Gujarat High Court
Vijaybhai Karshanbhai Panchasara vs Collector And District Magistrate, ... on 10 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14772 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
================================================================
VIJAYBHAI KARSHANBHAI PANCHASARA & ORS.
Versus
COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MORBI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS NIRALI SARDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR JEET J BHATT(6154)
for the Respondent(s) No. 6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents - State Authorities and learned counsel Mr. Jeet Bhatt, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.6 - Company.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined
3. By way of present petition under Article 226, 227 & 300A of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"), petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"a) The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue the writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing and setting aside order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Ld. Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi in J/MAG-2/ETA CASE/Regi No. 34 of 2024; At Ann.
N
b) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the orders dated 29.07.2025 passed by Ld. Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi in J/MAG-2/ETA CASE/Regi No. 34 of 2024, in the interest of justice; At Ann. N
c) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the petitioners are the owner and possessor of the land bearing revenue survey no. 791, 730, 721 paiki 3, 654 paiki 1, 651/2 paiki 1, 632 paiki 1, 599, 591/2 paiki 1/ paiki 2, 310 paiki 1, 313/ paiki 2, 313/ paiki 1, 243/1 paiki 12, 336 paiki 1, 239 paiki 2, 431 paiki 2, 419 paiki 1, 418 paiki 4, 408 paiki 3 of the village Jetpar, Taluka and District Morbi. It is the case of the petitioners that, M/s Halvad Transmission Ltd. had applied for authorization under section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying of overhead transmission line under the transmission scheme "Transmission system for evacuation of additional 7GW of RE power from Khawda RE park under phase III part A" and the list of the villages which cover the transmission line was also stated in the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Ministry of Power, which was granted pursuant to the application under section 164 of the Electricity Act. That, prior to the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Ministry of Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined Power, the District Magistrate, Morbi issued a notice by letter dated 08.04.2024 to remain present before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morbi for the hearing and therefore, the petitioner and others raised an objection for initiation of premature proceedings by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Morbi. That, on 10.09.2024, Halvad Transmission Ltd. issued a notice to the petitioner for insertion of electric polls. That, the petitioner submitted an application seeking adjournment in a case instituted against him for providing all the relevant documents, which the petitioner was entitled to receive from the legitimate applicant company, and only after receiving the said documents, the petitioner could file an objection/reply in response to the notice issued by the Company. That, the State of Gujarat has passed a notification dated 14.08.2017 and 01.03.2024 providing for the guidelines for evaluating the compensation, pursuant to which, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Morbi, submitted a proposal on 25.02.2025 to the Collector and District Magistrate with regard to the case against petitioner under section 16(1) of the Act. That, the District Magistrate issued a notice under section 10(D) of the Act on 07.03.2025 to the petitioner, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted an adjournment application before the Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi, for submitting objection on the ground that the petition number 61/TL/2024 of the respondent Company is pending before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, and approval has not been granted and therefore, the respondent Company is not entitled to install the power line and one of the orders is passed by the learned Member Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi in 61/TL/2024. However, on 16.04.2025 the District Collector, had again issued a notice to the petitioner to remain present, in response thereto, the petitioners have submitted their detailed written objections on 22.04.2025 and Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 06.06.2025, wherein the petitioners had pointed out each and everything. Despite the above, the District Collector & District Magistrate has passed the order on 29.07.2025 exercising powers under section 16(1) of the Act allowing the application preferred by the respondent Company.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by learned Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi in J/MAG-2/ETA CASE/Regi No. 34 of 2024, the present petition is preferred.
6. Heard Mr. Vicky B. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents - State Authorities and Mr. Percy Kavian, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Jeet Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 - Company.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and against the settled proposition of law, and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the respondent No.1, without intimating the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without informing the petitioner, has passed the impugned order by exercising powers under Section 16(1) read with Section 10 of the Act. He has submitted that in the notification issued by the State Government, the survey number of the petitioner was not mentioned and merely the details with regard to the village was mentioned and therefore, the respondent No.1 while exercising powers has completely overlooked the facts and the Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined settled principles of law. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order has not mentioned the authority or the delegation of powers to the present respondent No.6 as it was mentioned in the notice at Annexure-C to the petition (Page-21) that under which provisions, the respondent No.6 has issued the said notice to the petitioner and therefore, under such circumstances, the impugned action on the part of the respondent No.6 and the order passed by the respondent No.1 are completely erroneous, illegal and unjust. He has submitted that under Section 16(1) of the Act, the respondent No.1 was not authorized to pass such order without following the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta 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 Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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 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."
7.1 Referring to Sections 10 and 16 of the Act, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that the jurisdiction vested with the respondent No.1 has de horse the provisions of the Act and the respondent No.1 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 Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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 No.1 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 No.6, is without there being any authority and therefore, under such circumstances, the respondent No.6 is not empowered to disturb the possession of the petitioner.
7.2 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that the petitioners are entitled to full compensation for the decrease in land value under Section 10(D) of the Act, however, the petitioners are getting the said compensation amount sanctioned by District Collector and District Magistrate, due to which the petitioners cannot approach to the District Court under Section 16(3) against the order for determining the compensation for the land's value under Section 16(1) and therefore, the company does not issue a separate order for compensation for the decrease in land value under Section 10(D) to the affected farmer, as a result, the petitioners are deprived of their rights under Section 16(3) of the law. In the same way, affected farmers in the Lakhadiya-Vadodara line, despite being not satisfied with the compensation, could not take remedy under Section 16(3) and were treated unjustly. He has submitted that even the Collector Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined has not considered the judgment passed by this Court in SCA No. 10339 of 2020 dated 20.06.2022 whereby, it is held that "A plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 16(3) of the act will clarify that in case of any dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d) of the Act." He has submitted that in the entire order, the findings are only of one page wherein, reliance is placed on the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 882 of 2011 and there is no proper findings given by the learned Collector under section 16(1) of the Act. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has urged that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside.
8. Per contra, Mr. Percy Kavina, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 - Company, has objected the present petition and submitted that the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 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. Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.6 and submitted that the respondent No.6 is the designated Transmission Service Provider (TSP) for the "Transmission system for evacuation of additional 7GW of RE power from Khawda RE park under phase III part A" (hereinafter referred to as "the Project"). He has submitted that this Respondent is not a mere private entity, but a "deemed licensee"
under the Electricity Act, 2003, and is acting with complete statutory authority. He has submitted that the Ministry of Power, Government of India, in the exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has issued Order No. S.O. 3875(E) dated 09.09.2024 (which Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined the petitioner himself has annexed as Annexure-A to the petition), by which, the Central Government has explicitly conferred upon this respondent all the powers which the telegraph authority possess under the Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts. He has submitted that this respondent, despite being armed with indefeasible statutory powers, acted with utmost transparency and attempted to engage with the landowners, including the petitioners, however, the petitioners, instead of cooperating, immediately embarked on a systematic and calculated campaign of obstruction, resistance, and filing frivolous applications and therefore, this respondent was left with no other option but to invoke the specific statutory remedy provided for precisely such situations and accordingly, on 13.11.2024, this respondent filed a specific application before the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Morbi (Respondent No. 1), under Section 16(1) of the Act, which was the only lawful remedy, as Section 16(1) is designed for instances "if the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10... is resisted or obstructed" and the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate is only to determine if the obstruction is justified and, if not, to pass an order permitting the authority to exercise its statutory powers. He has submitted that the petitioners' purported grievance of not being heard is demonstrably false and a clear case of perjury, as the petitioners were afforded ample and repeated opportunities of hearing before the learned Collector and his subordinate officers and after affording full opportunity to the petitioners and meticulously considering all of their objections, the learned District Magistrate, Morbi, has passed the detailed, reasoned, and lawful impugned Order dated 29.07.2025 and found the obstruction to be unjustified in light of the overwhelming public purpose and permitted this respondent to proceed with the work, while explicitly safeguarding the petitioners' Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined statutory right to compensation.
8.1 Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina 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, 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 the very judgment relied upon by the learned Collector, 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 Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined Section 164 and thus, the petitioners' objection is contrary to the binding law of the land. He has submitted that the petitioners' objection that the pending CERC Petition No. 61/TL/2024 bars construction, is a deliberate and misleading conflation of two distinct statutory processes, and is, in any event, factually and demonstrably false. He has submitted that Section 164 Authorization is the power to construct and to exercise powers under the Telegraph Act and the CERC Transmission License is the license to operate and logic and law dictate that a company must first construct the line before it can operate it. He has submitted that the said Petition No. 61/TL/2024 before the Hon'ble CERC was allowed and the transmission license was ordered to be issued on 24.05.2024 and the proceedings under Section 16(1) before the learned Collector, which culminated in the order dated 29.07.2025, largely took impugned place after the said CERC petition was already allowed and therefore, the petitioners' ground that a "pending" petition barred the proceedings is factually baseless and an attempt to mislead this Court, as the petitioners have conveniently suppressed the final allowance of the said petition. He has submitted that the petitioners' core legal ground is that the impugned Order is (a) "premature" as no Section 10(d) order was issued, and (b) it deprives him of his Section 16(3) remedy, which is legally absurd and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the Act, as The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, provides two distinct jurisdictions :
Section 16(1) (District Magistrate): This jurisdiction is triggered only by "resistance or obstruction". It is a summary power to ensure public works are not halted. The District Magistrate has no power to determine compensation.
Section 16(3) (District Judge): This jurisdiction is triggered only by a "dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation". This is the Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined exclusive forum for compensation disputes.
8.2 Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has referred and relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in case of A.M. Ismail and Others etc. vs. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR [1995] KERALA 1, wherein, is has been observed and held in paras-8 and 9 as under :
"8. On a survey of these authorities, it is clear that the District Magistrate is discharging an administrative function and the general principle of natural justice and other procedural regulations would apply. The contention of the petitioners that the District Magistrate is given unlimited power and, therefore, the said provision is illegal cannot be accepted. The District Magistrate hears objectors and consider whether the objections raised by the property owners are reasonable. If the District Magistrate is of the view that it is not proper to draw line through the objections' property he shall decline permission to draw line through their property. If, on the other hand, the District Magistrate, finds that the objectors are raising frivolous objectors, the District Magistrate is competent to rule out such objections and direct the authorities to draw the proposed line. Therefore, I do not find that Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is in any way violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
9. The next contention urged by the petitioners counsel is that the 'District Magistrate' mentioned in Section 16(1) should be a judicial officer. At the time when S.16(1) was enacted the 'District Magistrate' was a judicial authority and power was conferred on such authority. By subsequent amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973, the 'District Magistrate' became an executive Magistrate. Therefore, it is contended that the 'District Magistrate' acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has no powers to conduct any enquiry required under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The contention of the petitioners is that conferment of judicial functions of the executive Magistrate is opposed to the fundamental principles of governance contained in Art. 50 of the Constitution. I am unable to accept this contention. A similar question was considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kartar Singh. v. State of Punjab, (1994) 2 JT (SC) 423: (1994 Cri LJ 3139). That is a case where some of the provisions of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) were challenged. The Supreme Court repelled the contention of the petitioner and held that there is nothing wrong in conferring judicial powers on executive Magistrate. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that both Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have not legislative competence to enact any law relating to Code of Criminal Procedure and the conferment of judicial functions on the executive Magistrate or special executive magistrate is not opposed to Art.
Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined
50 of the Constitution and it does not offend Art. 14 or 21. Moreover, in the instant case, the duties to be discharged by the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act are not of purely judicial in nature. They are more or less akin to administrative functions. So, the attack of the petitioner made against these provisions on that grounds is not sustainable."
8.3 Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has submitted that the petitioners' argument that a Section 10(d) compensation order must precede the Section 16(1) order is a fallacy as this would allow any person to obstruct a project, demand a compensation order, obstruct that, and indefinitely stall public work. The law is designed to remove the obstruction first (S. 16(1)) and then settle the compensation dispute (S. 16(3)) and thus, the impugned Order explicitly protects the petitioners' Section 16(3) right, stating in its final paragraph that the petitioners "can file an appeal before the District Court under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for any dissatisfaction with the compensation..." and therefore, the petitioners' ground that they are "deprived" of this remedy is demonstrably false. He has submitted that the petitioners' ground that the learned Collector "has not considered" the judgment of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No.10339 of 2020 is demonstrably false, in fact, the learned Collector, did consider the judgment (which the petitioners themselves provided) and, as this respondent submits, perfectly applied its ratio and the respondent welcomes reliance on this judgment, as it conclusively defeats the petitioners' case, as in the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held : (Para 7): The Collector's order, insofar as it confirmed the determination of compensation, was quashed and set aside. (Para 7): "However, the rest of the observations and directions concerning the erection of transmission line are not disturbed and the same are ordered to be made final." (Para 9): "A plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act will clarify that in case of any dispute concerning the Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined sufficiency of the compensation... the same shall be... determined... by the District Judge...". He has therefore, submitted that this precedent mandates the exact conduct the learned Collector adopted in the impugned Order, as the Collector did not determine compensation and did grant permission for erection and the learned Collector has, therefore, perfectly followed the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
8.4 Learned senior counsel Mr. Kavina has submitted that the petitioners' repeated applications demanding a list of 18 documents (including internal shareholding, CERC petitions, and the entire project layout from Khavda to Halvad) is a "roving and fishing inquiry", as the petitioners are not entitled to these documents in a summary Section 16(1) proceeding and the only relevant documents are (a) this respondent's Section 164 authorization (which was provided, Annexure-A) and (b) proof of obstruction. He has submitted that the Petitioners are attempting to challenge the policy, feasibility, and financial structure of the Project, which is far beyond the scope of Section 16(1) hearing. He has submitted that these very demands were raised before the learned Collector, replied to in detail by this respondent, and duly considered by the learned Collector before passing the impugned order and the record shows that all relevant documents were provided to the petitioners during the hearing. He has submitted that this Respondent explicitly calculated the compensation payable to the petitioners for the Tower Base (85%) and RoW Corridor (15%) in strict accordance with the Government of Gujarat Guidelines and the total compensation determined was Rs.1,32,470/-. This Respondent attempted to serve the compensation offer/order upon the petitioners, however, as recorded by the leaned Mamlatdar, Morbi (Rural) in his report dated 22.04.2025, the farmers Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined of Village Chakampar, including the petitioners, refused to accept the compensation documents/papers on 07.04.2025. He has submitted that the petitioners cannot refuse to accept the compensation determination and then approach this Court claiming that no determination was made. Under the circumstances, learned counsel Mr. Kavina has submitted that there is no any illegality or any irregularity committed by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition and the present petition be dismissed.
9. In response to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.6, rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and referring to the same, learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that By altering the description of the route via a corrigendum after the initial notification period, the respondent has effectively bypassed the statutory 60-day objection window, thereby violating the due process contemplated under Section 164. He has submitted that the respondent's reliance on Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel V. Chief Engineer, GETCO (SCA No. 3443/2011) is misplaced, as that matter pertained to a Public Notice dispute, whereas the present case involves a fundamental defect in the Final Gazette Notification. He has submitted that in the judgment of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others v/s Ranjit Singh and others in RA-LP-53-2019 in LPA-813-2017 (O & M) and connected matters, it has been held that the details of the khasra numbers, which would be directly affected by laying of the line may be mentioned and fresh publication be issued as the objections qua the same be received from the concerned landowners regarding the line in question. He has submitted that under Section 10(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the authority is restricted from exercising powers over property vested in or Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined controlled by local authorities without explicit permission, which necessitates the consent of both Private Landowners and the Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that the Company's claim that routing through the Small Rann of Kutch is environmentally unfeasible is contradictory, given that the same "barren" land is utilized for the Green Energy Park project and there is no technical or environmental justification for prioritizing fertile agricultural land over barren wasteland. He has submitted that a superior and technically feasible alternative route exists through the Government-owned wasteland (Banjad/Kharaba land) in the Little Rann of Kutch and therefore, the respondent's decision to diverge from the wasteland route and cut through high-yield, fertile agricultural land is motivated solely by Project Cost Optimization at the expense of farmer welfare and such a preference for corporate profit over the preservation of productive land constitutes a direct violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. He has submitted that the assertion that the current alignment is "final and binding" is arbitrary, as the Company has failed to provide :
1. A Comparative Route Analysis.
2. An Alignment Justification Report.
3. Techno-economic reasons for rejecting non-fertile government land.
The earlier Grid Map by PFC Consulting Ltd. proves that alternative corridors were technically viable. The sudden abandonment of these alternatives in favor of fertile land is a violation of the principle of Minimum Submergence/Interference.
9.1 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that despite claims of adherence to CEA Safety Regulations, the Company has ignored documented failures, such as the cable breakage incident in Valka Mota (Nakhatrana). The long-term risks to millions of livestock and agricultural workers for a project duration of 25 years are Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined unacceptable. Furthermore, high-voltage induction leads to rapid discharge of agricultural equipment/tractor batteries, increased electrical conductivity in soil, impeding nutrient absorption and leading to soil sterility/increased chemical dependency. He has submitted that the installation of high-voltage transmission lines over fertile fields creates a continuous actionable hazard, as the agricultural operations require presence from dawn to dusk, these lines pose a life-threatening risk to farmers, laborers, and livestock for the projected 25-year lifespan of the project. Furthermore, the "Psychological Terror" and constant state of apprehension created by high-tension wires significantly diminish the mental well-being and labour productivity of the rural community. He has submitted that the contention that the only remedy available under Section 10(d) is compensation is legally flawed, as established by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 20819 of 2021, landowners have the right to challenge alignment choice, safety, and arbitrariness. The objection is not limited to quantum of compensation but, goes to the root of the project's legality and alignment. He has submitted that the respondent No. 6 (Halvad Transmission Ltd.) seeks to justify the subject project under the guise of "strategic national importance" for the evacuation of 7GW of renewable energy, however, it is a settled principle of law that industrial progress cannot be achieved through the economic disenfranchisement of the agrarian community. For the respondent, the project represents a mere commercial endeavor; for the petitioners, the subject land is ancestral property and the sole source of sustenance, protected under the spirit of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that while the respondent cites international climate commitments, the petitioners submit that "Public Purpose" is incomplete without Social Sustainability. The respondent has failed to conduct a mandatory Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to evaluate whether the "evacuation of power" necessitates the "evacuation of farmers" from their primary livelihoods. He has submitted that the State of Gujarat is currently power-surplus and the subject Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS) is designed exclusively for the commercial benefit of private entities operating in the Khawda region and for inter-state trade. Consequently, the local farming community derives no "direct utility,"
rendering the project a commercial venture disguised as public infrastructure and while the commercial gains accrue to private corporations, the entire physical and economic burden is shifted onto the rural farmers of Gujarat. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta has placed reliance on the RFP issued by the Bid Process Coordinator (PFC Consulting), which originally proposed the route through the wasteland of the Little Rann of Kutch and the respondent's unexplained deviation from the RFP - suggested route to private fertile land indicates mala fide intent to reduce construction costs at the cost of the petitioners' rights. He has submitted that as per the Guidelines dated 21/03/2025, the determination of land valuation must be conducted by a Market Rate Committee (MRC) chaired by the District Magistrate and including a representative of the landowners, however, the respondent and the Collector have failed to constitute this committee, rendering the current compensation framework arbitrary and void. He has submitted that the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate as the notification does not include the survey numbers where the transmission line will be laid and therefore, the learned Collector should not have passed such order as the names of the villages and the survey numbers were not mentioned in the notification and therefore, in the absence of such the same could not have been passed before such correction and therefore, the same shall be Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined quashed and set aside.
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 No.1 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 No.1 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.
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 Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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.
(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 Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.
11.2 Looking to the facts of the case it appears that the respondent No.6 issued a public advertisement which was published in the local newspaper viz., Indian Express (in English) dated 17.01.2024, Rajasthan Patrika (in Hindi) dated 17.01.2024, Kutchmitra (in Gujarati) dated 17.01.2024, Sandesh (in Gujarati) dated 17.01.2024 and in Weekly Gazette of India dated 10.02.2024 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 previsions 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 24 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined 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, 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 No.6 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 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 Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14772/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026 undefined that the present petition is required to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, 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.
12.1 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 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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 25 03:10:55 IST 2026