Prior landowner consent is not required for laying electricity transmission lines by a designated statutory licensee.

The petitioners are owners of agricultural land in Jetpar, Morbi

Respondent No. 6 (M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd.) was designated as a Transmission Service Provider for a project of national importance aimed at evacuating 7GW of renewable energy from Khavda

The Ministry of Power, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, conferred the powers of the Telegraph Authority upon Respondent No. 6

When the petitioners obstructed the installation of electric poles, Respondent No. 6 applied to the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

The petitioners objected, alleging that the notification lacked specific survey numbers, that proceedings were premature due to a pending CERC petition, and that compensation was inadequate

On 29.07.2025, the Collector passed an order permitting the installation to proceed

The petitioners challenged this order via Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the District Magistrate is authorized under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act to permit the exercise of powers when a landowner resists the laying of transmission lines

2. Whether the lack of specific survey numbers in the public notification/gazette vitiates the authorization for the transmission project

3. Whether prior consent of the landowner is required for a licensee authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act to install overhead lines

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows the Appropriate Government to confer the powers of a Telegraph Authority upon a licensee

Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers the authority to place telegraph lines and posts on any immovable property without acquiring ownership, subject to paying full compensation for damages

Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act vests the District Magistrate with the discretion to order that the authority be permitted to exercise its powers if resisted

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143, which established that Section 10 does not require the consent of the landowner

Division Bench ruling in Himatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer, GETCO (LPA No. 882 of 2011), holding that public notices need only broadly describe the area of the route

The court found that Respondent No. 6 was a "deemed licensee" acting under valid statutory authorization from the Ministry of Power

It rejected the petitioners’ contention regarding the violation of natural justice, noting that the Collector had issued multiple notices and considered the petitioners’ detailed written objections

On the issue of specific survey numbers, the court reasoned that public advertisements in newspapers and the Gazette, which broadly describe the area, constitute sufficient notice to the general public

Applying the Power Grid doctrine, the court held that once Section 164 is invoked, the licensee’s right to lay lines is indefeasible, and the landowner's only right is to seek compensation under Section 10(d)

The court clarified that the District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 16(1) is summary and intended to prevent the stalling of public work, whereas the determination of "sufficiency" of compensation is the exclusive domain of the District Judge under Section 16(3)

Consequently, the Collector’s refusal to halt the project was a proper exercise of limited statutory jurisdiction

The court held that no prior consent from landowners is necessary for laying transmission lines under Section 164 of the Electricity Act

The rule was discharged

The court granted the petitioners the liberty to apply for compensation before the District Magistrate as per state guidelines and reserved their right to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act if they are dissatisfied with the sufficiency of the compensation awarded