Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dheerendra Singh Sodha.
For the Respondents: M.S. Singhvi, K.S. Lodha, C.P. Soni, Param Veer Singh Champawat.

Factual Background

• Petitioners are agriculturists and khatedar tenants of lands in Villages Jambheshwar Nagar-II and Ranjeet Nagar, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur. [17000645500001] (!)
• Respondent-Company, a government undertaking, is executing a project to establish towers and a 220 KV transmission line connecting 925 MW Rajasthan Solar Park in Nokh, Jaisalmer to substations including Bhadla-II in Bap, Jodhpur. (!) [17000645500008]
• Public notice dated 23.09.2021 and Gazette Notification dated 26.10.2021 published villages through which the line would pass, inviting objections; Villages Ranjeet Nagar and Jambheshwar Nagar-II were not explicitly listed separately as they were previously part of Badi Sidd village. (!) (!) [17000645500009] (!)
• Respondent-Company allegedly changed route to pass through petitioners' lands without prior notice or publication, leading to petitioners' representation to SDO, Bap, who recommended against it after a meeting on 24.10.2021. (!) [17000645500004]
• Petitioners claim lands used for residence and leased for solar project with conversion approval; alternative route proposed with landowner consent. [17000645500004][17000645500005]
• Respondents deny route change, stating approvals under Electricity Act Sections 68 and 164 obtained via Central Electricity Authority; villages adjoin Badi Sidd, included in sanctioned route. [17000645500006] (!) (!)
• Alternate route survey required 44 towers across 19 khatas in 4 villages, but only 7 khatedars consented, making it infeasible. (!) [17000645500010]

Reliefs Sought by Petitioners

• Quash change in transmission line route and tower installation on petitioners' lands. (!)
• Direct installation per original sanctioned route in Gazette Notification dated 26.10.2021 and public notice dated 23.09.2021. (!)
• Call for records and award costs. [17000645500017] (!)

Key Legal Arguments

Petitioners' Submissions: - No prior notice or newspaper publication for route change, violating mandatory procedure. [17000645500002] - Original notices excluded petitioners' villages, rendering action illegal. [17000645500003] - Installation without acquisition proceedings or approval unjustified. [17000645500004]

Respondents' Submissions: - No route change; villages part of/notified Badi Sidd area per 2008 notification separating them. [17000645500006] - All approvals under Electricity Act Sections 68(1) and 164 secured, including CEA Gazette Notification dated 23.09.2021. (!) (!) - Petition delays public infrastructure project; Specific Relief Act Sections 20A and 41(ha) bar injunctions impeding such projects. (!)

Court's Findings

• Sanctioned route approved by authorities covers area including petitioners' lands as adjoining Badi Sidd; no change occurred. [17000645500008][17000645500009] (!)
• Electricity transmission qualifies as infrastructure project under Specific Relief Act Schedule (Energy - Electricity Transmission). (!) (!) [17000645500012]
• Granting relief would impede/delay infrastructure project progress, prohibited by Specific Relief Act Section 20A (no injunction for such contracts) and Section 41(ha) (injunction refused if delaying project). (!) (!) (!) [17000645500011][17000645500012]
• Project vital for public interest; daily electricity loss of 13 lakh units; courts should minimize intervention in public works via monitoring/regulatory mechanisms. [17000645500014] (!)
• Alternate route impractical due to lack of full khatedar consents. [17000645500010]

Outcome

• Petition under Article 226 dismissed; no relief granted. [17000645500015][17000645500016]
• All pending applications disposed of. [17000645500016]