JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 finally. None appears for the respondent No. 5-MERC though served as per the endorsement in the farad-sheet dated 06/12/2023.

3. On 06/12/2023, the following position was recorded.

3.1 The petition questions order dated 05/09/2018 (Page 153) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sindkhedraja exercising powers under the GR dated 27/01/2017 (Page 193) whereby compensation for the use of the land of the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of laying the electricity transmission line has been determined.

3.2. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned SDO did not have the jurisdiction to do so for the reason that the petitioner has been constituted as a Telegraph Authority as defined in section 2(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as “Telegraph Act”) and therefore was alone empowered and authorized to determine the compensation for laying down the line in exercise of the power under section 10(d) of the Teleg