Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Ramdevsinh Sabalsinh Jadeja And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Collector And District Magistrate, Morbi And Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 14775 Of 2025, Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 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

Statutory authorization conferred upon a transmission licensee to act as a telegraph authority empowers the licensee to erect electrical infrastructure without the prior consent of the landowner. The landowner's remedy for disputes regarding compensation is limited to the prescribed statutory forum, rather than obstructing the project itself.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 67, 68 and 164 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Sections 10 and 16 - Erection of transmission lines - Statutory power of licensee - Private land - Compensation.

(B) The conferment of powers under a relevant statute upon a licensee to act as a telegraph authority allows for the installation of transmission lines upon private land without obtaining prior consent of the owner. The jurisdiction of the district authority under the statute is limited to determining whether the obstruction to the work is justified or merely a mechanism to stall a project of public importance. Issues regarding compensation are distinct and must be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. (Paras 11.2, 11.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owners of agricultural land, challenged an order passed by local authorities permitting a utility company to lay overhead transmission lines through their property. The utility company, acting under statutory authorization, attempted to install electric infrastructure. The petitioners raised objections concerning the lack of individual notice, absence of prior consent, and inadequate compensation, requesting an injunction against the project.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the licensee, upon being granted statutory authorization, derives powers akin to those of a telegraph authority. Consent of the landowner for laying transmission lines is not a prerequisite. The administrative order permitting the work was legally sound, balancing the public necessity of the infrastructure project with the individual's right to seek compensation for damages.

Issues: Whether the prior consent of an owner is necessary to install overhead transmission lines on private property and whether the district authority has the jurisdiction to order the removal of physical obstructions in such projects.

Ratio Decidendi: The legislative framework authorizing the laying of transmission lines overrides the necessity for individual consent. A summary inquiry by the executive authority to remove obstructions is consistent with the law, provided that the landowner’s right to seek compensation for diminution in land value or damages is preserved.

Result: Petition dismissed.

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. 32 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. 32 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. 170/paiki 5, 45/1/paiki 1, 203 paiki 3/paiki 2, 1/paiki 6, 34/2, 30/1 paiki 2, 29 paiki 2 /paiki 1, 295/1 paiki 2, 18/2 paiki 1/ paiki 2 of the village Piludi, 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 an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1175

Cases Referred (1)