The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the first respondent/District Collector, dated 31.12.2015, by which, the District Collector rejected the petitioner's objection for the erection of the Transmission Tower by the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. When the case was heard on 02.03.2016, the parties reconciled to the fact that there is no prima facie error in the order passed by the District Collector, as it is a reasoned order after hearing the arguments of both sides. At that juncture, the petitioner expressed his grievance that compensation, which has been paid to him, is paltry amount, and the petitioner was not informed as to the valuation adopted for the superstructure, which was standing on the property, and respondents have not followed the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, New Delhi, for payment of compensation to the damages in regard to the right of way (row) for transmission lines. Considering the said submission, this Court passed the following order:-

"Heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R.M.Muthukumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice for the first respondent and Mr.Jayesh B Dolia, accepting notice for the second respondent.

2. Though the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the District Collector, regarding the location of the tower by the second respondent, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court observed that the order passed by the District Collector is a detailed order, after inspection and notice to the petitioner and there is no prima facie error in the order.

3. The petitioner is convinced with the same, however, his grievance is that the compensation has not been properly computed and a sum of Rs. 7,17,907/-has been determined as compensation only for the building.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the notification/guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power for payment of compensation towards damages in regard to Right of Way for transmission lines. It is pointed out that the compensation of 85% of land value as determined by the District Magistrate or any other authority based on Circle rate / Guideline rate / Guideline value / Stamp Act rates for tower base area (between four legs) impacted severely due to installation of tower / pylon structure, has to be taken note of. Further, it is stated that compensation towards diminution of land value in the width of Right of Way etc., also have to be taken into consideration.

5. In this regard, there will be a direction to the respondents to file counter. It is made clear that the respondents are entitled to proceed with the erection of tower and the challenge to the impugned proceedings fails and the impugned order is upheld and the Writ Petition is confined only to the claim for compensation made by the petitioner.

6. Since the second respondent has already computed a sum of Rs.7,17,907/-towards the compensation for the building, without prejudice to the petitioner's right, the petitioner is entitled to receive the same and the second respondent is directed to effect payment by next hearing date i.e., on 29.03.2016. "

4. Today, when the matter is heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner agreed to handover possession of the land to the second respondent, and the land has been taken over, building has been demolished, and the work towards erection of the transmission tower is in progress. Thus, this leaves us with the only issue as to whether the petitioner has been adequately compensated for taking over his land.

5. The petitioner would contend that the amount of compensation, computed by the second respondent at Rs.7,17,907/- is ridiculously low, and the petitioner has not been furnished with the method of calculation, based on which