Section 10(d) permits transmission-line installation on private land, with compensation as the owner’s statutory remedy.

The petitioner owned lands in Survey Nos.15/2E and 15/4 at Achangulam Village, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District, which it had acquired for agro-farming and on which it had installed solar panels.

The first respondent issued Notice No.200 dated 11 August 2026, proposing to utilise the lands for stringing cables and erecting transmission towers to evacuate power from the Kudankulam Power Plant.

The petitioner challenged the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally contending that it had been issued without prior notice and was inconsistent with the permission granted under G.O.Ms.No.419.

The first respondent contended that statutory publications had already been made on 12 August 2024 and 22 January 2025, with the approval of the Government of India, followed by a Gazette notification dated 6 April 2026.

Whether the impugned notice issued for laying transmission cables and erecting towers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with the Electricity Act, 2003, was liable to be quashed for want of prior notice to the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner’s land-reform permission under G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 14 March 2026, prevented the respondents from using the land for the proposed transmission line.

Whether the petitioner’s remedy, if aggrieved by the use of the land or the compensation, was confined to determination and challenge of compensation under Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The Court applied Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, particularly Section 10(d), which authorises the exercise of telegraph-line powers over property while requiring payment of compensation for damage sustained by the owner or occupier.

Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act provides a remedy before the District Court against the compensation determined by the competent authority.

These provisions were treated as applicable to the implementation of transmission projects under the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Court also considered G.O.(Ms.) No.63, Energy (A1) Department, dated 22 November 2017, prescribing the method for determining compensation, and G.O.(Ms.) No.86, Energy (A1) Department, dated 30 October 2019, enhancing the prescribed amount.

The Court held that the powers under Section 10(d) are wide and that prior notice is required only in cases involving land belonging to local authorities, according to the respondents’ submission accepted in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court held that the first respondent’s proposal to lay cables and erect transmission towers was made under the statutory powers conferred by the Indian Telegraph Act, read with the Electricity Act, and followed prior governmental approval and statutory publications.

The petitioner’s reliance on the later permission under G.O.Ms.No.419 did not invalidate the transmission project, particularly as the project-related publications had preceded that Government Order.

The Court further concluded that the absence of prior individual notice did not vitiate the impugned notice because the statutory scheme did not require such notice in respect of private land in the circumstances presented.

Any injury caused by laying the cables or towers was compensable under Section 10(d), with compensation to be assessed in accordance with the applicable Government Orders.

The petitioner’s statutory remedy, if dissatisfied with that determination, was an appeal under Section 16(3) before the District Court.

It directed the second respondent, the District Collector, Thoothukudi District, to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner after the cables and transmission towers were laid and strung, in accordance with Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the applicable Government Orders.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.