Prior landowner consent is not required for laying electricity transmission lines under Section 164 authorization.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the District Magistrate is empowered under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act to permit the exercise of powers when resisted by a landowner.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the District Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025.

It also directed

The court held that the DM acted within his jurisdiction to remove the obstruction for a project of national importance and that the project could not be stalled over consent or compensation disputes.

The court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) for any grievance regarding the sufficiency of compensation or to avail remedies as per State Government guidelines.

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

01Facts

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

p. 2, 4

The respondent company, M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd., was authorized by the Ministry of Power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to lay overhead transmission lines for the Khavda RE Park project.

p. 2

The petitioners resisted the installation of electric poles, alleging that the proceedings were premature, the notification lacked specific survey numbers, and the company lacked a final license from the CERC.

pp. 3-4

Despite these objections, the DM exercised powers under Section 16(1) to permit the company to proceed with the work.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the District Magistrate is empowered under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act to permit the exercise of powers when resisted by a landowner.

p. 19

ii.2. Whether the prior consent of a landowner is mandatory for laying electricity transmission lines under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

p. 25

iii.3. Whether the absence of specific survey numbers in the public notification and the pendency of a compensation dispute vitiate the District Magistrate’s order.

p. 11, 25

03Law Applied

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

p. 22

It followed Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, where Section 10 grants the power to place telegraph lines without acquiring ownership of the land and Section 16(1) authorizes the District Magistrate to pass an order removing obstructions to such works.

p. 5, 22, 6, 23

The court relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017), which held that Section 10 does not require the consent of the landowner.

p. 10

It further applied the principle from Himatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer, GETCO, affirming that the DM’s role under Section 16(1) is administrative and summary in nature.

p. 10, 24

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 Section 10 Section 16

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 67 Section 68 Section 164

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 188

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that once authorization is granted under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the licensee stands in the shoes of the Telegraph Authority, and the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act apply in full.

p. 25

Under Section 10 of the Act, the authority acquires only a "right of user" and not the property itself; thus, prior consent is not a statutory prerequisite.

p. 10, 22

The DM’s jurisdiction under Section 16(1) is triggered solely by "resistance or obstruction" and is intended to prevent the stalling of public infrastructure projects.

p. 11

The court found that the Respondent company had issued broad public notices as required and that specific survey numbers need not be mentioned in the initial route notification.

p. 25

Regarding the petitioners' claims about compensation, the court clarified the distinction between Section 16(1) (to remove obstruction) and Section 16(3) (to determine the sufficiency of compensation), noting that the latter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge.

p. 11, 13