Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Landowner Consent Not Required Under Section 164 Electricity Act

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that electricity transmission companies do not need prior consent from landowners to lay power lines once they are vested with powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal dismissed two writ petitions challenging a 132 kV transmission line project in Mandideep, imposing a total cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the petitioners.

Project for Private Consumer Remains in Public Interest

The dispute arose from the second-circuit stringing of the 132 kV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line, sanctioned by the Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. (MPPTCL) in June 2024. The petitioners—Daulatram Engineering Services Ltd., Nasa Corporation, and Adeel Siddiqui and Nadir Siddiqui—owned land in Village Simrai over which the line was proposed to pass. They argued that their consent was mandatory under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and that the project primarily benefited a single private consumer, Nahar Poly Films Ltd.

The petitioners contended that Section 164 could not be invoked for a dedicated line to a private entity, and that the alternative alignment they suggested was arbitrarily rejected. They also raised safety concerns about proximity to existing structures. On the other hand, MPPTCL and Nahar Poly Films argued that once the powers under Section 164 were conferred, the consent requirement under Rule 3(a) stood excluded by Rule 3(4) of the same Rules. They cited Supreme Court precedents in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. and Century Rayon Ltd. v. IVP Ltd. to support their position.

Safety Regulations Cannot Be Ignored

The court examined the interplay between Section 164 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It noted that Rule 3(4) of the Works of Licensees Rules expressly saves the powers conferred under Section 164, thereby overriding the consent requirement. The bench observed that the alternative route proposed by the petitioners had been rejected by the technical team after a spot survey revealed it would place a tower only 3.5 meters from an existing gas pipeline, violating Regulation 63(1) of the CEA Regulations, 2023.

“A safety regulation designed to keep a high-tension line clear of a gas pipeline cannot be treated as a mere formality to be brushed aside.”

On the argument that the line served a private consumer, the court relied on Century Rayon to hold that a transmission line does not lose its public character merely because it initially supplies one industrial unit. The court also noted that MPPTCL retained ownership and could tap the line for other consumers, as had been done for other companies in the area.

Delay and Suppression of Facts Prove Costly

Additionally, the court found that the petitioners had suppressed the pendency of connected proceedings—a civil suit and an earlier High Court petition—and had approached the court with delay, as nine of the thirteen sanctioned towers had already been erected.

“The ‘Nil’ declaration in paragraph 2 of the petition attracts the principle in K. Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authority and, by itself, would justify refusing discretionary relief.”

The court made clear that once powers under Section 164 are validly invoked, “neither prior consent nor a pre-decisional hearing is a precondition to the exercise of the power to survey and align the line.”

Petitioners Dismissed With Costs, Compensation Route Left Open

In the result, both writ petitions were dismissed. The court directed each petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 1 lakh to Nahar Poly Films Ltd., totaling Rs. 2 lakhs. However, the court clarified that the petitioners could pursue compensation claims under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act before the appropriate forum.