JUDGMENT : SUNIL BENIWAL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction:- a. To quash and set aside the approval under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act (Anx.5) dated 04.08.2025 given by Respondent No.1; b. to pass necessary directions against the Respondents, forbearing the Respondent Company from erecting any high-tension electric tower, transmission lines, foundation for the tower or any such incidental activity on the petitioner’s land; c. in alternate direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under relevant laws and guidelines including telegraph act, 1885, Guidelines dated 14.06.2024 and Supplementary Guidelines dated 21.03.2025 issued by the Ministry of Power; d. Any such other and further reliefs be granted as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The facts, in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ petition, are that a high-tension line is in process of installation between Beawar and Mandsaur with approximate length of 273.37 kms. The high-tension line as indicated above is passing through the land owned by the petitioner falling in Khasra Nos.1453/957, 961/1 and 962/1 situated in Village Agarpura, Tehsil and District Bhilwara. The installation of one of the tower, more particularly Tower No.94/0 so also the high-tension line, which would be passing through the field of the present petitioner, is questioned in the present writ petition. 3. While arguing the writ petition, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions :- (i) the respondents are proposing to install tower as well as high-tension line in a totally arbitrary and discriminatory manner while applying arbitrary parameters deciding the distance between two towers. (ii) the respondent - Corporation has deviated the route of the transmission line, which has resulted in direct damage to the petitioner, as the high-tension line would be passing through the land owned by the petitioner, which would damage maximum portion of the land owned by the petitioner without there being any justification to deviate the line. (ii) the respondent - Corporation has deviated the route of the transmission line, which has resulted in direct damage to the petitioner, as the high-tension line would be passing through the land owned by the petitioner, which would damage maximum portion of the land owned by the petitioner without there being any justification to deviate the line. While elaborating this submission it was submitted that as a routine, transmission lines are always installed in a straight line and on account of deviation, the line has been rerouted and is now proposed to pass over the land belonging to the petitioner. (iii) there is a Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) to be adopted while installing tower as well as high-tension line, however, in complete violation of the SOP, the Corporation has proceeded in high handed manner and are bent upon to install the tower and also lay down the high-tension line. (iv) the distance between two towers on either side of the National Highway is not equidistant. On the one side, the tower is at a distance of 83 mtrs., however, on the other side, it is about 114 mtrs. It was submitted that if the tower which is proposed to be installed on the land belonging to the petitioner is also installed at an equidistant of 83 mtrs., it shall cause minimal loss to the present petitioner. 3.1 After filing of the writ petition, an additional affidavit was also filed, wherein a google map has been annexed along with the conversion orders, so as to indicate that the petitioner’s land is converted land. In addition to it, a communication dated 21.11.2025 has also been placed on record so as to indicate that the Corporation is required to abide by certain conditions, which includes one time processing fee of Rs. 5 lacs and so also the bank guarantee. It was submitted that the amount as indicated in the said communication, has been deposited on 22.01.2026 in order to cover up such lacuna. Based on the above submission, it is submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents may either be restrained to install the tower and high-tension line on the land belonging to the petitioner or appropriate direction be given to the respondent – Corporation to shift the tower and install at the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner so as to minimize the damage. 4. The respondents may either be restrained to install the tower and high-tension line on the land belonging to the petitioner or appropriate direction be given to the respondent – Corporation to shift the tower and install at the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner so as to minimize the damage. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Corporation is installing 765 KV high-tension line between Beawar to Mandsaur in terms of Notification dated 29.08.2023. It was further submitted that as many as 734 towers are to be installed for setting up of this 765 KV transmission line and out of 734 towers, 571 towers have already been installed. It was also submitted that the project is of National importance and if any tower is proposed on the land belonging to the petitioner or is creating hindrance in any manner, then the petitioner is entitled for compensation in accordance with law. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is no intentional deviation of the transmission line as alleged by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the guidelines mandate to have 90 degree angle to be maintained at the time when the transmission line is crossing the National highway. Considering such guidelines, the required deviations have been made, however, this is neither intentional nor in violation of any Rules or Guidelines. 4.2 He also submitted that the scope of interference in such matter is very limited. The issue as raised in the present writ petition was earlier came up for consideration before the Apex Court as well as before this Court so also before various High Courts. While referring to the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.10951/2016), decided on 14.12.2016 so also the judgments passed by various High Courts in the case of The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta & Ors. (First Appeal No.3253/2011) – Allahabad High Court; Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP-PIL No.2704/2016) – Rajasthan High Court; Madan Dan Arha Abd Anr. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (First Appeal No.3253/2011) – Allahabad High Court; Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP-PIL No.2704/2016) – Rajasthan High Court; Madan Dan Arha Abd Anr. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (DB Civil Appeal (Writ) No.586/2014) – Rajasthan High Court; M/s Mahalaxmi Industries & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (DB Civil Petition No.1258/2016) – Rajasthan High Court; Suresh Kumar Saini vs. Powergrid Corporation of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No.2494/2014) – Uttarakhand High Court; Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.9315/2015) – Bombay High Court; Parth Krishnakant Patel vs. Managing Director / General Manager (Legal Cell) & Ors. (Special Civil Application No.14617/2022) – Gujarat High Court; Om Prakash vs. Amit Kumar & Ors. (Civil Revision No.1826/2014) – Punjab and Haryana High Court; Vijay Ramchandra Agrawal vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. - MP High Court , it was contended that the scope of interference in such matter is very limited. The petitioner is not able to show that the transmission line is installed in arbitrary manner or in violation of any guidelines / norms. 4.3 It was further submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner itself has moved an application for seeking compensation as per law. The petitioner has also made prayer in the writ petition for seeking compensation and the respondents have no objection to consider the claim of the petitioner for seeking compensation in time bound manner. 4.4 It is also submitted that process of installing Tower No.94/0 on the land belonging to the petitioner has already commenced as the project is to be completed and the transmission line is to be made operational on the priority basis. 4.5 Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that while considering SBCWP No.20506/2025 (M/s Cse solar Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.), decided on 08.01.2026, this Court while taking into consideration the identical issue, has declined to grant any indulgence while observing that petitioner’s claim for compensation be decided in time bound manner. Based on the above submissions, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Based on the above submissions, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The admitted facts in the present writ petition are that 765 KV line is proposed between Beawar and Mandsaur. As many as 734 towers are to be installed for setting up of 765 KV line, which would be in between Beawar to Mandsaur at the distance of about 260 Kms. The fact that out of 734 towers, 571 towers have already been installed, has also not been disputed by the petitioner. 7. Though the petitioner has questioned the decision of the respondent – Corporation in deviating the transmission line, however, the respondents have given a justifiable reason for doing so. The respondents have adhered to the guidelines, which mandate that transmission lines should be installed at 90 degree angle when such lines are passing through National highway. 7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to refute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to such requirement and therefore, the intentional deviation of transmission line is not established. 7.2 Though learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission that there should be equidistant of 83 mtrs. on both sides of highway but has not submitted any documents to show the norms / guidelines for mandatory distance between two towers. In absence of such, this Court has no material to adjudicate that while installing Towers No. 93/0 & 94/0, the distance and norms have been followed or not. That being so, just because the shifting of tower would minimize damage to the petitioner, this Court cannot direct the respondents to shift the tower. 8. It is to be noted that the total distance between Beawar and Mandsaur is about 260 kms. and as many as 734 towers are to be installed and taking note of such long distance, the towers cannot be readjusted as desired by the petitioner or individual person. The installation of tower would, of course cause damage to the petitioner, but for that purpose there are provisions for claiming compensation. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such deviation or decision to install towers on the field of petitioner has been taken for malafide or arbitrary reasons. The installation of tower would, of course cause damage to the petitioner, but for that purpose there are provisions for claiming compensation. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that such deviation or decision to install towers on the field of petitioner has been taken for malafide or arbitrary reasons. Considering the project, which is of National importance and more so, considering the fact that the petitioner would be appropriately compensated in accordance with law, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the present writ petition. 9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.