Statutory authority may lay overhead transmission lines over private land without acquisition or owner consent.

The petitioner, owner of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 141, Hissa No. 2, challenged a notice dated 14 June 2024 proposing to draw a 110 kV overhead transmission line across his property.

No tower was proposed on his land; the towers were on adjoining lands.

He alleged that the line would impair residential development potential and that the land should be acquired or his consent obtained.

He had earlier withdrawn a civil suit with liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy.

The respondents relied on their statutory authority, the public utility purpose of the project, and the proposed alignment; they disputed that the land would become unusable.

Whether the petitioner could have the notice quashed and restrain the transmission line solely because his consent had not been obtained and his land had not been acquired.

Whether the asserted effect on the property’s future residential development potential justified preventing the line from being drawn.

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, authorizes the placement and maintenance of transmission lines over private property without requiring acquisition of the land as a condition precedent.

Under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the authority obtains a right of user, not ownership, and must cause as little damage as possible and pay compensation for damage sustained.

In Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, the Supreme Court affirmed this distinction between the right of user and acquisition.

The High Court also relied on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s Abhishek Developers, W.A. Nos. 1203 of 2022 and connected matter, and W.P. No. 104689 of 2025, for the principles that owner consent is not mandatory in these circumstances and that compensation, rather than obstruction of the line, is the appropriate remedy.

A dissatisfied owner may pursue the remedy under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act.

The Court found that the respondents proposed only to draw wires between towers on adjoining lands, not to acquire or take possession of the petitioner’s land.

Because the proposed exercise was supported by statutory authority, neither lack of consent nor absence of acquisition made it unlawful; Article 300-A did not require acquisition where the authority exercised a lawful right of user.

The petitioner produced no sanctioned layout, conversion order, building plan, or other material establishing an approved residential use or development proposal that the line would frustrate.

The Court therefore considered the asserted future development impact insufficient to displace the technical alignment selected for a public utility project.

Any actual damage was to be addressed through the statutory compensation mechanism.

The dismissal does not prevent the petitioner from seeking compensation for actual damage under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; if dissatisfied with the compensation determined, he may pursue the remedy under Section 16.

No separate direction was issued concerning his representation to the Deputy Commissioner.