Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Gopalbhai Chhaganbhai Vidja And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Collector And District Magistrate And Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 14736 Of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Mr Vicky B Mehta
For The Respondent:Ms Nirali Sarda, Asst. Government Pleader, Mr Percy Kavina, Senior Advocate With Mr Jeet J Bhatt

Transmission licensees, empowered by statutory authorization for public purpose, are entitled to install electrical lines over private property without landowner consent. Landowners' objections regarding alignment cannot halt such infrastructure projects, as their exclusive legal remedy for grievances is to claim compensation for damages through the prescribed judicial forum.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21, 226, 227 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 67, 68, 164 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 10, 16 - Setting up of high-voltage overhead transmission lines - Infrastructure development - Obstruction by landholders - Scope of administrative inquiry.

(B) Electricity Transmission - Licensee powers - Once authorization is granted under the relevant statute for electricity supply, the entity is empowered to exercise authority to lay lines as if it were a public telegraph authority - Consent of landholders is not a condition precedent for installing infrastructure for public utility - (Para 11.3)

(C) Magistrate’s Jurisdiction - Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act - Role is purely summary to oversee the removal of physical resistance or obstruction to public work - Magistrate is not the adjudicatory forum for land valuation or compensation - (Paras 8.1, 11.1)

(D) Compensation - Judicial remedy - Disputes concerning the quantum of damages for land use must be addressed exclusively by the District Judge under the framework provided by the relevant telegraph statute, and such claims do not serve as a bar to the commencement of project work - (Paras 8.1, 11.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an administrative order issued by a local authority permitting a transmission entity to erect power lines across their private agricultural holdings. The petitioners contended that the installation was illegal due to a lack of prior consent, missing details in the government notification, and the availability of alternative routes through barren land, arguing that these factors violated their fundamental rights over their property.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the designated infrastructure project serves a significant public purpose. The licensee, having been granted statutory authorization to act as a public authority, is not required to obtain individual owner consent. The administrative authority tasked with managing public works is empowered to ensure that resistance from private landowners does not stifle projects of national importance, while ensuring that the landholder’s entitlement to compensation remains protected.

Issues: Whether the installation of power transmission infrastructure requires the formal consent of private property owners, and whether a local administrative authority is justified in permitting the project to proceed despite opposition from landowners based on claims of inadequate compensation or unsuitable routing.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a project is sanctioned under the relevant electricity legislation, the licensee acquires the authority to place equipment on private land as a sovereign function in the interest of the public. Rights of landowners over their property are subservient to public utility requirements. Resistance to the execution of public work is legally remediable only through the pursuit of compensation for damages, rather than by obstructing the physical construction of the project itself.

Result: Petition dismissed. Rule discharged.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents – State Authorities and learned counsel Mr. Jeet Bhatt, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.6 - Company.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. By way of present petition under Article 226, 227 & 300A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

“a) The Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue the writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing and setting aside order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Ld. Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi in J/MAG-2/ETA CASE/Regi No. 31 of 2024; At Ann. N

b) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by Ld. Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi in J/MAG-2/ETA CASE/Regi No. 31 of 2024, in the interest of justice; At Ann. N

c) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioners are the owner and possessor of the land bearing revenue survey no. 184/paiki 3, 184/paiki 5, 198/paiki 5 of the village Rapar, Taluka and District Morbi. It is the case of the petitioners that, M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd. had applied for authorization under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying of overhead transmission line under the transmission scheme "Transmission system for evacuation of additional 7GW of RE power from Khawda RE park under phase III part A" and the list of the villages which cover the transmission line was also stated in the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Ministry of Power, which was granted pursuant to the application under section 164 of the Electricity Act. That, prior to the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Ministry of Power, the District Magistrate, Morbi issued a notice by letter dated 08.04.2024 to remain present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morbi for the hearing and therefore, the petitioner and others raised an objection for initiation of premature proceedings by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morbi. That, on 10.09.2024, Halvad Transmission Ltd. issued a notice to the petitioner for insertion of electric polls. That, the petitioner submitted an application seeking adjournment in a case instituted against him for providing all the relevant documents, which the petitioner was entitled to receive from the legitimate applicant company, and only after receiving the said documents, the petitioner could file an objection/reply in response to the notice issued by the Company. That, the State of Gujarat has passed a notification dated 14.08.2017 and 01.03.2024 providing for the guidelines for evaluating the compensation, pursuant to which, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Morbi, submitted a proposal on 25.02.2025 to the Collector and District Magistrate with regard to the case against petitioner under section 16(1) of the Act. That, the District Magistrate issued a notice under section 10(D) of the Act on 07.03.2025 to the petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted an adjournment application before the Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi, for submitting objection on the ground that the petition number 61/TL/2024 of the respondent Company is pending before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, and approval has not been granted and therefore, the respondent Company is not entitled to install the power line and one of the orders is passed by the learned Member Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADHEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.Gopalbhai Chhaganbhai Vidja And Ors. – Petitioners VersusCollector And District Magistrate And Ors. – Respondents R/Special Civil Application No. 14736 Of 2025Decided On : 10-04-2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Gopalbhai Chhaganbhai Vidja And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Collector And District Magistrate And Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 14736 Of 2025
Decided On : 10-04-2026