JUDGMENT :

M.M.SUNDRESH, J.

This present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge, who while setting aside the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the third respondent on the premise that in the absence of any damage to the trees, crops, building or permanent structure in the land, the other questions pertaining to damages cannot be decided under Section 10d of the Indian Telegraph Act,1855 (for short 'the Act').

2. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order impugned remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the third appellant for fixing the compensation for dilution of the value of the land caused due to the overhead lines.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Section 10d which comes under part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 does not deal with either damage or compensation to the property per se except those involving trees, crops or permanent structure, as the case may be. On facts, it is submitted that even otherwise there is no damage. Therefore, the only remedy open to the first respondent/writ petitioner is to invoke Section 16(3) of the Act or by way of filing a suit before the District Court. Reliance has been made on the judgment of the Apex Court in Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others ((2017) 5 SCC 143) with specific reference to the following paragraphs:-

23. We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the writ Petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

24. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed by the time the writ Petitioner started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilised for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds etc. while laying down these transmission lines, it is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lines to the minimum and least extent possible. That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case. Another important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that no blasting is permissible within 300 mts. from the 400KV line (already existing) or the tower structure. Mining of limestone can be taken up by adopting the methods other than use of explosive/blasting-without damage to the tower foundation/tower structure or the line, which can be accomplished by using jack hammer/pneumatic hammer with compressor so as to avoid any damage to the line or tower. This aspect has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment dated March 11, 2008. The Division Bench did not differ with any of these findings.

Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2016 preferred by the writ Petitioner stands dismissed.

25. At this stage, we deal with the direction of the Division Bench regarding compensation payable to the writ Petitioner, or for that matter to the State Government. In the first instance, no such claim was laid by the writ Petitioner in the writ petition or by the State Government before the High Court. Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the provisions of Section1