Back
Aerial Power Lines and Private Property: Clarifies "Right of Way"
In a significant ruling for infrastructure development, the of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reaffirmed that the State holds exclusive " " for electrical transmission lines. A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a (LPA) filed by a landowner who sought additional for agricultural land affected by a 220 KV high-voltage transmission line.
Background: The Quest for Fair The dispute stems from the construction of the 220 KV D/C Zainakote-Amargarh transmission line. The petitioner, Ghulam Mohi Uddin Sheikh, had previously received for five marlas of land acquired to host a transmission tower, which was settled through private negotiation in .
Years later, the petitioner approached the court, arguing that the presence of high-voltage lines over his property rendered his entire farming parcel useless, uncultivable, and a liability to his income. He contended that the respondents had a to compensate not just for the tower footprint, but for the entire land corridor spanned by the overhead wires.
The Legal Tug-of-War The petitioner relied on the argument that the " " and the resulting loss of agricultural productivity necessitated further , citing the ’s decision in .
Conversely, the respondents maintained that the tower locations were finalized by the and vetted by the based on technical feasibility. They argued that there is no legal provision for granting for the land beneath overhead lines, as the aerial space is governed by the State’s infrastructure requirements, and that the petitioner had already been compensated for the land physically occupied by the tower structures.
The Court’s Analysis The drew a clear line between and the " ." Relying on the precedent set in , the Court held that the State’s power to lay transmission lines is statutory and fundamental.
The Court distinguished between the loss of land used for concrete structures—for which is due—and the aerial space, which remains with the State for . Unless an individual can demonstrate direct loss or damage resulting from the line's existence, the simple fact of wires crossing airspace does not trigger a right to .
Key Observations The judgment underscores the precedence of public infrastructure needs over individual claims regarding aerial usage:
-
"A land holder cannot assert any right,
qua transmission line; the
in respect of transmission lines continues to be with the State and individual owners cannot claim
in respect thereof."
-
"The transmission lines are being laid as per the original alignment approved in the project report in pursuance of the
and its feasibility cleared by the
."
-
"The appellants/petitioners cannot assert any right legal, fundamental or constitutional, violated by the respondents in doing an act within the purview of its powers recognized by the statute."
Final Verdict: Infrastructure Sovereignty Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was free from or . While the Court noted that any specific damage to trees or property caused by the construction of the corridor is assessable through the , the petitioner’s broad claim for "aerial " was rejected.
This ruling serves as a vital precedent, providing clarity to both utility corporations and landowners that, provided the project follows sanctioned technical routes, frameworks maintain a priority of rights in the airspace above private land.
