Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dariyab Bai vs Power Grid Corporation Of India on 30 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718
1 WP-28734-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 30 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28734 of 2025
DARIYAB BAI
Versus
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Raj - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Shashank Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Kunj Khandelwal,
Advocate for the respondents 1, 2 and 4.
Shri Raghav Shrivastav, Government Advocate for respondent No.3
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Project In-charge, Power Grid Corporation Limited, respondent No.4 whereby her representation raising objection to installation of 768 KV Kurawar, Mandsaur double circuit transmission line, has been rejected.
2. As per the petitioner, she is the owner of Survey No. 54/1, village Gehukhedi, Tehsil Pachore, District Rajgarh (Biaora). She had applied for permission from Gram Panchayat, Gehukhedi for construction of a residential house which was provided on 12.02.2024. Marking regarding path of power grid was done by the respondents for construction of the electricity line. The said line Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 2 WP-28734-2025 goes above the building of the petitioner. Raising objection, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.2 stating that no objection was sought from her prior to construction and no line of power grid can be drawn above her residential house. Eventually the representation/objection of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 stating that earlier a notice dated 20.02.2025 has already been issued to the petitioner and objections were called through publication in daily newspaper. No objection was raised by the petitioner. It has been recorded that when the survey was done of the transmission line in 2024, there was no structure or building found to exist on the petitioner's land. Notice issued to the petitioner was not accepted by her. It has hence been stated that the request for change in route alignment of the subject transmission line as prayed by the petitioner cannot be acceded to.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the marking was done away from petitioner's house which has been changed for no reason without conducting survey and without calling for any objection from the petitioner. No line can be drawn from above petitioner's building. The objections taken by the petitioner in her representation have not been dealt with. In the gazette notification dated 08.02.2025 regarding construction of Kurawar Mandsaur line, the name of Village Gehukhedi has not been mentioned. No objection has been called regarding village Gehukhedi. The notice issued to the petitioner is from book No. 11, bearing number 519. The same is ante-dated notice since notice No. 512 from the same book has been issued on 17.05.2025. The respondents have hence acted in the matter without following the procedure hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the respondents deserve to be directed not to proceed with installation of power grid line from over the land of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 3 WP-28734-2025 the petitioner.
4. Reply has been filed by the respondents and learned senior counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 has submitted that in the gazette notification, Gram Gehukhedi has been mentioned but the same has inadvertently been mentioned to be in Tehsil Narsinghgarh instead of the same being mentioned in Tehsil Puchore. This mistake has been repeated in the public notice dated 25.02.2025. However, the village remains the same and there cannot be any dispute as regards its identity since the transmission line is going through that village and all the other villages as mentioned in the notification. In the gazette notification dated 09.06.2025 also, issued under Section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 Gram Gehukhedi has been mentioned though inadvertently as in Narsinghgarh. The petitioner is trying to take undue advantage of the inadvertent error to contend that no notice was issued to her. The petitioner had not constructed any house at the time when the initial survey was done but has constructed the same later on in the middle of her land only for the purpose of bringing it below the proposed construction line. This is mischievous since the construction is being done only over about 1000 sq. ft. of the entire land which is about 54,000 sq. ft. The alignment of the transmission line cannot be changed as contented by the petitioner since in that case, it shall not cross with the other transmission line at an angle which is mandated. It is further submitted that no prior permission of the petitioner was required by the respondents prior to construction of transmission line. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and Others (2017) 5 SCC 143.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 4 WP-28734-2025
6. It is now a well settled legal principle that for construction of transmission towers or laying down transmission lines prior consent is not required by the licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 from the owner or occupier of building or land. This has been emphatically reiterated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgement relied upon by the learned for respondents in which it has been held as under:-
"19) In the instant case, the aforesaid Rule is not applicable in view of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as under:
"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 (13 of 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."
20) It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid provision, the Appropriate Government has conferred the powers of Telegraph Authority vide notification dated December 24, 2003 exercisable under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It may also be mentioned that a Central Transmission Utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central Transmission Utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a Telegraph Authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of telegraph lines are the most essential requirements for growth and development of any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens. The legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/ obstruction in achieving this objective and through the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines. Powers of the Telegraph Authority conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, stand vested in and are enjoyed by the Power Grid. These provisions are reproduced below:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 5 WP-28734-2025 "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 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.
15. Disputes between telegraph authority and local authority.--
(1) If any dispute arises between the telegraph authority and a local authority in consequence of the local authority refusing the permission referred to in section 10, clause (c), or prescribing any condition under section 12, or in consequence of the telegraph authority omitting to comply with a requisition made under section 13, or otherwise in respect of the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act, it shall be determined by such officer as the 1[Central Government] may appoint either generally or specially in this behalf.
(2) An appeal from the determination of the officer so appointed shall lie to the Central Government; and the order of the Central Government shall be final." "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, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 6 WP-28734-2025 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 has received the same..."
21) Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the Telegraph Authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the Telegraph Authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the Telegraph Authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all person interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.
22) As Power Grid is given the powers of Telegraph Authority, Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2006 ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by virtue of execution clause contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 which reads as under:
"3(4). - Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act."
23) We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the writ petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003."
7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment prior consent of the petitioner was not required by respondents prior to construction of transmission towers or laying down transmission line through the land and over her building. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to commencement of the work is hence not liable to be entertained in detail. However, from the record, it is seen that a notice was issued to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 7 WP-28734-2025 petitioner on 20.02.2025 which as per the respondents was refused to be received by her. Though, a notice has been issued to some other land owner from the very book from which notice was issued to the petitioner but merely because the said notice is of a serial number prior to the serial number of the petitioner, it cannot be assumed that notice was not issued and served upon the petitioner. From this notice, it is evident that notice was issued to the petitioner prior to carrying out the commencement of the work. In any case, the representation preferred by the petitioner has already been considered and decided in detail by respondent No.2 by way of the impugned order, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard does not merit any consideration.
8. Though, it has been further contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the notifications which have been issued in respect of construction of the transmission towers and laying down the transmission lines, the name of village Gehukhedi has not been mentioned but from perusal of the said notifications as well as the public notice, it is seen that the name of village Gehukhedi has been mentioned therein though by stating the same to be in Tehsil Narsinghgarh instead of stating the same to be in village Pachore. The same as has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents is an inadvertent error. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. It has not been pleaded by the petitioner that in village Narsinghgarh also there is one Gram Gehukhedi hence omission of mentioning that village in column of Tehsil Pachore is a bona fide omission. The transmission line is going through various villages including the villages prior and subsequent to village Gehukhedi which are included in the notifications in Village Pachore itself hence the contention that the transmission line had not been proposed to be installed through village Gehukhedi in the notifications cannot be accepted.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 8 WP-28734-2025
9. Along with the reply, the respondents have filed documents to show the nature of construction of the petitioner. From the same it is evident that as on the date of issuance of notice to the petitioner, the same was under construction and had not been completed. Only the work of building the walls had been started and even as on date the construction work has not been completed. Evidently, petitioner's construction at the time of issuance of notice was only at foundation and plinth level and it was in fact not a building. Evidently, the said construction was started after the initial survey having been done by the respondents solely with the purpose of creating a ground for objecting to the laying down of the transmission line. It is clear from the documents on record that at the time when the survey work was being done, there was no building of the petitioner existing over her land. Interestingly, the total land of the petitioner is about 54,000 sq. ft. but construction is being done over 1000 sq. ft. only and that too right in the middle of the land which depicts mala fide intention on part of the petitioner.
10. As has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, it is unfeasible for them to change the alignment of the transmission line. It has been pointed out that the transmission line has to be in a straight line to the extent possible. The line is required to cross another line as far as possible at a right angle and cannot be in an incline reducing the angle. The maps filed by them on record show that presently proposed transmission line is intersecting another transmission line almost at a right angle and if the prayer of the petitioner for change in alignment is acceded to then it would cross the said transmission line at an acute angle which would not be feasible.
11. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the respondents and they cannot be restrained from constructing the transmission line. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31718 9 WP-28734-2025 be and is accordingly affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall however be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law in respect of her entitlement for compensation.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE VD Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 11/3/2025 6:15:57 PM