Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
District Collector's Power to Change Alignment - The consensus across multiple judgments indicates that the District Collector or District Magistrate generally does not have the authority to alter the route or alignment of towers and wires once the project is underway or the alignment has been fixed. Several courts explicitly state that such powers are beyond their jurisdiction, and any attempt to change the alignment is considered unauthorized. For example, Collector was not empowered to change the alignment ["LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], and The District Collector has no powers to alter any route or alignment ["LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"]. In some cases, the courts have affirmed that the power to modify alignment resides with higher authorities or specific statutory bodies, not the District Collector or Magistrate ["LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Implementation Constraints and Feasibility - Many sources emphasize that once significant work has been completed, including erection of towers, changing the alignment becomes practically unfeasible. Almost entire work had already been completed by the time the protest started ["Sujeet Kumar VS Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited - Patna"], and it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed ["Ganta Srinivasulu vs Union of India - Telangana"]. The technical and logistical challenges, along with the fact that most towers are already erected, restrict the possibility of route modifications.
Legal and Procedural Limitations - Courts have consistently held that the authority to approve or alter the route lies with designated statutory bodies or higher authorities, not the District Collector. The power of the District Collector is limited and does not extend to changing the route ["N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3522"], and such powers are vested with the District Judge or specific authorities ["Ganta Srinivasulu vs Union of India - Telangana"]. Furthermore, procedural lapses, such as not providing notices or failing to produce approved plans, reinforce the view that the Collector or Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to unilaterally alter the alignment ["K.Rahul vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"].
Court Rulings and Precedents - Multiple judgments, including those from High Courts and Division Benches, have consistently upheld that the power to change the alignment does not rest with the District Collector or Magistrate. For instance, the Division Bench held that the District Magistrate had no power to direct change of alignment ["LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"], and the Court observed that the District Collector is not vested with such power ["LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The collective legal opinion and judicial precedents clearly establish that the District Collector or District Magistrate does not possess the authority to alter the alignment of towers and wires once the route has been fixed or substantial work has been completed. Such powers are either vested with higher statutory authorities or specific agencies like the Power Grid Corporation, and any attempt by the Collector to change the alignment is deemed unauthorized and contrary to law ["Muniammal VS District Collector, Dharmapuri - Madras"]. Therefore, the role of the District Collector is limited to procedural facilitation and not to making substantive changes to the route of transmission lines.
In the realm of infrastructure development, particularly high-voltage transmission lines, disputes often arise over the placement of towers and wires. Landowners may object to routes passing through their properties, seeking changes from local authorities like the District Collector. But does the District Collector have the power to change the alignment of towers and wires? This question lies at the heart of numerous judicial decisions under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
This blog post explores the legal position, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information based on judicial interpretations and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The question is clear: District Collector do not have power to change alignment of Towers and wires. Courts have consistently ruled that once a transmission line route is approved—typically via a statutory order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003—the District Collector (or District Magistrate) cannot alter it, especially after work has commenced. Their role is strictly limited to facilitating execution by removing obstructions, not making technical route decisions. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
This stems from the specialized nature of route selection, which involves technical surveys, techno-economic analysis, and expertise from transmission authorities like Power Grid Corporation. Landowners' remedies are confined to compensation, not route dictation. N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3522Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Sri. T. Sivakumar VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4627
Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the District Collector's powers are executive, not adjudicatory. A pivotal Division Bench judgment states: The District Collector is not vested with such power either under Section 16 or 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
This was echoed in Supreme Court rulings, affirming that the Collector aids in overcoming resistance during laying lines under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, but cannot re-route approved alignments. N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3522 The route decision rests exclusively with the telegraph or transmission authority. Rasikaben Vikramsinh Chauhan VS State Of Gujarat - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1846
In a landmark case, the Supreme Court clarified that post-Section 164 approval, the Collector's function mirrors executing decisions under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act—purely facilitative. Landowners cannot compel route changes via objections; their right is to compensation for damages. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Sri. T. Sivakumar VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4627BHARAT PLYWOOD AND TIMBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. VS KSEB - 1969 0 Supreme(Ker) 210
Supporting this, other judgments note: Collector had no power to direct change of alignment... Collector was not empowered to change the alignment.M.D.,M/S.RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P.LTD. vs R.CHELLAPPAN .M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1047 The Madras High Court Division Bench similarly held the District Magistrate lacked power under Section 16 to alter alignments, rejecting arguments that orders fell outside that section. M. D. , M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1002
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, empowers the appropriate government to authorize licensees to exercise Telegraph Act powers for transmission lines. Once notified, the route becomes binding. Courts emphasize:- Route determination is a technical domain of the licensee. N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3522- Collector's intervention is limited to removing difficulties or obstructions during execution. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
For instance, in cases involving poultry farms under transmission lines, courts directed height adjustments for clearance (e.g., from 52m to 56m, ensuring 40ft between sag and structures) but upheld original routes, granting compensation instead. M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1047Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited VS Asian School of Business Management Trust - 2013 Supreme(SC) 708
Landowners facing towers often raise concerns like reduced land value, agricultural impact, or health effects on livestock. While sympathetic, courts limit remedies:- Compensation for land use, crop damage, or tower erection under Telegraph Act provisions. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Sri. T. Sivakumar VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4627- No right to veto or alter approved routes based on personal objections. BHARAT PLYWOOD AND TIMBER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD. VS KSEB - 1969 0 Supreme(Ker) 210
In one case, petitioners argued high-tension towers would negate constitutional property rights and market value. The court mandated personal hearings for objections but upheld the authority's technical decisions, stressing independent consideration without external influence. K. S. Natarajan VS Government of India - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 4240
Exceptions are rare:- Pre-approval stages may allow objections.- If no Section 164 order exists, powers differ.- Practical solutions like height increases have been ordered for specific clearances, but not route changes. LILU RAM vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORSOrissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited VS Asian School of Business Management Trust - 2013 Supreme(SC) 708
Further precedents reinforce this. In a Tamil Nadu dispute, the court set aside a District Collector's order altering routes, deeming it without jurisdiction and arbitrary. It directed adherence to the original path. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4632
Another Supreme Court appeal noted: The respondent therein contended that the District Collector/Magistrate has no power to change the alignment. Public benefit from electrification outweighed individual rerouting demands. Chairman, TANTRANSCO, Chennai VS District Collector, Thiruvallur - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4693
In multi-circuit line cases, even business proposals (e.g., container terminals) failed to shift 230kV lines without cost-bearing, with courts prioritizing approved alignments. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4632
A related ruling under Article 227 and Telegraph Act Sections 16/17 dismissed parallel remedies against schemes, upholding notified alignments post-survey. Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited VS Asian School of Business Management Trust - 2013 Supreme(SC) 708
Any post-start reroute attempt risks being illegal and subject to judicial review.B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468
Judicial consensus is unequivocal: District Collectors lack power to change transmission tower and wire alignments once statutorily approved. This protects technical expertise while safeguarding landowner compensation rights. Key takeaways:1. Route decisions are for transmission experts, not Collectors. N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 35222. Powers under Sections 16/17 (Telegraph Act) are facilitative only. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 44683. Compensation, not rerouting, is the primary remedy. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Sri. T. Sivakumar VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 46274. Exceptions involve pre-approval or specific adjustments like heights.
For infrastructure projects balancing public needs and private rights, these precedents ensure orderly development. Stay informed on evolving case law, and seek professional advice tailored to your case.
References (select judgments):1. B. Sankar VS District Collector, krishnagiri district, Krishnagiri - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 4468 – Limits Collector's powers explicitly.2. N. Shanmugam VS District Collector, Coimbatore - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 3522 – Supreme Court on technical authority.3. Sri Vignesh Yarns Pvt. Ltd. , rep. by its Managing Director Sri. T. Sivakumar VS S. Subramaniam - 2012 0 Supreme(Mad) 4627 – Execution vs. modification.4. Rasikaben Vikramsinh Chauhan VS State Of Gujarat - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1846 – Post-Section 164 constraints.5. M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan - 2009 Supreme(SC) 1047 – No alignment change power.
#ElectricityLaw, #TransmissionLines, #LegalPrecedents
towers and for laying wires. ... Since the project is sought to be implemented by investment of Rs.1,400 Crores and out of 1000 towers, already 996 towers have been erected, at this juncture, it is not possible to change the alignment or prohibit the respondents 2 and 3 from erecting the towers. ... Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 approached the District Collector, Dharmapuri, seeking permission to enter upon th....
No change in the route/alignment of the towers was made thereafter at any stage. ... wires apparatus etc. ... It is also submitted that if the change in route alignment as suggested by the the District Magistrate has the power that if anybody causes any p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin
was not empowered to change the alignment. ... change of alignment. ... On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section ... Nedumaran, howeve....
not empowered to change the alignment. ... change of alignment. ... On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section ... The Distric....
empowered to change the alignment. ... On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under S.16, but ... Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the first respondent filed Writ Appeal No.522/08 which w....
empowered to change the alignment. ... On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Division Bench was wrong in holding that under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under S.16, but ... Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the first respondent filed Writ Appeal No.522/08 which w....
It is also the case of Petitioners that Respondents have not placed the approved plan signed by the competent authority including the map giving details of the location of towers and erection of proposed extra high-tension wires and that is the minimum expected thing that needs to be done by the Corporation ... Aggrieved by the said rejection orders/refusal orders to change the alignment, petitioners filed this Writ Petition. 2. ... land and also the nearby surroundings including at least 20 KMs. prior....
It is also the case of Petitioners that Respondents have not placed the approved plan signed by the competent authority including the map giving details of the location of towers and erection of proposed extra high-tension wires and that is the minimum expected thing that needs to be done by the Corporation ... Aggrieved by the said rejection orders/refusal orders to change the alignment, petitioners filed this Writ Petition. 2. ... land and also the nearby surroundings including at least 20 KMs. prior....
Collector had no power to direct change of alignment. ... Collector was not empowered to change the alignment. ... Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and District Magistrate and District Collector, p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:182pt;left:90pt
The respondent therein contended that the District Collector/Magistrate has no power to change the alignment. ... The Writ Petition was dismissed and as against which an Appeal was filed before the Division bench and the Appeal was allowed and the Division Bench held that there is no power for the District Collector to direct change of alignment. ... We are also of the definite opinion that the District#H....
On the same line, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would also rely on the another decision rendered by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 464 of 2008, dated 10.04.2008. According to the learned counsel, even otherwise, the writ petition is devoid of merits and substance and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, he would submit that the District Collector/District Magistrate has no power to change the alignment of transmission line, as the power is very limited in the nature of executing the decision.
Keeping aside the technical aspect of the matter as to whether the order passed by the District Collector was one under Section 16 or Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, in order to arrive at a practical solution to the problem, the Power Grid Corporation accepted the alternate suggestion made on behalf of the appellant Company and raised the height of the lowest point of sag of the transmission lines between the two towers on either side of the poultry sheds of the appellant Company from 46.5 m to 52 m, which in practical terms means a clearance of 30 ft between the lowest point of the s....
The respondent therein contended that the District Collector/Magistrate has no power to change the alignment. The main thrust of challenge before the Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to direct change of alignment of a transmission line under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. The State of Tamil Nadu took a stand that the erection of towers for carrying the transmission line was for the benefit of the public at large who stood to benefit from the energising of the target area for the improvement of the lot of the people of the area. ....
It was also pointed out that the appellant had no objection to the power transmission line being taken over its lands and the District Collector had taken into consideration the limited request made on behalf of the appellant company that the route of the power line be diverted in the eastward direction within the limits of its lands instead of passing through the middle of the said lands. The main thrust of challenge before the Supreme Court was with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to direct change of alignment of a transmission line under section 16 of the Telegraph A....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
