Point of Law: District Collector is not empowered to consider the aspect of alteration of any route or alignment except to remove difficulties faced by the licensee. As a result of this, even the request of alternative route of the petitioner not dealt with, in the considered opinion of this Court, is insignificant as the District Collector is not empowered to suggest any alteration as same is within the exclusive domain of the experts. Hence, simply because the alternative route contention is not dealt with, which has direct bearing upon less minimum damage concept, the order is not possible to be assailed by the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 25.3.2021 passed by the respondent District Magistrate in Case No.1 of 2021.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the petition are that petitioner is an owner of the land situated at Revenue Survey Nos.84,86 and 87/A at village Padmala, Taluka Vadodara (Rural), District Vadodara, which is an old tenure land, and he is carrying his agricultural activity and the land is having around 300 Neem trees. Respondent No.2, which is an electricity company, had submitted an application before the respondent Collector, Vadodara for installation of electricity poles over the land of the petitioner. The said poles are to be implanted practically in the middle of the land. In response to the said application, the District Collector was pleased to issue notice upon the petitioner, in which detailed reply is submitted. However, according to the petitioner, without paying any heed to the said reply, the District Collector was pleased to pass an order on 25.3.2021 rejecting the objection of the petitioner and permitted the respondent electricity company to install the electricity poles across the land of the petitioner, which order is made the subject matter of the present petition.

3. The Court, upon submission of the petitioner, was pleased to issue notice on 13.5.2021 and after the respondent submitted appearance and filed affidavit-in-reply, the matter has come up for consideration before this Court today.

4. Learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that no-doubt, there is a power with the electricity company to lay down the electricity pole, but it owes the duty to see that minimum damage to take place of a person affected. According to Mr. Majmudar, electricity poles are being implanted over the land of the petitioner as if the land would be divided almost in two parts, which would virtually less down the potentiality of the land. According to Mr. Majmudar, though the land is agricultural land, but is coming within the nearby vicinity of industrial zone and is also having N.A. potentiality and as such, the potential land, if to be dealt with in such a manner, like this the action cannot be said to be just and proper if this electricity line is to be laid down in the manner in which it is to be sought, then irreversible damage would take place. Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the District Collector is sufficiently invested with the power to examine the issue and has to apply independent mind while considering the request of the electricity company. Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the detailed objections have been raised, which are forming part of the record, but by a brief order, same have been discarded and resulted into passing of the impugned order. Mr. Majmudar has submitted that every exercise of jurisdiction must be backed by proper application of mind which is not visible. It has been submitted that the authority has not considered the request of the electricity company from the view of concept of minimum damage and also not considered the alternative route. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not having any objection if the poles are laid down from the corner of the land of the petitioner and as such, alternative route ought to have been examined by the respondent Collector while considering the request of the company. That having not been done, it has been contended that the very exercise of power is ill-founded, hence the relief prayed for deserves to be granted.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has submitted that the aspect of minimum damage to be caused has not been considered at all, which is the basic requirement of exercise of such power as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a decision dated 13.8.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.13815 of 2019. Hence, the order in question deserves to be q