-1- 2025:CGHC:16573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 894 of 2020 Neera Bai Pathari W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Pathari Aged About 39 Years R/o Tingipur, Post- Banki, Police Station And Tahsil And District- Mungeli, C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer (O And M) Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Ramchand Joshi S/o Shri Bhim Das Joshi R/o Gajiya Nawagaon, Police Station- Mungeli, District- Mungeli, C.G., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Pillai, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr.Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents : None Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to remove 11 KV electric line passing above the petitioner's land Khasara No. 610/34 situated Maharana Pratap Ward Mungeli, Tahsil & District- Mungeli (C.G.); and 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner society.” 2) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner owns the land (Survey No. 610/34) situated at Maharana Pratap Ward, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, and has diverted it for residential use. Earlier, no electric line passed over the land. However, after respondent No.4 built a house behind the petitioner’s land, one 11KV electric line was shifted over the petitioner’s land, allegedly at the respondent’s request. The actions of the respondents created obstruction in raising the construction of a house. Despite submitting -3- representations to the concerned authorities on 25.01.2020 and 31.01.2020, no action has been taken. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid relief(s). 3) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities shifted the 11KV electric line over her land (survey No. 610/34), at the instance of respondent No.4 and the said action is illegal and without the due process of law. He would further submit that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and the action has deprived her of the rightful use of her own land for residential purposes. He would contend that the act of the respondent authorities amounts to a violation of her legal and constitutional rights; thus, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to remove the 11 KV electric line passing above the subject land. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 5) The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, particularly Sections 10 and 16, empowers the Authority concerned to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts over private property. Section 10(d) mandates that the authority must minimize damage and compensate affected parties for any harm caused during the exercise of these -4- powers. Section 16(1) provides that if any person resists or obstructs the exercise of these powers, the matter can be referred to the District Magistrate, who may issue orders to remove such obstruction. 6) Recently, in the matter of Torrent Power Limited vs. Collector and District Magistrate (2023), the Gujarat High Court held that once the appropriate government confers powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, upon a licensee, the licensee acquires all the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. This includes the authority to lay electric lines over private property without the owner’s consent, provided compensation is paid for any damage caused. 7) In the present case, the shifting of the 11KV electric line over the petitioner’s land (Survey No. 610/34) appears to have been executed under the authority granted by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as extended to electricity licensees under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the shifting was done in violation of these statutory provisions or that due compensation procedures were not followed. 8) In light of the above discussion, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner -5- would be at liberty to claim compensation for any damage or loss suffered due to the placement of the electric line. Such claims can be pursued under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by approaching the appropriate authority designated for determining compensation. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM