8,607 sq. mtrs. instead of 49,237 sq.mtrs. This is the reason because of which in 7/12 forms of the respective year, the area shown is different. An application dated 02.02.2016 was filed by Maheshkumar Ratilal to the office of the DILR, inter alia, pointing out that as per the order dated 05.03.2013 of the Mamlatdar, permitting amalgamation of survey no.290 with survey no.297/p1, the total area was 81,363 sq. mtrs. and which was given block no./survey no.146 and survey no.176. However, the area mentioned, is 8,607 sq. mtrs. and the land is reduced by 72,756 sq. mtrs. Request was made that instead of 8,607 sq. mtrs., necessary correction, be carried out and the actual area of the land, i.e. 81,363 sq. mtrs. be shown. 12. mtrs. and which was given block no./survey no.146 and survey no.176. However, the area mentioned, is 8,607 sq. mtrs. and the land is reduced by 72,756 sq. mtrs. Request was made that instead of 8,607 sq. mtrs., necessary correction, be carried out and the actual area of the land, i.e. 81,363 sq. mtrs. be shown. 12. Accepting the request, the office of the Superintendent of Land Records – cum – Amalgamation Officer, Sabarkantha- Gandhinagar, had passed an order dated 20.02.2016 and necessary corrections were permitted for survey nos.146 and 176. Measurement was undertaken on 08.02.2016. The following correction was ordered: Sr. no. Old Survey no. Area as per 7/12 form Survey no. as per resurvey Area mentioned in the record of resurvey Position after correction in the record Remarks Survey no. Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 290 + 29 08-13-63 146 0-86-07 146 4-92-37 Patel Ketanbhai Hirabhai Dholu etc. Others-7 2 176 1-99-58 176 1-99-93 2 297/p2 2.30.52 160 6-38-04 160 2-30-57 1-President/ Secretary Shri Bavangol Kadwa Patidar Samajwadi Salatpur Patel Dhanjibhai Parshottambhai 13. The said aspect, is not disputed by the applicant. It is thereafter, that the copy was sent to the Mamlatdar, Talod for information and to the office of DILR, Salatpur to prepare kami jasti patrak and further to give effect in village map. Perceptibly, the effect has not been given in the village map and on record, the old map continued, without correction. It is on the basis of the old unaltered village map, provided to the GETCO, harboring an impression that the line is passing through survey no.160 and not survey no.146 statement was made accordingly. On site, indeed, the line was passing through survey no.146 and not survey no.160. The said mistake, was realized during the pendency of the captioned application. Clearly, there was a genuine mistake, on the part of the GETCO, while making the statement before this Court. 14. It is also not in dispute that the project is of constructing and erecting of 66 KV Ujediya Madhavgadh Pumping Station transmission line work which, is with a view to providing the quality supply to Madhavgadh Pumping Station (PS-1) under the aegis of Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Limited. The pumping station, would be distributing water from Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam through various canal branches to various villages of Talod, Prantij and Himmatnagar taluka of district Sabarkantha. The pumping station, would be distributing water from Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam through various canal branches to various villages of Talod, Prantij and Himmatnagar taluka of district Sabarkantha. The project, is in the public interest. 15. Pertinently, Courts need to keep in mind that drastic powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are to be exercised with care and caution. Also, considering the peculiar facts of the present case and what has been revealed from the documents made available, this Court, is of the opinion that there is no willful or intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court or statement made. 16. However, what is not appreciated by this Court is that during the pendency of the captioned application, when the officers of the GETCO realized that the line is passing through survey no.146, it ought to have approached this Court, seeking clarification and/or modification; however, it straightaway initiated steps under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and approached the Executive Magistrate for assistance which, was not in the right earnest. If the opponent, could have approached the District Magistrate, it could have very well approached this Court, more particularly, when this Court was seized of the matter. Such conduct on the part of the officers of GETCO, is deprecated. 17. Considering the same, though contempt proceeding, deserves to be closed, but by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/-, out of which, Rs.15,000/- to be paid to Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the applicant by the respondent within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule is discharged. Misc. Civil Application, is disposed of. Stay granted vide order 23.02.2024, is vacated. 18. At this stage, Mr Bhaumik Dholariya, learned advocate for the applicant, requests for continuation of the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2024. Mr S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the opponent has opposed the said request on the ground that almost substantial work, has been completed, except the two poles on the land in question of applicant and because of which, the opponent, is unable to connect the line and provide the power to the pumping station for distributing the water to 32 villages in taluka Talod, Prantij and Himmatnagar of district Sabarkantha. 19. 19. Considering the importance of the project and when this Court, is of the opinion that there is no willful disobedience of the statement or the order, the request of the applicant, does not deserve to be accepted and is hereby rejected.