District Magistrate’s Permission for Electricity Transmission Lines on Private Land Does Not Warrant Judicial Interference.

The petitioners own non-agricultural (NA) land in Village Kochala, Tharad

The State Government, through respondent GETCO, proposed laying a high-tension electricity transmission network across the petitioners’ land to improve the State's power distribution

The petitioners paid Rs. 1,06,697.00 for shifting the line and filed objections before the District Magistrate requesting a change of route to minimize land damage

On January 13, 2026, the District Magistrate, Vav-Tharad, passed an order granting GETCO permission to proceed with the original route

The petitioners challenged this order under Articles 19 and 226 of the Constitution of India and the Indian Electricity Act

1. Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate granting permission to lay transmission lines over private land despite objections regarding route change is legally sustainable

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek a change in the transmission route based on the potential loss of land utility

The court relied on the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder regarding the power of telegraph/utility authorities to place poles and lines

It applied the legal principle that the development of public electricity infrastructure takes precedence over individual land use preferences when authorized by law

The court primarily followed the precedent set in Vijaybhai Karshanbhai Panchasara & Ors v. Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi & Ors. (Special Civil Application No. 14772 of 2025), which held that transmission line installation by authorities is a matter of administrative and technical necessity, and individual petitions challenging such routes are generally not maintainable

The Court examined the District Magistrate’s order and the background of the transmission project, noting that the network is essential for providing power to consumers across Gujarat

While the petitioners argued that the installation would affect their land and requested a route change, the Court observed that the District Magistrate had already considered these objections before granting the statutory permission

Following the judicial restraint established in the Vijaybhai Karshanbhai Panchasara case, the Court reasoned that no case was made out to interfere with the technical decisions of the electricity authorities or the administrative order of the Magistrate

The Court underscored that individual grievances regarding route placement do not outweigh the broader public interest of state-wide power distribution infrastructure

It held that the petitioners are not entitled to a route change but reserved their right to seek compensation

The Court specifically directed that the petitioners may file an application for compensation before the District Magistrate, who must decide the same in accordance with law and government guidelines after affording the petitioners a proper hearing