Licensees must obtain prior consent from landowners or relevant authority before installing electric lines on private property, and failure to comply results in liability for compensation as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. M. Nath, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in erecting ST Electric Post on their respective lands alleging that the said actions are contrary to the settled principles of law.

3. The facts of the instant case as it reveal from the records are that all the three Petitioners are owners of various plots of land. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent APDCL have installed ST Electric post in their respective lands by forcefully entering into their respective lands and starting construction. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Authorities have no authority to install/erect/lay down transmission line on or over the lands belonging to the private persons unless permissions are obtained incompliance with Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules of 2006’) framed in exercise of powers under Section 67(2) read with Section 176(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

4. The records reveal that this Court passed an order on 26.07.2017 whereby notice was issued and till the returnable date, the Respondent No.5 was directed not to energize the concerned 11 KV line. The record further reveals that no affidavit in the meantime has been filed. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 07.08.2025, this Court directed the Respondents to carry out assessment as to what amount the Petitioners are entitled to and provide an update to this Court by the next date fixed. In the meantime, the Respondents have carried out an assessment and as per their estimation, the three Petitioners are entitled to a total amount of Rs.23,312/-. This aspect would be apparent from the instructions placed before this Court which were kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”.

5. It was also submitted by Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel for the APDCL that the Respondent Authorities have taken steps for making payment of the said amount of Rs.23,312/- to the Petitioners but the Petitioners have refused to accept.

6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties.

7. Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that it is the mandate of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2006 whereby a licensee is only permitted to carry out works of laying down or placing any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land with the prior consent of the owner or the occupier of the building or the land. The learned counsel further submitted that the licensee however can lay down or place any electric supply land over a private land if no consent taken only after obtaining the permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other Officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf for carrying out the works. The learned counsel submitted that in the instant case, the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have neither taken consent of the Petitioners nor the written permission from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of P