SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12170

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J
BHOORA RAM – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8306/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yuvraj Singh, Raj Bishnoi, Alpana Sharma
For the Respondents: Vinit R. Dave, Mahipal Bajiya

Under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, landowners cannot legally object to the installation of high-tension electricity lines but maintain a statutory right to receive fair compensation for the use of their land.

Headnote:(A) High-Tension Lines - Indian Telegraph Act 1885 - Right to object - Petitioners cannot object to the laying down of high-tension lines under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. (Para 4)

(B) Compensation - Entitlement - Landowners are entitled to receive compensation in accordance with law for the laying of electricity lines over their land. (Para 4, 6, 7)

Issues: Whether the petitioners can object to the laying of a high-tension line and their entitlement to compensation.

Table of Content
1. disposal of the petition based on the precedent of a similar case involving identical reliefs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. statutory bar on objecting to high-tension lines under the indian telegraph act 1885, subject to compensation. (Para 4)
3. direction for the calculation and payment of compensation within a specified timeframe. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)

Order

1. At the outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that an identical writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6706/2025; Maniram Vs. Power Grid Corporation Limited & Ors. claiming similar relief has already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though the above mentioned writ petition is dismissed however, respondents were asked to calculate and pay the compensation as applicable to the petitioners in a time bound manner. He further submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to refute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents.

4. It is noted that in the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the laying down of a high-tension line. In view of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the petitioners cannot object to the laying down of high-tension line but they are entitled for compensation in accordance with law.

5. In view of the above factual position, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as Maniram (supra).

6. Needless to observe, as directed in the above referred judgment, it shall be required of the respondents to calculate and pay the compensation applicable to the petitioner.

7. Petitioners’ right to lay challenge to the amount of compensation determined shall stand reserved. The compensation shall be payed within a period of six months of the electricity line being laid over the petitioners’ land.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top