1 2026:CGHC:22776 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2448 of 2026 1 - Pramod Gupta S/o Late Shri J.P. Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chicholi-Khaira, Tahsil Nandghad, P.S. Nandghat District Bemetara (C.G.), At Present- Sheela Parisar Phase-2, Bharati Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector District Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Cspdcl, District Bemetara (C.G.) 5 - Junior Engineer Cspdcl, Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For State/respondent : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL. For respective respondent: Shri K Rohan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.183/1, 186/1, 187/1, 19/2 and 20 in Village Khaira and Chicholi, Tehsil Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.), on which respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (CSPDCL) have illegally erected electrically charge pole without prior notice, consent, or compliance with the mandatory conditions issued by the State Government. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.05.20 15:30:39 +0530 2 following reliefs : - 10.1 Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the action of Respondent No. 5 in erecting the electric pole on the Petitioner's private land is ultra vires to the mandates of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, having been performed without the authority of law and in total disregard of statutory procedures. 10.2 Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to immediately remove the electric pole and associated high-tension wires from the Petitioner's land as described in Annexure P-1 and P-2, and restore the land to its original cultivable state. 10.3 Direct the respondent authorities adequate compensation to grant/pay to the petitioner in accordance with law and procedure. 10.4 Direct Respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) within a specific time-bound period, keeping in view the statutory violations committed by the subordinate authorities. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the absolute owner and cultivator of agricultural lands situated at villages Khaira and Chicholi, bearing Khasra Nos. 183/1, 186/1, 187/1, 19/2 & 20, PC No.20, R.I. Circle & Tehsil Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.). Without issuing any notice, obtaining prior 3 consent, or following due process of law, Respondent No.5 – Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) illegally entered the Petitioner’s private agricultural land and erected high-tension electricity poles in the middle of the fields. The said act amounts to blatant trespass and unauthorized interference with the Petitioner’s property. Photographs evidencing the illegal installation are annexed as Annexure P-3. The installation has been carried out in complete violation of the statutory mandate contained in Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which requires prior consent of the owner or occupier before carrying out any works on private land. The erection of the electrically charged pole in the center of the agricultural field has caused serious obstruction in agricultural operations, particularly in the use of mechanized farming equipment. The presence of the live pole also poses a constant threat to the life and safety of the Petitioner and his agricultural laborers. Aggrieved by the illegal action, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.01.2026 before Respondent No.5 (Annexure P-4), seeking immediate removal of the pole. However, no action was taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a further representation dated 07.04.2026 before the Collector, District Bemetara (Annexure P-5), requesting appropriate intervention. Despite the same, the Respondents failed to conduct any technical feasibility survey or prepare a panchnama in the presence of the Petitioner, as is the standard procedure before 4 installation of infrastructure on private agricultural land. It is submitted that sufficient government land and alternative alignments are available nearby where the pole could have been installed without encroaching upon the Petitioner’s productive agricultural land. The arbitrary decision to install the pole in the center of the Petitioner’s field demonstrates non-application of mind and abuse of statutory powers. The Petitioner is a small- scale farmer whose sole source of livelihood depends upon the said land. Due to the illegal encroachment, a substantial portion of the field has been rendered unfit for effective cultivation and future agricultural development. Despite repeated representations and the lapse of considerable time, the Respondents have failed to discharge their statutory obligations, compelling the Petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction activity being undertaken by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (CSPDCL) for installing transmission towers on the agricultural land of petitioner is patently illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of both Central and State Government mandates designed to protect rights of landowners. The respondents entered the land of petitioner without any notice, survey, or consent and began erecting electricity poles in the agricultural land of the petitioner. 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because the Respondents have acted in clear contravention of Rule 3(4) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which mandates that where the owner or occupier does not grant consent, the licensee must apply to the District Magistrate or any other officer authorized by the State Government for appropriate permission. In the present case, no such application was ever made by Respondent authorities, prior to forcibly installing the electricity pole on the Petitioner’s land. The entire action is therefore procedurally illegal and void ab initio. The installation of the pole in the middle of the Petitioner’s cultivated agricultural field is arbitrary, unreasonable, and reflects complete non-application of mind. The Respondents deliberately chose a location causing maximum inconvenience and hardship to the Petitioner, despite availability of alternative alignments and nearby government land. The failure of Respondent No.2 – Collector, District Bemetara, to act upon the Petitioner’s representation amounts to abdication of statutory and administrative duty. The grievance raised involves serious issues of public safety, property rights, and violation of statutory safeguards. The continued inaction is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the Respondents is in violation of Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which clearly mandates that the authority shall cause as little damage as possible and shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained 6 by exercise of such powers. By installing the pole in the center of a productive agricultural field and rendering a substantial portion of land unfit for mechanized cultivation, the Respondents have failed to minimize damage and have not paid any compensation whatsoever. It is well settled by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to lay transmission lines or erect poles does not confer any ownership rights over the land upon the licensee. Such statutory power must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and without arbitrariness. The Respondents have exercised their powers in an oppressive and high-handed manner. He submits that Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides that in case of resistance or obstruction, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, pass appropriate orders permitting the telegraph authority to exercise its powers. In the present case, there was no prior resistance nor any adjudication by the District Magistrate. The Respondents completely bypassed this statutory safeguard and unilaterally proceeded with installation, rendering the action illegal and unsustainable in law. The impugned action of the Respondents violates the Petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, as deprivation or interference with property can only be in accordance with procedure established by law, which has admittedly not been followed in the present case. Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the argument 7 raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding the necessity of his consent before the commencement of work on his land is legally untenable. According to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, prior consent from the landowner is not a requisite for the erection of transmission lines. The work at hand pertains to a power transmission project of national importance, and as such, no prior notice or consent is necessary for erecting poles or constructing towers. This is well-established by various case laws, which are set out below. The present case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 1538/2025 in the matter of Manikant Agrawal and Ors. v. State of CG and Ors., wherein this Court, by its final order dated 02/04/2025, granted liberty to the landowners to raise their grievances before appropriate forums. This case, involving similar circumstances and the same project, has already been decided, and the present petition should therefore be dismissed in light of the earlier order. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction is illegal and unauthorized is also contrary to law. The State Government, by its Notification dated 13/12/2006, has issued general authorization in favor of the officers of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (now CSPDCL, CSPTCL, etc.), under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This authorizes the officers to act as the Telegraph Authority and carry out the work of laying electricity transmission lines. Therefore, the 8 contention of learned counsel for petitioner regarding unauthorized entry and construction is unfounded. The private interest of petitioner cannot outweigh the larger public interest in the successful implementation of such a vital national infrastructure project. This principle is supported by decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143, in case of Century Rayon Limited v. IVP Limited, reported in (2021) 20 SCC 758 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Reshma Gulabani v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in W.A. No. 395/2013. The argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that the construction work cannot proceed until compensation is received is legally incorrect. According to the ruling of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the offer or tendering of compensation is deemed equivalent to the actual payment. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner lacks merit and should not be entertained. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Upon reviewing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that while the respondent 9 authorities are required to inform the petitioner prior to entering upon his land for the erection of the electrical tower, it is pertinent to note that, as per the applicable regulations, specifically under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the prior consent of the landowner is not required for the erection of transmission lines. Power transmission is a project of national importance, and thus, no notice or permission is mandated before the erection of poles or the construction of any tower. Furthermore, the State Government issued a notification dated 13.12.2006, which grants a general authorization in favor of CSPTCL. Pursuant to Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, officers of CSPTCL are empowered to exercise the authority of the Telegraph Authority in undertaking the installation of electricity lines. The contention of the petitioner that his land should not be utilized for the installation of transmission towers cannot be upheld, given the national significance of establishing towers for the supply of electricity to the entire nation. It is noteworthy that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and both the generation and supply of electricity from this state are of paramount importance. It is crucial to emphasize that CSPDCL will not claim ownership of any part of the land where the electrical tower is situated, as the ownership remains with the petitioner, who retains title over the land. Only the portion of the land utilized for the installation of the electricity tower will be used by CSPDCL, without any further encumbrances. 10 8. In this context, it is instructive to refer to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (Supra), wherein the following was held: “30. The appellant in this case also raised the issue of obtaining prior consent from the landowner before laying electricity transmission lines. This argument has been rejected [as discussed in paras 1 to 28, above] by us, while addressing the appeal of Century Textiles & Industries Limited. Consequently, this appeal is also dismissed.” 9. Furthermore, in the case of Century Rayon Limited (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed: “11. The decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. case underscores the necessity and urgency of unobstructed access for laying electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest, as these lines are vital for the country's growth, economic development, and the well-being of its citizens.” 10. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Reshma Gulabani (supra) stated as follows : “14. The transmission of electricity is a national necessity, and the laying down of transmission lines serves the public interest. In this instance, the transmission line is passing over the crushing unit. The appellant is entitled to 11 compensation, but no injunction can be granted. 15. The writ appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.” 11. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the legal precedents set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that prior consent from the landowner is not a requisite for the installation of electricity transmission lines. The laying down of such lines serves a broader public interest, fulfilling essential requirements for the growth and development of the nation. The landowner is entitled solely to compensation and not to an injunction. The authorities cannot be hindered in their efforts to construct transmission towers for the transmission of electricity. Therefore, the respondents are directed to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner, following a hearing with the petitioner, and the petitioner is hereby directed not to undertake any actions that would impede the construction of the electricity transmission towers. The reliefs, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted. 12. With this observation/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to file suitable application before the competent authority for grant of compensation. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash