The court emphasized the importance of infrastructure projects for the public benefit and upheld the District Collector's order based on evidence provided.

The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order granted by the District Magistrate cum District Collector, Dharmapurigranting permission under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act to enter upon the petitioner's property for the purpose of erecting towers and for laying wires.

2. The petitioner contends that she is the owner of the property comprised in Survey No.198/2J of Somanahalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk to an extent of 0.53 hectares by virtue of sale deed dated 31.12.2007. The respondents 1 to 3 are trying to enter upon the property of the petitioner for the purpose of erecting towers and drawing tower line and therefore the petitioner gave representations to the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 26.05.2015 & 27.06.2015, to the first respondent on 13.07.2015 and to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 15.09.2015 raising objection for erection of towers. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the District Collector, Dharmapuri, seeking permission to enter upon the petitioner's property. After hearing the petitioner, District Collector granted permission to the respondents 2 and 3. The said order is being challenged before this Court by way of this writ petition.

3. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that according to the petitioner, three legs of one tower is standing in his property and the other leg is not falling under the petitioners property. Neither proper notice nor details regarding the alignment was not given to the petitioner and the map showing the alignment can be changed in such a way that the adjoining poromboke land can be used for erection, so that the petitioner's property can be scored. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the first respondent.

4. However, Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would point out that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent with regard to the ownership of the property. He would contend that escalation for three legs of tower have been completed and escalation for one leg is yet to complete and at that time only, the petitioner has opposed and therefore the respondents 2 and 3 have approached the first respondent and obtained orders from him. He would further contend that alignment cannot be changed as it is based on expert's opinion.

5. Heard Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

6. Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are joint owners of the agricultural land to an extent of 0.53 ares (01.31 cents) in Survey No.198/2J in Mallapuram Village, Dharmapuri of which 0.90 cents on the northern side belongs to the 4th respondent and 0.41 cents on the southern side belongs to the petitioner. He would further submit that all the four legs of the tower have been erected only in the 4th respondent's agricultural land and only temporarily, escalation was made for erection of 4th pillar on the petitioner's property and therefore he claims that he is entitled for 3/4th of the total compensation and the petitioner is entitled for 1/4th of same.

7. The towers are being erected for connecting 765 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Tuticorin Pooling Station to Salem Pooling (Dharmapuri) station under the approval of Government of India and the estimated cost is Rs.1,400 Crores. The Construction work is in progress and out of 1000 towers, already 996 towers were already erected and it is intended to be commissioned within this year. In the process of completion of the said project only, the tower is sought to be erected in the property comprised in Survey No.198/2J of Mallapuram Village regarding which there are claims and counter claims between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Since the petitioner has already objected for erecting towers in his property, the second and third respondents were compelled