ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.P. Prajapati, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

2. By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has, inter alia, challenged the action of respondent No.1Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO), in changing the alignment of the High Tension (HT) lines, so as to cover the land of the petitioner at Block No.66 of Village Kathor, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. The petitioner has further prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 15.01.2014, issued by respondent No.1GETCO, regarding the change of alignment of the HT lines in order to minimize the loss caused to respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner is the owner and occupier of the land situated at Block No.66, admeasuring 3.37.72 sq. meters, in Village Kathor, Taluka Kamrej, District Surat. The said land is agricultural in nature and the petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities thereupon. GETCO wanted to lay certain HT lines and construct electrical towers for this purpose. As per the original plan, the HT lines were to pass through land bearing Block No.65 of Village Kathor, belonging to respondent No.2. However, GETCO changed the alignment of the HT lines, which would now pass over a part of the land of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation to GETCO on 24.12.2013, stating that the change in alignment is illegal and arbitrary as it has been made to facilitate respondent No.2.

3.2 GETCO replied to the petitioner vide the impugned communication dated 15.01.2014, stating that respondent No.2 has converted her land into non agricultural land, therefore, the alignment has been changed so as to minimize the loss caused to the said respondent. Aggrieved by the change in alignment of the HT lines as proposed by GETCO, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Mr. Shakti S. Jadeja, learned advocate for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that upon making inquiries, the petitioner has learnt that the entire land of respondent No.2 has not been converted into nonagricultural land. Only a part thereof has been so converted, for the construction of a farm house. In any case, as per the conditions of the order granting Nonagricultural Use Permission to respondent No.2, the said respondent was to complete the construction within three years, which has not been done. The Nonagricultural Use Permission is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground.

4.1 That no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner by GETCO before changing the alignment of the HT lines. The petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities and growing crops on the said land. If HT wires were to pass over the land, the fertility of the crop grown by the petitioner would be adversely affected. In future, if the petitioner wants to convert the land for nonagricultural use, she would have to seek a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from GETCO and the construction would be obstructed by the HT lines passing over the land.

4.2 That GETCO has changed the alignment of the HT lines solely to favour respondent No.2, in spite of the fact that there is no justifiable reason to do so. Due to the change in alignment, the petitioner will face civil consequences.

4.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow V. Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralI & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 308.

4.4 On the above grounds, it is prayed that the petition be allo