another post at position ‘B2’ i.e. to the east of post ’B’ and then to draw the line exclusively through the boundary of petitioner’s property. I do not think any other person can have any objection in this, because going by the sketch, the grievance will be only for the petitioner, as the line goes across his property with retaining the existing post in the middle of his property. In any case, petitioner can have an option either to accept the ADM’s proposal, if it is more beneficial or to have the line drawn from ‘B2’ and from there through the boundary of petitioner's property to the beneficiary. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing 3rd respondent to install a new post at ‘B2’ and from ‘B2’ draw the line through the boundary of petitioner’s property, if the line is feasible. The line should not be longer than the approved route or if any additional cost is incurred in this regard, petitioner will meet the same. Similarly, if post ‘B’ can be dispensed with and line can be drawn from ‘B2’, the respondent will do so. The connection should be given to the beneficiary without any delay. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment along with a copy of the sketch prepared by the KSEB with his modifications approved as above before the 3rd respondent, for the 3rd respondent to arrange drawal of the line.
