Landowners cannot seek re-alignment of approved transmission routes; remedy is limited to compensation for damages sustained.

The petitioners are owners of agricultural land in Villages Hirapur and Kunvara, Taluka Sanand.

The respondent authorities (GETCO) proposed laying a 66 KV High Tension electric line passing through these lands.

Notices were issued in 2019, and the District Collector, Ahmedabad, granted permission to erect towers and lay lines via orders dated 01.04.2022 under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The petitioners challenged these actions, seeking a survey for an alternate route, alleging that the proposed alignment caused undue hardship and that viable alternatives (GIDC land or water canals) existed.

Out of 30 planned locations, work was already completed at 24 locations.

1. Whether the respondent authority is legally empowered to lay electricity transmission lines over private property without the prior consent of the landowner.

2. Whether the District Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, has the power to alter or re-align the approved technical route of a transmission line.

The Court applied Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows the Government to confer powers of a Telegraph Authority upon a licensee.

Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 clarifies the government acquires only the right of user, while Section 10(d) mandates payment of full compensation for damages.

Landowner consent is not required as established in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143.

The District Magistrate cannot alter an approved route as held in GETCO v. Ratilal Barot (LPA No. 534 of 2020).

Once the State Government confers powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the licensee (GETCO) possesses the full authority of a Telegraph Authority under the 1885 Act.

Under Section 10, the authority has the right to place lines over any immovable property, and the owner’s consent is not a prerequisite for such public utility projects.

Technical feasibility and alignment are determined by specialized authorities; the District Magistrate’s role under Section 16(1) is limited to removing obstructions to the exercise of those powers, not re-engineering the route.

Private interests must yield to the larger public interest of maintaining an efficient electricity grid.

The Court affirmed that the District Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to alter an approved alignment and granted the petitioners liberty to approach the District Magistrate or follow State guidelines to seek appropriate compensation.