The court established that under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, land could be used for public benefit without the need for acquisition or consent of the landholders.

K.K. Trivedi. J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 has made a diversion of the route for erecting transmission line of high voltage electricity, and for the purposes of installation of towers of overhead electricity transmission line, is trespassing and using the agriculture land of the petitioners without their consent. It is alleged that while the route was sanctioned, a gazette notification was issued by the competent authority, the village of the petitioners and the land of the said village were not included in the said route for drawing of the electricity line. However, the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 5, has started the use of the land of the petitioners for which the complaint was lodged before the competent authority. No action whatsoever was taken by the police authorities to protect the property right of the petitioners, therefore, the present writ petition is required to be filed. The following reliefs are claimed on the basis of aforesaid pleadings:-

"7.1 To issue writ, direction, order in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent No. 5 and their agents from interfering and trespassing the agricultural land of the petitioners in the name of installing the tower of overhead electricity transmission line.

7.2. To issue writ, direction, order in the nature of Mandamus to the police authorities to register the case on the complaint made by the petitioners for the commission of the offence committed by respondent No. 5 and their agents.

7.3 To issue writ, order or direction for protection of agricultural land and life of the petitioners.

7.4 Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, may also be passed in the interest of justice.

7.5 Costs of the petition."

2. When the writ petition was listed on 18.6.2014, for certain reasons the learned counsel for the petitioners took time to amend the writ petition, made an application for amendment, which was allowed on 1.8.2014 and amendments in the pleadings have been done. A caveat was filed by the respondent No. 5 and upon service of the notice, it appears that certain statements were made. Learned counsel for the petitioners again moved an application for amendment in the writ petition, which too was allowed on 19.12.2014. After furnishing the amended copy of the writ petition on the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, a return was filed categorically stating that the allegations made in the writ petition are wholly misconceived. It was pointed out that maps have been drawn, overhead electric line has to be laid for transmission of the high voltage electricity in between Dharamjaygarh to Jabalpur vide gazette notification issued by the Central Government on 12th July, 2013 indicating the villages and the land in between the said villages, which was to be used for the purpose of laying down of the said electricity line. It is the contention raised in the return that such a notification has been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and for the said purposes, the powers provided under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have been exercised by the competent government. It is, therefore, contended that the allegations made by the petitioners are not correct. It is contended that the village in which the land of the petitioners is situated falls between two villages mentioned in the said notification and, therefore, the electric line has to be drawn as per the sanctioned route.

3. Upon hearing of such objections and contentions, this Court has directed filing of additional affidavit by the respondent No. 5 to show the alignment of the electric line specifically showing the villages, which have been included in that route. In answer to query raised by this Court, affidavit has been filed. The rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners and to explain the factual position, maps have been filed by the respondent No. 5 with the applicati