SOLANKI TALASHIBHAI GANDABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/4034/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4034 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                Yes          No
                                                               No
==========================================================
                   SOLANKI TALASHIBHAI GANDABHAI & ORS.
                                  Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHICHANDANI FOR KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,2,3,4
MEETKUMAR J PANDIT(9479) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIXA PANDYA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                              Date : 01/05/2026

                                JUDGMENT


1.      RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Dixa Pandya, learned
AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.1 and Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned counsel
waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2.      With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.


                                  Page 1 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




3.      By way of present petition under Article 14, 21, 226 &
300A of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of Section
6 r/w Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 & Works of
Licensees Rules, 2006 and under the provisions of the Section
10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 11 of the
Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2006, petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :

        “9(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issue to writ of
        mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in
        nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to carry out
        survey for alternate route for laying down of heavy electric line on
        the land in question and finalise the route which causes minimum
        damage to private property;

        (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,
        this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent
        authorities to grant status quo in respect of the lands in question
        and in respect of the impugned action of installing the electric lines
        and poles;

        (C) Ex-parte/Ad-interim relief in terms para (B) above be granted;
        and;

        (D) Such other and further relief(s) as are deemed fit in the
        interest of justice and equity be granted.


4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that,
the Petitioners are the owners and in possession of land
bearing Survey Nos. 99, 100 and 105 situated at Village
Hirapur, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad, and Survey
Nos. 1072 and 1073 situated at Village Kunvara, Taluka
Sanand, District Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the
lands in question”), and are carrying out agricultural activities
thereon.

4.1 The Respondent authorities are proposing to lay a 66 KV


                                   Page 2 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




High Tension electric line from 400 KV Charal Sub-Station to
Vendor Park, Chharodi, passing through the lands in question.
In this regard, undated notices in the year 2019 were issued
to the Petitioners.

4.2 The proposed alignment is highly inconvenient and
impractical, causing undue hardship to the Petitioners,
despite the availability of a more viable and less damaging
alternative route, as reflected in the maps produced by the
Petitioners.

4.3     The      Respondents    preferred          applications      under      the
Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act before the Ld. Collector,
Ahmedabad (Hirapur Case No.10/2021 and Kunvara Case
No.11/2021), seeking permission to erect towers and lay the
electric line. By orders dated 01.04.2022, the Ld. Collector
allowed the said applications. A Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of
2020 is also pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Sanand.

4.4 Since 2022, only five towers have been constructed and no
further work was carried out, leading the Petitioners to
believe that the route had been altered. However, recently the
Respondents            have   resumed        survey     activities       on     the
Petitioners’ land for further construction, giving rise to the
present Petition.

5.      Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the in action on
the part of the respondents, the present petition is preferred.

6.      Heard Mr. Abhichandani learned counsel for Kumar H.
Trivedi,       learned    counsel      appearing       on     behalf      of    the


                                    Page 3 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




petitioners, Ms. Dixa Pandya, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S.P. Hasurkar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and
3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
action of the Respondent Authorities in laying and installing a
high-tension electric line over the land in question is illegal,
arbitrary, unsustainable, and in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He has submitted that the Respondent
Authorities have failed to consider the relevant provisions of
the Electricity Act and the Telegraph Act, as well as the rules
framed thereunder, and have ignored the inconvenience and
damage caused to the Petitioners. He has submitted that the
order at Annexure-D passed by the learned Collector is
without application of mind, as none of the contentions raised
by the Petitioners have been considered.

7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that the Respondent Authorities failed to consider alternative,
feasible routes, such as through the adjoining GIDC land or
water canal. The panchnama dated 15.07.2021, carried out by
the Court Commissioner in Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 2020,
clearly records the availability of two alternative routes;
however, no steps were taken in that regard. He has
submitted that the Respondent Authorities proceeded on the
erroneous          assumption   that    the     land     in    question       was
‘Panjrapol’ land. He has submitted that the notification issued
by    the      Respondent   Authorities         did   not     specify     survey
numbers, thereby depriving the Petitioners of an opportunity



                                 Page 4 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




to raise objections. He has submitted that the Respondent
Authorities have neither declared compensation nor published
a detailed route map, nor undertaken a proper survey of
alternative routes, contrary to the law laid down in case of
Mehulsinh Jitisinh Rana v. Torrent Energy Limited
reported in 2015(0) GUJHC 34156. It is submitted that the
Respondent Authorities have arbitrarily chosen the route on
an incorrect assumption regarding the nature of the land and
without considering less damaging alternatives.

7.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred and relied
upon Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,
which is reproduced hereunder :

      “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 exorcise the powers conferred
      by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established
      or maintained by the [Central 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;

      (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 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


                                Page 5 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




      persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of
      the exercise of those powers.”

      Section 16 : Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and
      disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than
      that of a local authority.—

      (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 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 their being exercised,
      he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section
      188 of the Indian Penal Code (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 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 arc 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 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 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 authority, from the person who
      has received the same.”


7.3   Referring to Sections 10 and 16 of the Act, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the jurisdiction
vested with the respondent has de horse the provisions of the



                                Page 6 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




Act and the respondent is not authorized to take any action as
provided under the Act. He has submitted that as per the
Resolution passed by the State Government on 01.05.2024 in
relation to the transmission line / transmission power erected
on     the     lands   of   the   concerned      persons,       appropriate
compensation is to be awarded to the affected persons. He
has submitted that as per the provisions of Sections 67 and 68
of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of
the Indian Telegraph Act, Sections 10 and 16, the owner /
occupant is entitled for compensation in case of any damage
or harm caused to the concerns while erecting or laying down
over head line from their property, and herein the present
case, the respondent by virtue of notification has published
the notice in the newspaper and also in the Government
Gazette with regard to the scheme announced by the Central
Government and authorized the respondent, is without there
being any authority and therefore, under such circumstances,
the respondent is not empowered to disturb the possession of
the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
decision of this Court in case of Jaisinh Parshottambhai
Patel vs. Essar Power Transmission Company Limited
reported in 2015(0) GUJHC 33438, and more particularly
paragraph No.10 which reads as under:-

        “10. In view of the above, following principles which may be
        concerning to the present group of petitions can be deduced as
        under:

        (a) At the time when the transmission line is to be laid down, it is
        required for the person desirous to get the licence to apply for
        licence to the Appropriate Government. In case of inter- state, if
        the transmission line is to pass through more than one State,


                                  Page 7 of 22
C/SCA/4034/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




   Appropriate Government would be Central Government, but if the
   line is to pass within the State, the Appropriate Government would
   be the State Government.

   (b) When the application is made to get a licence for laying down of
   transmission line, the route for transmission lines is to be provided
   at the time of applying for licence. The public notice is required to
   be published in the newspaper having circulation in the area
   describing the various parcels of the land through which the line is
   to pass and the map should also be made available to the objector
   for inspection if any person is so desirous.

   (c) The objections can be submitted by the owner or the occupier of
   the property over which the transmission line is to pass or laid
   down.

   (d) Any objections filed is required to be considered by the
   Appropriate Government and after consideration of such
   objections, the Appropriate Government may decide to grant
   licence under section 68 of the Act or may decline to grant licence
   under section 68 of the Act. In case of grant of licence, it would be
   with the approved map providing for route of passing of
   transmission line. Such may include modification of the route if any
   found appropriate by the Appropriate Government on account of
   the objections filed by the owner or occupier or otherwise.

   (e) Once the licence is granted and approval is granted to the route
   of the transmission line, it would be required for the licencee
   company to go by the route so approved of the transmission line. If
   any alteration is to be made in the route, the licensee company
   may be required to approach before the Appropriate Government
   for substantial modification in the route and again the same
   procedure for inviting objections, consideration of objections by
   the Appropriate Government and thereafter to get sanction for the
   change in the route of transmission line would be required.

   (f) In the event the licensee company or its officer if found proper,
   may be conferred with the power under section 164 of the Act as
   that of the telegraph authority for laying down of the transmission
   lines. In absence of any conferment of power under section 164 of
   the Act as no rules are framed for the procedure under section 68
   of the Act, the licensee company may follow the procedure for
   works as provided under sections 12 to 19 of the Act of 1910. But
   in a case where there is conferment of power under section 164 of
   the Act, the procedure from section 10 to section 16 of the
   Telegraph Act will be required to be followed.

   (g) When the authority exercises the power under section 10 of the
   Telegraph Act, it has to ensure that the laying down of the line is
   as per the approved route and little damage as possible is caused
   to the property of the owner or occupier and simultaneously,



                             Page 8 of 22
C/SCA/4034/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




   appropriate compensation is also tendered to the affected person.
   At that stage, the owner or the occupier of the property has also
   right to resist the entry and resist for laying down of the
   transmission line over his property and has a right to raise the
   dispute for sufficiency of the compensation.

   (h) If the resistance is shown by the owner or occupier of the
   property to the entry or laying down of the line over the property,
   the officer of the licensee company would be required to proceed
   before the District Magistrate under section 16(1) of the Telegraph
   Act. At that stage the District Magistrate apart from giving
   opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, shall also be
   required to examine as to whether the line is laid down as per the
   approved route or not and if he finds that there is substantial
   change in the route of laying down of the line than the route
   approved by the Appropriate Government, he may decline to pass
   the order under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. But if he finds
   that the alteration is minor and not substantial, he may pass the
   order under section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act.

   (i) If the owner or the occupier has raised the dispute concerning
   to sufficiency of the compensation paid or to be paid by Licensee
   Company under section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act, either of the
   party can move application to the District Judge within whose
   jurisdiction the property is situated.

   (j) The District Judge, before whom the application is made for
   determination of the dispute for sufficiency of the compensation,
   shall determine the amount of compensation payable and the
   decision of the District Judge would be final, of course subject to
   the right of any aggrieved party to approach before this Court
   under Article 226 of the Constitution.

   (k) But in a case where the alteration in the route of transmission
   line is already made and the resistance is not shown by the owner
   or occupier at the relevant point of time, may be on the ground of
   illiteracy or may be on the ground of lack of knowledge and the
   owner or the occupier in bonafide has accepted the compensation,
   then in that case, he will have still right to approach before the
   District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated by
   raising the dispute for sufficiency of compensation. But the
   important aspect is that the compensation under the circumstances
   would include not only for the loss or damage caused to the
   property on account of the laying down of the transmission line,
   but also for alteration made by the transmission company in the
   approved route.

   (l) The last principle observed by us is on account of the peculiar
   circumstances that the transmission line if already laid down and if
   already energized by the approval granted, and thereafter, if the
   removal or the alteration is effected of the transmission line, it may



                              Page 9 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




        result into serious consequences of disruption of the electricity
        supply to a great extent since the line is already energized and
        therefore, the appropriate mode for default or unauthorized
        change in the route of transmission line would be to pay additional
        compensation for the so called breach instead of removal of the
        transmission line resulting into huge disruption of the power of
        electricity, consequently to adversely affect huge public interest.”


9.      Per      contra,     Mr.   S.P.    Hasurkar,        learned        counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has
objected the present petition and submitted that the action of
the respondent is legal, valid, reasoned and proper exercise of
the limited statutory jurisdiction vested with the learned
District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act. He has
referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and submitted that no right, much
less any fundamental right, of the Petitioners has been
violated       by      the   Respondent.     It    is   submitted       that     the
Respondent is laying the transmission line in exercise of
powers of the Telegraph Authority under Sections 10 to 16 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, conferred by the Government
of Gujarat under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The
work is being carried out after due compliance with all
statutory requirements, and there is no violation of any
mandatory provision of law.

9.1 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has
submitted that the Respondent, GETCO, being the State
Transmission Utility, is statutorily obligated under Section 39
of the Electricity Act, 2003 to maintain an efficient and
economical transmission network across the State and the
transmission line in question has been duly approved under
Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is submitted that out



                                   Page 10 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




of 30 locations, work has commenced at 24, and only 6
locations remain, situated on land associated with the
Petitioners and due to obstruction by the Petitioners, the
Respondent approached the District Magistrate under Section
16(1) of the Telegraph Act, and by order dated April 2022,
permission was granted to proceed.

9.2 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has
submitted that the alternative routes suggested by the
Petitioners are technically unavailable and fall outside the
approved alignment. He has submitted that the map relied
upon by the Petitioners is incorrect and misleading and in
fact, the transmission line runs adjacent to the canal, without
encroaching          upon   adjoining      agricultural   lands.      He     has
submitted that out of 30 locations, 24 foundations have been
completed and none fall on private agricultural land; 4 are on
Gram Panchayat land, 14 on land of Gopalak Mandali, and 6
on Panjrapol land. Any internal adjustment in route within
Gopalak Mandali land does not affect new landowners. The
suggested alternatives would impact new landowners not
covered under the approved route, leading to avoidable
litigation and delay. It is submitted that multiple discussions
were held with the Petitioners, and they were duly informed of
the technical infeasibility of their suggestions. The route has
been     finalized     by    the   competent       authority      after      due
consideration. The District Magistrate, after hearing all
objections, granted permission for execution of the project. It
is further submitted that the challenge to the order dated
01.04.2022 has been made belatedly in March 2026, after an
unexplained delay of nearly four years, when the project is


                                   Page 11 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




nearing completion. The petition is therefore liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

9.3 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has
submitted that the Petitioners have no right to seek re-routing
of the transmission line. Their remedy, if any, is limited to
claiming compensation as per applicable guidelines. The
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in GETCO v. Ratilal Barot
(LPA    No.       534   of   2020,      decided    on   06.11.2020),         has
categorically held that once approval is granted under Section
164 of the Electricity Act, no landowner can seek alteration of
route, and the District Magistrate has no such power. The said
judgment has been upheld by dismissal of the Special Leave
Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9.4 Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has
submitted that it is settled law that private interests must
yield to the larger public good and therefore, the petitioners’
obstruction,         based   on    a     purely    pecuniary       claim         for
compensation, cannot be allowed to halt a project of national
importance. He has submitted that different High Courts,
including this Court, have repeatedly held that projects of
public interest, such as laying electricity transmission lines,
cannot be obstructed by landowners, and the landowner's only
right is to claim compensation for damages and thus, the
balance      of      convenience       lies   overwhelmingly       with      this
respondent, and the petition, which seeks to stall this project,
is contrary to public interest and liable to be dismissed. He
has submitted that the petitioners’ entire case is premised on
the fundamental misconception that their consent is required,



                                   Page 12 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




which is legally false, as the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles
& Industries Ltd., reported in [2017] 5 SCC 143, has
unequivocally settled this position. The Apex Court held that
“the S. 164 authorization effectively bestows the powers of
the   Telegraph      Authority      upon         the   licensee       (like     this
Respondent). Once S. 164 is invoked, the provisions of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, apply. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act
does not require the consent of the landowner. The only right
of the landowner is to seek compensation under Section 10(d)
and, if aggrieved by its sufficiency, to approach the District
Judge under Section 16(3)”. He has submitted that this Court,
in judgment rendered in LPA No. 882 of 2011 (Himatbhai
Vallabhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer, GETCO), has held in
the same line, affirming that transmission utilities can erect
power lines without landowner consent under Section 164 and
thus, the petitioners’ objection is contrary to the binding law
of the land.

10.   I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
The issue involved in the present petition is that whether the
respondent is empowered under Section 16(1) of the Act to
adjudicate and while adjudicating the powers vested in him
under the Act, whether the respondent can pass such order
without giving any opportunity or without there being any
issuance of notice or prior intimation or not and whether the
respondent No.1 was right and justified in passing such order
or not.




                                 Page 13 of 22
  C/SCA/4034/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




11.   Before dwelling into the issue involved in the present
petition, the provisions of Sections 67, 68 and 164 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 2003 are required to be looked into,
which are reproduced hereunder :

      Section 67 : Provisions as to opening up of streets, railways,
      etc. --

      (1) A licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the
      terms and conditions of his licence, within his area of supply or
      transmission or when permitted by the terms of his licence to lay
      down or place electric supply lines without the area of supply,
      without that area carry out works such as -

             (a) to open and break up the soil and pavement of any street,
             railway or tramway;

             (b) to open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or
             under any street, railway or tramway;

             (c) to alter the position of any line or works or pipes, other
             than a main sewer pipe;

             (d) to lay down and place electric lines, electrical plant and
             other works;

             (e) to repair, alter or remove the same;

             (f) to do all other acts necessary for transmission or supply
             of electricity.

      (2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this
      behalf, specify, -

             (a) the cases and circumstances in which the consent in
             writing of the Appropriate Government, local authority,
             owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall be required for
             carrying out works;

             (b) the authority which may grant permission in the
             circumstances where the owner or occupier objects to the
             carrying out of works;

             (c) the nature and period of notice to be given by the
             licensee before carrying out works;

             (d) the procedure and manner of consideration of objections
             and suggestion received in accordance with the notice


                                Page 14 of 22
C/SCA/4034/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




           referred to in clause (c);

           (e) the determination and payment of compensation or rent
           to the persons affected by works under this section;

           (f) the repairs and works to be carried out when emergency
           exists;

           (g) the right of the owner or occupier to carry out certain
           works under this section and the payment of expenses
           therefor;

           (h) the procedure for carrying out other works near sewers,
           pipes or other electric lines or works;

           (i) the procedure for alteration of the position of pipes,
           electric lines, electrical plant, telegraph lines, sewer lines,
           tunnels, drains, etc.;

           (j) the procedure for fencing, guarding, lighting and other
           safety measures relating to works on streets, railways,
           tramways, sewers, drains or tunnels and immediate
           reinstatement thereof;

           (k) the avoidance of public nuisance, environmental damage
           and unnecessary damage to the public and private property
           by such works;

           (1) the procedure for undertaking works which are not
           repairable by the Appropriate Government, licensee or local
           authority;

           (m) the manner of deposit of amount required for restoration
           of any railways, tramways, waterways, etc.;

           (n) the manner of restoration of property affected by such
           works and maintenance thereof;

           (o) the procedure for deposit of compensation payable by the
           licensee and furnishing of security; and

           (p) such other matters as are incidental or consequential to
           the construction and maintenance of works under this
           section.

   (3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by
   or under this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little
   damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make
   full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience
   caused by him or by any one employed by him.




                               Page 15 of 22
C/SCA/4034/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




   (4) Where any difference or dispute [including amount of
   compensation under sub-section (3)] arises under this section, the
   matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission.

   (5) The Appropriate Commission, while determining any difference
   or dispute arising under this section in addition to any
   compensation under sub-section (3), may impose a penalty not
   exceeding the amount of compensation payable under that sub-
   section.

   Section 68. Provisions relating to Overhead lines.--

   (1) An overhead line shall, with prior approval of the Appropriate
   Government, be installed or kept installed above ground in
   accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).

   (2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply-

           (a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage
           not exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or intended to be used
           for supplying to a single consumer;

           (b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be
           within premises in the occupation or control of the person
           responsible for its installation; or

           (c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.

   (3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval
   under sub-section (1), impose such conditions (including conditions
   as to the ownership and operation of the line) as appear to it to be
   necessary.

   (4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval
   at any time after the end of such period as may be stipulated in the
   approval granted by it.

   (5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or
   where any structure or other object which has been placed or has
   fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line,
   interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere
   with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the
   accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority
   specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application
   of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or
   otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit.

   (6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an
   Executive Magistrate or authority specified under that sub-section
   shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the
   overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such



                              Page 16 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




       compensation as he thinks reasonable, and such person may
       recover the same from the licensee.

             Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the
       expression “tree” shall be deemed to include any shrub, hedge,
       jungle growth or other plant.

       Section 164. Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in
       certain cases.--

       The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the
       placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of
       electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic
       communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works,
       confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person
       engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act,
       subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the
       Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the
       provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers
       which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with
       respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes
       of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to
       be so established or maintained.


11.1            The provisions of Sections 10, and 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 are also required to be looked into, which
are reproduced hereunder :

       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
              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


                                 Page 17 of 22
C/SCA/4034/2026                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




           shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property
           vested in or under the control or management of 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.

   Section 16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and
   disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than
   that of a local authority.--

   (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 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 (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 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 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 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 authority, from the person who



                              Page 18 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




       has received the same.


11.2          Looking to the facts of the case it appears that the
respondent           issued    a   public      advertisement      which       was
published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 8.9.2016
for the general public living in the area which is mentioned in
the said notification who were going to be affected or who
were likely to be affected by laying down the lines under the
said scheme for their knowledge and intimation. By the said
public notice, objections were invited from the interested
persons or the affected persons. As per Section 12 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 2010, consent of the local authority or
the concerned owner or the occupier was necessary to enable
licensee to lay down or place any electric supply-line, or other
work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under
any land not dedicated to any public use whereon, whereover
or whereunder any electric supply-line or work was not
already been lawfully laid down by such licensee. Under
Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, it was permissible for
the    Government             to   confer      upon   any    public       officer,
Transmission Utility, Transmission Licensee or any other
person engaged in the business of transmission or supplying
energy to the public, any of the powers which the telegraph
authorities posses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for
placing of the electric supply-lines. The aforesaid provisions
have now been substituted with the provisions of new Indian
Electricity Act, 2003. The Division Bench of this Court had an
occasion to deal with similar submission while deciding the
Letters Patent Appeal No.882 of 2011. The observations made
by the Division Bench is useful for this Court to refer and rely



                                     Page 19 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




upon, which is reproduced hereunder :

       “It is evident on plain reading of the public notice that objections
       were invited from license or any other person interested on or
       before completion of two months after the publication of the notice
       for consideration of the Nigam. It is an undisputed position that no
       objections were raised at the relevant point of time in response to
       the public notice dated 29th July 2010.

       As noticed above, prior to the enactment of the Electricity Act,
       2003, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and the Electricity (Supply)
       Act, 1948 were in force and there were various provisions
       governing erection of transmission lines or other connected work
       through, in or upon or under the private lands.”


11.3          Considering the similar submissions made on
behalf of the respondents that the notice merely broadly
describes the area through which the proposed overhead
electricity line would be passing i.e. proposed route of the line
would be passing and there is no need to specifically mention
that from this particular land, the supply-line is to be passed
and to be laid down and therefore, under such circumstances
and in view of the observations made by this Court in case of
in case of Jaisinh Parshottambhai Patel (supra) I am in
complete agreement with the submissions made on behalf of
the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court while enunciating
the principles in case of Power Grid Corporation of India
Ltd.    (Supra)      has observed that for laying down any
electricity supply-line by the licensee, there is no prior
consent required by the licensee under the Indian electricity
Act, 2003 and herein the present case, the respondent has
been treated as authority under the Act of 1885. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has also further considered that it is the Central
Government which is the Appropriate Government in respect
of a generating company wholly or partly owned by it, and


                                Page 20 of 22
   C/SCA/4034/2026                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that prior
permission of the petitioners was not obtained as it is
required under the law is completely ousted by the Hon’ble
Apex Court. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the
opinion that the present petition is required to be dismissed.

12. For sake of convenience, it is appropriate to refer the
observations made by this Court in                  LPA No. 534 of 2020,
wherein this Court has held as under:-

       “58.16 Section 16 states that if there is any resistance or
       obstruction, the District Magistrate may in his discretion, order
       that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise all the
       powers. Further, after such an order, a person offering any further
       resistance is deemed to have committed offence under Section 188
       of the Indian Penal Code. Once the technical feasibility of the
       project, has been approved by the appropriate Government, by
       issuing an order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, no
       land owner or person interested can seek for shifting or re-aligning
       of the route, on the premise that the District Collector-cum-District
       Magistrate, has the powers to do so. The District Collector has no
       powers to alter any route or alignment, except to remove the
       difficulties faced by the licencee or the person authorised, pursuant
       to the orders issued under Section 164 of the Act.”


13.    In view of the above and considering the fact of the case
the present petition, being devoid of any merits, deserves to
be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Rule is
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

14.    It is, however, open for the petitioners that in case, they
are entitled for compensation, the appropriate course of
action to file an application for compensation is before the
District Magistrate for this purpose as provided by the
Government of Gujarat time and again, which came to be
amended as it was noticed from all three notifications. As and
when     such        application   is   filed      by   the    petitioners           for


                                   Page 21 of 22
     C/SCA/4034/2026                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026




compensation, the same shall be decided by the concerned
District Magistrate in accordance with law, after affording
proper opportunity to the petitioners. It is also open for the
petitioners to avail remedy as per the guidelines issued by the
State Government.

                                                                                                                       Sd/-
                                                                         (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/05/2026 18:06:31




                                                      Page 22 of 22