Transmission licensees need not obtain landowner consent; affected owners’ remedy is statutory compensation.

The appellant claimed ownership of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 54/1 at Village Gehukhedi, District Rajgarh, and stated that she had obtained Gram Panchayat permission on 12.02.2024 to construct a residential house thereon.

The respondents surveyed the area in 2024 for a 765 KV Mandsaur–Kurawar transmission line, and the route alignment was approved on 08.01.2025.

A Gazette notification was published on 08.02.2025 and a work notice was issued on 20.02.2025. The appellant objected to the alignment, alleging that the line would pass over her residential structure without prior consent, adequate notice, or compensation.

Her objection was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on 10.07.2025 on the grounds that notice had been issued and that no structure existed during the 2024 survey; route realignment was also stated to be technically unfeasible.

The appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 30.10.2025, relying on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143.

During the appeal, foundation work at Location No. 96/0 was completed between 16.07.2026 and 04.08.2026, while crop compensation was assessed and paid and a seven-member committee was constituted to examine the appellant’s claim concerning the under-construction structure.

1. Whether the respondents were legally required to obtain the appellant’s prior consent or provide an individual opportunity of objection before finalising and executing the transmission-line alignment under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

2. Whether the alleged absence or ineffectiveness of notice, including the appellant’s challenge to the Gazette notification’s description of Village Gehukhedi under the wrong tehsil, invalidated the alignment or violated natural justice.

3. Whether the transmission-line route was required to be realigned because it allegedly passed over the appellant’s residential structure and conflicted with safety requirements.

4. Whether the subsequent completion of foundation work and payment of crop compensation rendered the appellant’s challenge and interlocutory application infructuous, subject to her entitlement to compensation for structural damage.

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 permits the appropriate Government to confer on an electricity-transmission agency the powers of a telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Section 10 of the Telegraph Act authorises the placing and maintenance of telegraph lines over, under, along, or across immovable property, without requiring prior consent of the owner or occupier; the affected landowner’s statutory entitlement is principally compensation for damage under Section 10(d).

Relying on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, the Court held that prior consent and a prior individual right of objection to the route alignment are not prerequisites for construction of transmission lines.

The Court further held that an inadvertent misdescription in a statutory notification does not invalidate the notification where the affected village is identifiable from the overall alignment and no substantive prejudice is shown.

Judicial review under Article 226 does not authorise the Court to redesign technically determined transmission routes absent illegality, mala fides, or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the statutory framework did not require the respondents to obtain the appellant’s consent before laying the transmission line.

The record showed that notice had been issued on 20.02.2025, and the appellant’s detailed representation was subsequently considered and rejected by a speaking order; therefore, no actionable violation of natural justice or demonstrable prejudice was established.

The incorrect mention of Tehsil Narsinggarh instead of Tehsil Pachore was treated as a typographical error because Village Gehukhedi was expressly identified, the adjoining villages were correctly described, and the appellant did not show that another village of the same name existed in the stated tehsil.

On the factual record, the Court accepted that no completed residential building existed when the alignment was surveyed and approved, and that the structure was under construction when the notice was issued.

It also accepted the respondents’ technical explanation that realignment would interfere with the required straight corridor and the right-angle intersection with an existing transmission line, making the proposed deviation unsafe or unfeasible.

Since the foundation work had already been completed, and crop compensation had been assessed and disbursed, the remaining claim was confined to lawful compensation for any proven structural damage, which was under examination by the revenue committee.

The alleged notice defect and tehsil misdescription did not invalidate the proceedings, and no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice was established.

The order dated 30.10.2025 dismissing W.P. No. 28734 of 2025 was affirmed, and Writ Appeal No. 177 of 2026 was dismissed.

The interlocutory application and other pending applications were disposed of; the appellant remained entitled to lawful compensation for any proven damage, including structural damage, but there was no order as to costs.