a view to convert the same to be used as homestead/ commercial purpose and due to drawal of HT line over the said land, she would not be able to use the said land for the purpose for which it has been purchased. He further submits that drawal of HT line poses danger to the agricultural operation, as the Opposite Party No.1 cannot use drone or other equipments with advance technology for applying pesticides and fertilizers over the said land. The Opposite Party No.1 being a lady could not produce any material to that effect. However, if opportunity is given, she can produce material with regard to loss she has already suffered for drawal of the HT line. In view of the above, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. Learned District Judge although has not expressed the same in too many words, but the fact that the Opposite Party No.1 has sustained loss cannot ruled out. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the HT line has been drawn over the agricultural land of Opposite Party No.1. However, the portion over which the HT line is drawn is not clear from the materials available on record. It is also submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 that she being a lady could not produce materials in support of her case.
