Holding

An interim injunction restraining the erection of electricity transmission towers was not justified as the appellant had secured statutory permission and the public interest outweighed the landowner's claim, leading to the injunction being set aside subject to an ad‑hoc payment.

Summary

Century Rayon Ltd (appellant) sought to erect 100 kV electricity transmission towers on land owned by IVP Ltd (first respondent) under a sanction from MSEDC. IVP Ltd filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging the contractors were excavating its land without permission. The trial court and High Court imposed a temporary injunction restraining the appellant and MSEDC from making holes on the land. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had obtained permission from the District Magistrate under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and that 80% of the transmission line work was already completed, making the balance of convenience against the injunction. It emphasized the public interest in unobstructed access for transmission lines and ordered the injunction set aside, subject to an ad‑hoc payment of Rs 20,00,000 by the appellant pending final determination of compensation. The appeal was allowed, and the interim injunction was lifted.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate balance of convenience in granting an interim injunction where a public utility seeks to lay transmission lines on private land?
Does the permission granted by the District Magistrate under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, override the plaintiff's claim for a permanent injunction?
Is the public interest in electricity transmission sufficient to deny an interim injunction in favour of the landowner?

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 2003s. 164
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885s. 10, s. 16

Subjects

interim injunctionbalance of conveniencepublic interesttelegraph actelectricity transmissioncompensationlandowner rightstemporary restraining order

Judgment

1116 [2019] REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 18 S.C.R. 1116 [2019] 18 S.C.R.

A CENTURY RAYON LIMITED

v.

IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS

B (Civil Appeal No. 9063 of 2019)

NOVEMBER 27, 2019

[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
C
Injunction – Interim order – Balance of convenience –
Relevant / important considerations – First respondent-company,
owner of land in question, filed suit for permanent injunction
contending that contractors appointed by second respondent-State
Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDC) were excavating its land
D for construction of electricity transmission towers without prior
approval – The electricity transmission towers were being
constructed pursuant to sanction given by MSEDC on an application
made by the appellant – Trial court and first appellate court
restrained appellant and second respondent by way of temporary
E injunction from “making holes for erecting poles on any part of the
suit lands without following due process of law” – Order affirmed
by High Court – On appeal, held: On facts, appellant had
subsequently obtained the necessary permission for erection of the
towers and setting up transmission line subject to payment of
compensation to first respondent in terms of s.16(1) to s.16(4) r/w
F s.10 of the Telegraph Act – Also, as a matter of fact the electricity
transmission towers on the land of first respondent were already
constructed – Therefore, and in a way, MSEDC was already using
the land of first respondent – Further, 80% of the work of laying
the electricity transmission lines was already over and at that stage,
passing of an interim injunction to stall the setting up and activation
G
of the transmission lines was not justified in larger public interest –
Balance of convenience did not justify passing of an interim
injunction order in favour of first respondent – Continuation of
injunction not warranted and justified in law – Adequate remedy
would be to set aside the impugned order of High Court as also the
H
1116
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED v. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS 1117

injunction order subject to appellant making an ad hoc payment of A
Rs. 20,00,000/- with such payment being subject to outcome of the
civil suit or the proceedings under the Telegraph Act for quantifying
the compensation payable to first respondent – Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 – ss.10 and 16 – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.164.

Electricity Laws – Transmission of electricity – Use of land B
belonging to third party for setting up of electricity transmission
lines – Imperative need for unobstructed access for laying down
the electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as these
are essential requirements for growth and development of the country,
economy and well-being of citizens – Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – C
ss. 10 and 16 – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.164.

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and Others (2017) 5 SCC
143 : [2016] 11 SCR 41 – relied on.
D
Case Law Reference

[2016) 11 SCR 41 relied on Para 7

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9063
of 2019. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2019 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19175 of
2018.

N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur F
Saigal, Anshuman Srivastava, Rohan Talwar, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for
the Appellant.

Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jai Kanade, Aslam Ahmed,
Ms. Dhanyashree Shah, Saurabh Bindal, Kaushik Laik, Prasad Dighe,
Ms. Teja Ray, Ms. Arti Singh, akashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh, G
Advs. for the Respondents.

H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent – IVP Limited is a company and owner of
B the non-agricultural land at village Vadavali bearing S. No. 43/32
admeasuring about 20 R Pot Kharaba 1 R and at village Mohane bearing
S. No. 42/12 admeasuring about 22R 30P and S. No. 44/2 admeasuring
about 50 R Pot Kharaba 3R. The first respondent has filed a suit for
permanent injunction with a grievance that the Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited (‘MSEDC’ for short), the
C second respondent before us, had appointed contractors who were
excavating its land for construction of the electricity transmission towers
without any prior approval.
3. The appellant – Century Rayon Limited, who is also a defendant
in the suit, is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and
D sale of chemicals and has its plant at village Mohane, Taluka Kalyan,
District Thane. The aforesaid electricity transmission towers are being
constructed on the application dated 2nd May 2016 made by the appellant
to the MSEDC for Line In Line Out (LILO) on 100 KV
MohaneAmbernath DC TL. Thereupon, the sanction was granted by
E the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd (‘MSETCL’ for
short) vide letter 24th May 2017 subject to various terms and conditions
including that the right to way problem for laying of line is to be sorted
out by the appellant at its cost.
4. The present appeal impugns the judgment and order dated 9th
F January 2019 passed by the High Court of Bombay, which dismisses
Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 19175 of 2018, and thereby affirms the order
passed by the trial court and the first appellate court restraining the
appellant and the second respondent by way of temporary injunction
from “making holes for erecting poles on any part of the suit lands without
following due process of law”.
G
5. A number of issues and contentions have been raised before us
but we are not inclined to enter into a detailed discussion, for we are
dealing with an interim injunction order and are inclined to grant relief to
the appellant subject to certain conditions, leaving the main issues to be
decided and adjudicated in the civil suit and under the provisions of the
H
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED v. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS 1119
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Telegraph Act’ for short) read with the A
Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Electricity Act’ for short).
6. There were certain lapses on the part of the MSETCL/MSEDC
and the appellant, as has been noticed in the impugned order, on account
of the failure to take necessary permission from the District Magistrate
when there was obstruction and objection to the work of erecting the B
electricity transmission towers on the first respondent’s land. However,
it is an accepted and admitted position that pursuant to the interim order
passed by the first appellate court on 25th April 2018, the appellant had
initiated appropriate proceedings through licensing authority before the
District Magistrate, Thane and thereupon vide order dated 28th August
2018 necessary permission for erection of the towers and setting up C
transmission line has been granted subject to payment of compensation
to the first respondent in terms of Section 16(1) to Section 16(4) read
with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. It is correct that the interim order
dated 25th April 2018 was set aside by the Bombay High Court vide
order dated 17th May 2018, albeit it is an accepted position that as a D
matter of fact the electricity transmission towers on the land of the first
respondent have already been constructed. Therefore, and in a way, the
MSEDC is already using the land of the first respondent. The appellant
has highlighted and the MSEDC affirms that 80% of the work of laying
the transmission line is already over and but for the injunction order
under challenge the transmission line would have been activated and E
operationalised. Clearly, therefore, the balance of convenience does not
justify passing of an interim injunction order in favour of the first
respondent. It is also accepted that the District Magistrate, Thane vide
order dated 28th August 2018 has granted the necessary permission for
erection of the towers and setting up of the transmission line on the land F
of the first respondent. The relevant portion of this order, which has not
been set aside, reads as under:
“[…] Therefore, the line plan finalised is the most proper plan.
Therefore, in respect of losses to be caused, proper compensation
as may be fixed by the Hon’ble District Magistrate will be paid to G
the concerned.
That means, overall by considering all options suggested by
concerned, technically most proper line is found to have been
included by MSETCL with their aforesaid letter dt. 30/07/2018.
Further as per proviso in Section 10(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.

A while exercising the said power action will be taken to pay full
compensation in respect of their losses to all interested persons,
after ensuring that minimum loss will be caused.”
7. On the aspect of use of land belonging to a third party for
setting up of the electricity transmission line, we would refer to the
B judgment of this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v.
Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others 1 wherein a
Division Bench of this Court while examining Section 164 of the Electricity
Act had observed that the appropriate Government may by order in
writing for the purpose of placing of electric lines or electrical plant for
the transmission of electricity necessary for the proper coordination of
C works, confer on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged
in the business of supplying electricity under the Electricity Act any of
the powers that the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph
Act with respect to the placing of the posts and lines for the purposes of
a telegraph. This conferment of powers would be subject to such
D conditions and restrictions, if any, that the appropriate Government may
impose and the provisions of the Telegraph Act. Reference was made
to Sections 102 and 163 of the Telegraph Act which postulates the power
of the telegraph authority to maintain telegraph lines and posts and the
1 (2017) 5 SCC 143
E 2
Section 10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph
lines and posts.—
The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line
under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that: -
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section
except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central
F Government, or to be so established or maintained.
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in
the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority
places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those
powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of
G any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall
do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect
of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation
to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise
of those powers.
3
Section 16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to
H compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED v. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS 1121
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

provisions relating to compensation in exercise of those powers. Clause A
(d) to Section 10 requires that the telegraph authority shall do as limited
damage as possible in exercise of powers to place and maintain telegraph
lines and posts, and full compensation shall be paid to all persons interested
for any damage sustained by them. Sub-section (1) to Section 16 states
that in case of resistance or obstruction in respect of powers exercised
B
by the telegraph authority under clause (d) to Section 10, the District
Magistrate may in his discretion make an order that the telegraph
authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers. Sub-section (3) to
Section 16 states that if any dispute arises with regard to the sufficiency
of the compensation to be paid under clause (d) to Section 10, the District
Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated shall determine C
the compensation. On the legal effect of these provisions, this Court had
observed:
“21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the
aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has conferred
the powers of telegraph authority vide Notification dated D
24-12-2003 exercisable under the Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the
Power Grid. It may also be mentioned that a Central transmission
utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to
Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central
transmission utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the
Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid E
is treated as authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires
all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under
(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred
to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate
may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to F
exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub section (1), any person resists the exercise
of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for
this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section
188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid
under Section 10 clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the
G
disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is
situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the
proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph
authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such amount as he deems
sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.

A the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to
eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission
lines. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed
access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines
is an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of
villages all over the country and availability of telegraph lines are
B
the most essential requirements for growth and development of
any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens.
The legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/
obstruction in achieving this objective and through the scheme of
the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph
C lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity
transmission lines.
xx xx xx
23. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph
authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along
D or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The
provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it
abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down
telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right
other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of
E the Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure
that it causes as little damage as possible and that the telegraph
authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons
interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the
exercise of those powers.

F xx xx xx
26. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the
given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was
tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3),
that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing
such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive
G the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons
interested are entitled to share in it.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-
section (4) shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person
to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph
H authority, from the person who has received the same.
CENTURY RAYON LIMITED v. IVP LIMITED AND OTHERS 1123
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that A
not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire
work had already been completed by the time the writ petitioner
started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power
Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant
factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned
B
transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight
line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is
also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed
over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilised
for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not
prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid C
buildings, religious places, ponds, etc. while laying down these
transmission lines. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers
are placed on the private lands to the minimum and least extent
possible. That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case.
Another important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is
D
that no blasting is permissible within 300 m from the 400 kV line
(already existing) or the tower structure. Mining of limestone can
be taken up by adopting the methods other than use of explosive/
blasting — without damage to the tower foundation/tower structure
or the line, which can be accomplished by using jack hammer/
pneumatic hammer with compressor so as to avoid any damage E
to the line or tower. This aspect has also been taken note of by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment dated
11-3-2008. The Division Bench did not differ with any of these
findings.”
The decision highlights the imperative and the need for F
unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines in
the larger public interest as these are essential requirements for growth
and development of the country, economy and well-being of the citizens.
8. Counsel for the first respondent had submitted that the ratio of
the aforesaid decision is not applicable as the electricity transmission G
line in the present case is for the benefit of the appellant and not for the
public at large. This is factually disputed by the appellant. The MSETCL
in its affidavit has stated that the installation of transmission lines for the
generation of High Voltage Electricity is a policy decision of the
Government and for the public benefit at large. The service line even if
H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 18 S.C.R.

A is in the nature of “Dedicated Distribution Facilities” has no exclusivity
and the MSETCL would be entitled to tap the said service line for providing
electricity to other consumers. This factual aspect would be a subject
matter of the trial. It would not be appropriate at this stage to disregard
the statement made by the MSETCL to stall the setting up and activation
of the electricity transmission lines.
B
9. During the course of hearing, attempts were made by the parties,
that is, the appellant and the first respondent, to settle the matter albeit
the talks had failed as the first respondent wanted the appellant to purchase
a substantial portion of the land owned by it. The appellant expressed its
inability to purchase a substantial portion of the land as demanded by the
C first respondent. It was stated by the appellant that it does not require
ownership of such a large area of land. We would not like to comment
on the aforesaid stands of both sides and have noted the same only to
observe that the dispute does have a commercial aspect, that is monetary
compensation which we will not like to adjudicate and would leave this
D issue open, given the order of the District Magistrate, Thane and as the
present appeal is directed against an interim order. Continuation of
injunction is not warranted and justified in law.
10. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned order as
also the injunction order subject to the appellant making an ad hoc
E payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lakhs only) in addition to the
payments already made. On the said payment being made to the first
respondent, the MSEDC and their contractors would be entitled to
continue and complete the work of erection of the electricity transmission
towers on the land of the first respondent. The payment made would be
subject to the outcome of the civil suit or the proceedings under the
F Telegraph Act for quantifying the compensation payable to the first
respondent.
11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms without any order
as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.

G
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed.

H