Point of Law: Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003, no land owner or person interested can seek for shifting or realigning of the route, on the premise that the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, has powers to do so. District Collector has no powers to alter any route or alignment, except to remove the difficulties faced by the licencee or the person authorised, pursuant to the orders issued under Section 164 of the Act

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following relies,

“(A) xxx xxx xxx.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to not to enter on the land of the Petitioner in the interest of justice until the respondent authority do not calculate and follow proper procedure as per the said Act and also grant adequate compensation under the Telegraph Act, 1885 to the present petitioner.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation of the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 authority being District Magistrate, Mehsana during the pendency of this application in the interest of justice. (CA) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the orders of the respondent no.2 being The District Magistrate, Mehsana dated 21.12.2020 which was passed without considering the representations and the material on record of the petitioner.

(D) xxx xxx xxx.”

2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Tejash Satta for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar for the respondent no.1.

3. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are as under,

3.1 The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.68 (Old Survey No.310) of moje Taleti, Tal. & Dist.: Mehsana.

3.2 The respondents are in process of establishing Village Taleti Double electricity transmission line (132 K.V. Mehsana - Siddhpur Line No.2 and 132 K.V. Mehsana - Patan Line No.1 & 2) from the land of the petitioner despite the respondents having alternate route available.

3.3 On 26.12.2019, the respondent no.1 had issued notice for laying down the electricity line on the agricultural land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and other villagers have raised objections against laying down of electricity line and, therefore, the respondent no.1 filed proceeding before the respondent no.2 - District Magistrate and the respondent no.2 - District Magistrate issued notice on 09.10.2020 to the petitioner and other objectors. On receipt of the notice issued by the respondent no.2 - District Magistrate, the the petitioner submitted reply dated 15.10.2020 and also requested to supply necessary documents, however, the respondent no.2 - District Magistrate passed impugned order on 21.12.2020, whereby the objections raised by the petitioner and other objectors have been rejected and permission was given to the respondent no.1 to proceed further with the work of laying down of electricity line. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the said order.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Tejas Satta appearing for the petitioner has referred to Map, which is placed on record at Page No.32 of the compilation and after referring to the same, it is contended that the respondent no.1 has erected the towers in the land bearing Survey Nos.70 and 78, which is near the land of the petitioner and thus, there is no need for the respondent no.1 to erect the tower in the land of the petitioner. Learned advocate has also referred to the photographs, which are placed on record in support of the said contentions. It is further submitted that it was specifically pointed out to the respondent no.2 - District Magistrate that alternate Government land is available with the respondent no.1 for the purpose of laying down electricity line and for erection of tower, inspite of that, the respondent no.1 has tried to shift the tower from the adjoining field to the land in question, which is of the ownership of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even the respondent no.1 has not paid any compensation to the petitioner till date and, therefore, the action of the respondent no.1 is required to be quashed and set asid