Section 164 licensees require no prior landowner consent for laying electricity transmission lines.

The petitioners are owners of agricultural land in Rapar village, Morbi.

Respondent No. 6, M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd., is a "deemed licensee" and Transmission Service Provider for a national project aimed at evacuating 7GW of renewable energy from Khavda RE Park.

On 09.09.2024, the Ministry of Power, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, conferred upon Respondent No. 6 the powers of a "Telegraph Authority" under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

When the petitioners obstructed the installation of electric poles, the Respondent No. 6 filed an application under Section 16(1) of the 1885 Act.

On 29.07.2025, the District Magistrate (DM) passed an order permitting the company to proceed, noting that compensation would be paid as per government guidelines.

The petitioners challenged this order, alleging it was passed without following natural justice, lacked specific survey numbers in the notification, and ignored alternative routes through barren land.

1. Whether the District Magistrate is empowered under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to permit the laying of transmission lines despite obstruction by landowners.

2. Whether the prior consent of a landowner is a mandatory prerequisite for a licensee to exercise powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Whether the non-mention of specific survey numbers in the public notification or the pendency of proceedings before the CERC invalidates the exercise of powers by the authority.

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

Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; Section 10 grants the authority the power to place lines on any immovable property without acquiring ownership, subject to paying full compensation for damages.

The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017) 5 SCC 143, which held that once Section 164 is invoked, the landowner’s consent is not required and their only remedy is compensation.

The Division Bench ruling in Himatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer, GETCO (LPA No. 882 of 2011), stating that broad geographical descriptions in public notices are sufficient.

The court reasoned that since the Respondent No. 6 was authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, it possessed the full powers of a Telegraph Authority under Section 10 of the 1885 Act.

Consequently, the authority has an absolute right to lay lines, and the DM’s jurisdiction under Section 16(1) is summary in nature, intended only to remove "resistance or obstruction" to ensure public works of national importance are not stalled.

The court rejected the petitioners' demand for specific survey numbers in the notification, holding that a broad description of the route in newspapers and the Gazette satisfies the requirement of public notice.

It clarified the bifurcation of jurisdictions: the DM under Section 16(1) handles the removal of obstruction, whereas any dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation must be adjudicated by the District Judge under Section 16(3).

The court found that the petitioners were afforded a hearing and that their private interests must yield to the larger public purpose of green energy evacuation.

The court held that no prior consent of the landowner is required for laying transmission lines once Section 164 powers are conferred.

The final holding confirmed that the DM correctly exercised statutory discretion to permit the project to proceed despite obstruction.

The court granted the petitioners liberty to approach the concerned District Magistrate or District Judge for any disputes regarding the determination or sufficiency of compensation as per Section 16(3) of the Act and relevant State guidelines.