Procedural Fairness Requires Notice and Hearing Before Erecting Electricity Transmission Towers on Private Land

The petitioner, a co-owner of land in Village Banari, Janjgir-Champa, challenged a notice dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue).

The notice informed the petitioner that his land was to be utilized for an electricity transmission tower line and directed him to collect compensation.

The petitioner contended that although he received a memo on 24.04.2026 requesting his consent or objections, the respondents failed to provide requested documents or a meaningful hearing.

He further alleged that the Panchnama recording his presence on 06.05.2026 was factually incorrect as he was out of station.

The State countered that the project is a public utility governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, making prior consent unnecessary.

1. Whether the impugned notice and land utilization proceedings were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and lack of due process

2. Whether the petitioner, as a landholder, is entitled to an opportunity of hearing and disclosure of documents despite the project being a public utility under the Indian Telegraph Act

The court assessed the statutory framework governing electricity transmission lines, specifically the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which permits the erection of towers on private land without the prior consent of the landholder.

The court emphasized the overarching constitutional and legal principles of fairness and natural justice, which require that affected persons be apprised of the nature of proceedings and afforded an opportunity to raise objections.

It further held that the "Rule of Law" necessitates that administrative actions impacting property rights must be backed by a reasoned process and transparency.

The Court balanced the necessity of public utility projects with the procedural rights of landowners. It noted that while the statutory scheme might not mandate prior consent for transmission lines, the respondents' failure to supply relevant documents—despite a formal request by the petitioner on 30.04.2026—prevented the petitioner from raising effective objections.

The Court observed that the petitioner was not opposing the project per se but was aggrieved by the denial of transparency regarding the basis of land utilization and compensation.

By noting the respondents' concession to grant a hearing, the Court determined that the matter could be resolved by directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct a fresh, inclusive hearing for all co-owners, thereby curing the procedural defect without halting the public project.

The SDO was ordered to provide relevant documents, explain the nature of the project and the statutory basis for compensation, and pass a reasoned order. The State was directed to file a compliance report with the Registry. No order as to costs was made.