IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1613 of 2010 Decided on 1st July, 2010. Gajinder Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Thakur, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. For respondent No. 2: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- i) That the survey conducted by respondent No. 2 may be declared as null and void. ii) The respondents No. 2 to 4 be directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the land of the petitioner without following the process of law. 2. The petitioner submits that he has no objection in drawing line or installing the towers by the second respondent. His grievance is that he should be paid compensation in accordance with law. His further grievance is that he may not be harassed by the police. The question of interference by the police arises only if there is law and order problem and in case the petitioner makes resistance in respect of the lawful activities carried out by the respondents. Therefore, it is made clear that since the petitioner does not have any objection with regard to the drawing of the electrical line and installation of the towers in his property, there shall not be any interference by the police. In case the petitioner has not been paid due compensation, the second respondent will take appropriate steps in that regard within two weeks from today 3. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has already been paid his due compensation. However, we make it clear that in case the petitioner is dissatisfied with the compensation, paid by the second respondent, it will be open for him to avail his remedy under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in case compensation otherwise due to the petitioner has not been paid, it will also be open for him to point out the same before the second respondent, in which case the second respondent will take appropriate action in that regard within another one month. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 1st July, 2010(K) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge