Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
Dalwadi Pramodkumar Dayarambhai & Ors. – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 2069 of 2026
Decided On : 19-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Utility Regulation
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the erection of transmission towers on their land following an order granting permission under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Collector set compensation at Rs.937 per sq. mt. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was justified and no infirmity was found; the procedure regarding the permission under Section 164 of the Electricity Act was properly followed allowing the erection of towers. (Paras 5, 8)
Issues: Whether the notification complied with procedural requirements and if compensation fixation was lawful; the necessity of specifying survey numbers. (Paras 2, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The procedure was correctly followed under the Act; the need for specific survey numbers was not a legal requirement; the court reaffirmed public interest in electricity provision over private objections. (Paras 5, 58.3, 58.29)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Mr Vicky B Mehta
For the Respondent: Mr Pradip D Bhate, Mr Vaibhav Sharma Agp., Mr Akshat Khare
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek writ against notification and order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. formal procedure followed for permission under section 164. (Para 3) |
| 3. hearing conducted on document perusal. (Para 4) |
| 4. court finds no infirmity in the collector's order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. legal framework for telegraph lines and land rights. (Para 7) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed with no merits. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs:-
“8a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by quashing and setting aside the notification published in the gazette by the Ministry of Power under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 at ANNEXURE-A;
c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 Collector and District Magistrate, Surendaranagar under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 being MJS-3/VIJ DHARA HUKAM/REG.No. 18-2025 at ANNEXURE-I;
d) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the notification published in the gazette by the Ministry of Power under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 at ANNEXURE-A in the interest of justice;
e) Pending admission and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 Collector and District Magistrate, Surendaranagar under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 being MJS-3/VIJ DHARA HUKAM/REG.No. 18-2025 at ANNEXURE-I in the interest of justice;
f) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have received notice from the respondent No.3 Collector informing that the respondent No.5 has sought permission under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [“Act, 1885” for short] for removal of obstructions. The petitioners herein submitted an application seeking adjournment and request for providing certain documents so as to enable them to file their objections to the proceedings under (1) of the Act, 1885. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.3 Collector by the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 has granted permission to the respondent No.5 for erection of the transmission towers. He submits that while passing the impugned order, the respondent No.3 Collector has also ordered the compensation to be given at the rate of Rs.937 per sq. mt. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the fixation of the rate of compensation is not tenable under (1) of the Act, 1885. He submits that to that extent, the impugned order is bad in law.
2.1 In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the order dated 20.06.2022 in Special Civil Application No.10339 of 2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the fixation of the compensation has been quashed and set aside and the petitioners have been granted liberty to avail remedy in respect of sufficiency of compensation under Section 10 (d) of the Act, 1885. The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the order dated 31.01.2025 published in the Gazette of India does not specify as to what procedure was followed by the respondent No.5 while obtaining such order. He submits that though the order includes the names of the villages through which the transmission lines shall be passing. However, no specific survey nu
