Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.—The petitioner is the owner of the land having an area of 0.122 hectare of Gata No. 788, situated in village Shahzadpur Kanaini, Pargana & Tehsil Khurja, District Bulandshahr. His name is recorded as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights over the said land. The petitioner does agricultural work over the said land, as the agriculture is the only source of his livelihood. According to the petitioner, the Power Grid Corporation of India is establishing a high tension electric line and for that purpose they have entered upon the petitioner’s land and have constructed structures, as a result of which the said land cannot be used optimumly for agricultural work in future.

2. The case of the petitioner is that when he made enquiries and lodged complaints against encroachment in his land, some persons approached him and forcibly gave him a cheque of Rs. 26,800/-. The petitioner was also informed that it was the compensation for use of his land. The petitioner filed an application dated 19.1.2011 to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, returning the said cheque as also requesting him to restrain the persons concerned from occupying his land illegally. However, till date, no action has been taken. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 are responsible for the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to give compensation for the land and crops and to decide his representations dated 12.1.2011 and 19.1.2011.

3. Considering the controversy, on behalf of respondent No. 4, it is pointed out that no reply is required, as the compensation receipt dated 15.1.2011 would indicate that the respondent No. 4 has determined the compensation for the crop damaged during foundation/erection/stringing work of the transmission line and had given the same to the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No. 4 that the petitioner, if aggrieved, can apply to the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, for enhancement of compensation, and this Court should not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the District Judge.

4. The question for our consideration firstly is, whether the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy to apply for enhancement of compensation?

5. The issue may be understood in the context of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Electricity Act’) and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Licensees Rules’). Also relevant is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Telegraph Act’).

6. Under the Licensees Rules, Rule 3 is relevant and the same reads as under :

“3. Licensee to carry out works.—(1) A licensee may—

(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land;

(b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support :

Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works :

Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the Dist