Prior Consent of Landowner Is Not Required for Erection of Electricity Transmission Towers Under Electricity Act.

The petitioner, a partnership firm, was allotted land upon which Respondent No. 2 (CSPTCL) and Respondent No. 3 (NHAI) erected an electricity tower (identified as 6.8.1)

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for the removal of the tower, the recovery of removal costs from the respondents, and a compensation of Rs. 5 Lakh for illegal occupation

During the proceedings, the respondents contended that the matter was squarely covered by a previous High Court decision involving identical legal issues

1. Whether a landowner’s prior consent is mandatory for the installation of electricity transmission lines and towers on private land under the Electricity Act, 2003

2. Whether a petitioner is entitled to an injunction for the removal of such towers when the project is of national importance

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers authorized officers to install electricity lines without the prior consent of the landowner

The principles affirmed in Jaikumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 1889 of 2025) and its subsequent affirmation in Writ Appeal No. 505/2025, establishing that power transmission is a project of national importance where public interest overrides individual property objections, provided compensation is paid

The Court noted that the installation of transmission lines and towers is a sovereign function of national significance, particularly in Chhattisgarh, which serves as a power hub

The Court reasoned that since the State Government had issued a general authorization in favor of CSPTCL under the Electricity Act, the respondents were legally entitled to exercise the powers of a Telegraph Authority.

The Court observed that while ownership and title of the land remain with the petitioner, the right to use the land for essential infrastructure is protected by law. The petitioner’s refusal to accept offered compensation does not render the occupation "illegal," as the law entitles a landowner only to compensation and not to an injunction or the removal of the infrastructure

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to disburse adequate compensation to the petitioner within 60 days of the order, and the petitioner was directed not to impede the construction or maintenance of the towers