Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Kalariya Amrutlal Bachubhai – Appellant
Versus
Collector And District Magistrate Morbi – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14642 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vicky B. Mehta
For the Respondents: Nirali Sarda, Percy Kavina, Jeet J. Bhatt

Authorized transmission licensees possess the statutory power to install infrastructure on private land without landowner consent. The administrative authority's role is restricted to removing physical obstructions to public works, while disputes regarding the sufficiency of compensation remain separate matters for adjudication by the designated judicial forum.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 67, 164 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 10, 16 - Power for laying transmission lines - Procedure for resolving obstruction - Compensation mechanism - Statutory authorization for transmission line installation does not require prior landowner consent; landowner’s remedy lies in seeking compensation. (Paras 11.2, 11.3)

(B) Jurisdiction of Administrative Authority - Powers of District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act are restricted to resolving obstructions during the construction of public works and do not extend to the adjudication of compensation claims. (Para 8.1, 11.1)

(C) Scope of Appellate Intervention - Courts should not obstruct projects of national significance where statutory procedures have been followed; private pecuniary interests must yield to public purpose. (Para 8.1)

(D) Compensation Disputes - The determination of compensation sufficiency falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act, distinct from the administrative permission to commence work. (Para 8.3)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging an order passed by a local administrative officer authorizing a transmission licensee to erect overhead power lines on private agricultural land. The petitioner contended that the order was issued without sufficient notice, violated principles of natural justice, and argued that the power lines should not be installed until the compensation for the land value was finalized and paid.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the authority acted within its limited statutory jurisdiction solely to remove obstructions to a project of national importance. It determined that the licensee possessed sufficient statutory power, and the petitioner's right to seek compensation remains protected through the appropriate judicial forum, independent of the construction process.

Issues: Whether prior consent of the landowner is mandatory for installing overhead electrical transmission lines; the extent of the magistrate's jurisdiction in resolving project obstructions; and the validity of commencing work before the final determination of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory authorization conferred upon a licensee grants them the powers of a telegraph authority, allowing them to lay transmission lines across private property without prior consent. The administrative authority’s role is narrowly confined to addressing physical resistance to the work, while compensation disputes are to be resolved by the designated judicial authority only after the objection process is concluded.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

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. 51 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. 51 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 petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land bearing revenue survey no. 381 paiki 2/paiki 2 of the village Chakampar, Taluka and District Morbi. It is the case of the petitioner 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, New Delhi in 61/TL/2024. However

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 12471

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADHemant M. Prachchhak, JKalariya Amrutlal Bachubhai – AppellantVersusCollector And District Magistrate Morbi – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14642 of 2025

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J
Kalariya Amrutlal Bachubhai – Appellant
Versus
Collector And District Magistrate Morbi – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14642 of 2025