the facts pleaded in the representation of the appellant / writ petitioner dated 01.07.2019. The representation of the appellant / writ petitioner should be read as a letter addressed by a person of reasonable intelligence and knowledge. Though in the representation the third respondent was termed as a trespasser, the sum and substance of the representation is that the land owner has been dealt with unreasonably at the behest of the third respondent - Company by erecting towers and drawal of overhead electric lines for a Private Company. The Division Bench earlier dismissed the writ petition by order dated 26.08.2019 as it appears that what was canvassed before the Division Bench was that the third respondent is an encroacher. Therefore, the Division Bench was right in rejecting the writ petition. Sofar as the second writ petition is concerned, which has been dismissed by the impugned order, the prayer sought for is slightly different in the sense that the appellant / writ petitioner wants his objection to be considered. Bearing that prayer in mind, if we read the representation, apart from the allegation of the third respondent being trespasser, there are other objections conveyed. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, we are not in full agreement with the observations made by the Single Bench. Be that as it may, towers have already been erected, overhead electric lines have also been drawn and electricity has been evacuated through those lines. Therefore, the only issue, which remains for consideration is whether the appellant / writ petition is entitled for compensation, which requires to be determined by the first respondent / District Collector.
