Prior landowner consent is not required for laying electricity transmission lines by an authorized licensee.

The petitioner, owner of agricultural land in village Chakampar, Morbi, challenged an order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate (DM) under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

Respondent No. 6 (M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd.), a "deemed licensee," was authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to lay overhead transmission lines for a national project evacuating 7GW of renewable power

The petitioner resisted the installation of electric poles, alleging that the proceedings were premature, the survey numbers were missing from the notification, and that the company lacked authority due to a pending CERC petition

Despite notices and hearings, the DM granted the company permission to proceed, prompting this writ petition

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows the government to confer the powers of a "Telegraph Authority" upon any licensee

Under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the authority may place lines across any property without acquiring it, provided it does "as little damage as possible" and pays full compensation

Section 16(1) empowers the DM to remove obstructions to these powers, while Section 16(3) reserves the determination of compensation disputes for the District Judge

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143, which held that landowner consent is not required once Section 164 is invoked

Himatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer, GETCO (LPA 882/2011), which affirmed that public interest in power transmission outweighs private land interests

The court found that Respondent No. 6 acted under a valid Section 164 authorization from the Ministry of Power, effectively vesting it with the statutory powers of the Telegraph Authority

Applying the principle from Century Textiles, the court reasoned that Section 10 of the Telegraph Act does not necessitate prior landowner consent; the owner’s only legal right is to seek compensation for damages

The court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of survey numbers in the notification, holding that a broad description of the route in public notices is sufficient for the exercise of such powers

The court noted that the DM’s jurisdiction under Section 16(1) is summary and administrative—focused solely on removing obstructions—and does not extend to determining compensation, which is the exclusive domain of the District Judge under Section 16(3)

The court concluded that the 7GW renewable energy project served a paramount public purpose that must prevail over the petitioner’s pecuniary or private property concerns

The court held that the DM properly exercised limited statutory jurisdiction to remove obstructions to a public project

While the company was permitted to proceed with the installation, the court clarified that the petitioner retains the right to apply for compensation before the District Magistrate as per State guidelines, or to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) if the quantum of compensation is disputed

Rule discharged