The authority for erecting electric poles does not require landowner consent, only compensation for damages is mandated.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 04 December 2017 passed by District Magistrate. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner - in - possession and recorded tenure holder having valid title over the certain piece of land, whose khata numbers are also mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that Power Grid Corporation of India and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. are proposing to erect the electric poles over the petitioner's several plots without informing or taking her permission and also without following the procedure prescribed under relevant provisions of the Electricity Act , 2003 (hereafter referred to as 'Act 2003'), the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1885') and Works of Licensees Rules , 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.2006'). For redressal of her grievance, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 25 May 2017 before District Magistrate, Allahabad. When no action was taken, she had also filed several reminders and ultimately, she had no option but to file Writ Petition No. 36254 of 2017 (Dr. Vandana Bansal Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). Writ petition is disposed of vide judgement and order dated 18.08.2017 with direction to District Magistrate to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of provisions of R.3 of the , 2006, which has been framed under the Act, 2003. The relevant part of judgement is quoted below;

“....The grievance of the petitioner would fall within the jurisdiction of the Collector and District Magistrate, having regard to the provisions of R.3 of the Works of Licensees Rules , 2006 which have been framed under the Electricity Act , 2003.

Consequently, we permit the petitioner to move the Collector and District Magistrate, Allahabad with a copy of her claim together with a certified copy of this order and placing reliance upon such other material as the petitioner may seeks to rely upon. The Collector and District Magistrate shall take a final decision on the application preferably within a period of three months of the receipt of a copy of the application..”

2. Pursuant to the order of this Court, petitioner has submitted an application on 1 September 2017 before District Magistrate along with certified copy of the aforesaid order with a prayer to take action against the concerned Electricity Department and further directed not to raise construction over the land of the petitioner.

3. District Magistrate has decided the representation of the petitioner by a detailed and reasoned order dated 14 December 2017.

4. Assailing the order of District Magistrate dated 04 December 2017, petitioner has submitted that the order passed by District Magistrate is bad in law as he has not considered the provisions of R.3(1) to 3(3) of the Rules, 2006 and has further not considered the fact that without any consent, land of the petitioner is used for erection of electric pole and lastly he confined his argument that petitioner has not been awarded any compensation even for damage caused in erection of poles on the plot of petitioner.

5. Rebutting the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that R.2006 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and further provision of S.164 of Act, 2003 read with S.10 of Act, there is no need of acquiring land and consent and they are only using of land