Mandatory District Magistrate permission and hearing of landholder required before laying transmission lines over private property.

The petitioner, owner of agricultural land at Revenue Survey No. 775 in Veraval, challenged the actions of GETCO (Respondent No. 1) regarding the unauthorized entry and proposed erection of a high-tension transmission tower and line on his private property.

The petitioner alleged that in April 2026, the respondents attempted to commence work without prior notice, hearing, or a joint survey, and despite the availability of adjacent government-vested waste land (Sarkari Padtar).

Although the petitioner filed a representation and approached the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, no adjudication took place, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the respondent authorities could proceed with the erection of transmission towers on private land without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority under the Indian Telegraph Act.

2. Whether the petitioner's objections regarding alternate routing and compensation must be heard before the work commences.

The court's decision is governed by Articles 226, 227, and 300A of the Constitution of India, the Electricity Act, 2003, and specifically Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Under Section 16, if a landowner resists or obstructs the exercise of powers by the authority, the authority must apply to the District Magistrate for an order permitting them to exercise those powers.

The principle of Audi Alteram Partem (right to a fair hearing) applies to the District Magistrate's adjudication process.

The court analyzed the dispute in light of the respondents' concession during the hearing where Counsel for GETCO stated that the authority would not proceed unilaterally but would approach the District Collector to obtain the necessary statutory permissions before laying the line.

The court noted that because the respondent agreed to follow the "due process of law" by seeking formal permission, the immediate grievance regarding unauthorized entry was mitigated.

To ensure the protection of the petitioner's constitutional right to property under Article 300A, the court reasoned that the District Collector must act as a quasi-judicial body, requiring a mandatory hearing of the petitioner’s objections—including the feasibility of alternate routes and compensation—before granting any permission.

The Court held that the District Collector, while deciding the respondent's application, must issue notice to the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and pass a decision in accordance with the law.

Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the court again in case of any future difficulty.