1 2026:CGHC:22556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2293 of 2023 Raj Kumar Patel S/o Shri Sukhi Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Amadol, Block And P. / S. - Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Electricity Production/ transmission/distribution Company Maryadit, Danganiya, Raipur. 3 - The Chief Engineer (Project) C S P D C L, Campus Of C S Power Companies Danganiya Raipur, C.G. 4 - Superintendent Engineer C S P D C L, Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kharsia, Block Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Executive Engineer (Sanchar/sudhar) C S P D C L, Kharsia, Block Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Junior Engineer (Gramin) C S P D C L, Kharsia, Block Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.14 10:18:02 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 13.05.2026 1 By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in permitting installation of an electricity pole over the petitioner’s private land bearing Khasra No.8/4, admeasuring 0.0890 hectare, situated at Village Amadol, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh, without obtaining consent of the petitioner and without payment of any compensation, despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioner before the competent authorities for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Mandamus directing the Competent Respondent authorities to remove the poll installed in petitioner's land without his permission & consent, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Competent Respondent authorities to pay compensation for installing the poll on the petitioner's land, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's application within stipulated time. In the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in 3 favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of land bearing Khasra No.8/4, admeasuring 0.0890 hectare, situated at Village Amadol, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have installed an electricity pole over the aforesaid land without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner and without payment of any compensation. 3 It is further averred that the installation of the electricity pole has been carried out by entering into the private land of the petitioner without obtaining his consent. The petitioner has also placed on record the revenue documents and photographs in support of his claim regarding installation of the electricity pole over his land. Despite submitting several representations and complaints before the competent authorities raising grievance with regard to the installation of the electricity pole and seeking appropriate action, no decision has been taken by the respondents till date. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No.8/4, admeasuring 0.0890 hectare, situated at Village Amadol, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.). It is submitted that the respondent authorities, without issuing any prior notice and 4 without obtaining consent of the petitioner, have installed an electricity pole over the petitioner’s private land. It is further submitted that no compensation whatsoever has been paid to the petitioner before entering into and utilizing his private land for installation of the electricity pole. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which mandates obtaining consent of the owner or occupier before laying any electric supply line or other work over private property. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already submitted several representations and complaints before the competent authorities ventilating his grievance and seeking appropriate action, however, the same have not been considered till date. Hence, the present petition has been preferred seeking appropriate direction to the respondent authorities. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent authorities submits that the electricity pole has been installed for public utility purposes and that if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to compensation or installation of the pole, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority. Learned State counsel further submits that a similar issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1889/2025 vide order dated 20.05.2025. 5 Hence, it is submitted that the present petition may also be disposed of in similar terms. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 This Court by deciding WPC No.1889/2025, vide order dated 20.05.2025 has passed the following order :- “6. Upon reviewing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that an approval order dated 11.03.2024 exists, wherein certain conditions have been prescribed which must be adhered to. While the respondent 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 6 authority of the Telegraph Authority in undertaking the installation of electricity lines. The petitioner has already been offered compensation for the erection of the electrical poles, and as such, the objections raised by the petitioner are inconsistent with the law. 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. The petitioner has been offered compensation through the impugned letters dated 24.06.2024 and 22.01.2025; however, the petitioner has declined to accept this compensation. It is crucial to emphasize that CSPTCL 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 CSPTCL, without any further encumbrances. Since CSPTCL has already extended an offer of compensation, the petitioner ought not to resist this offer and should accept the compensation determined by CSPTCL. 7. In this context, it is instructive to refer to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power 7 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.” 8. 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.” 9. 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 compensation, but no injunction can be granted. 8 15. The writ appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.” 10. 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. The concerned authorities are instructed to disburse the compensation to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The interim order granted by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 stands vacated. 12. With this observation (s) and direction (s) this writ petition stands disposed of.” 9 8 It is not in dispute that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to installation of an electricity pole over the petitioner’s land bearing Khasra No.8/4, admeasuring 0.0890 hectare, situated at Village Amadol, Block Kharsia, District Raigarh, without prior notice and without payment of compensation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already submitted representations before the competent authorities ventilating his grievance, which are yet to be considered. 9 This Court finds that the issue involved in the present writ petition is substantially similar to the issue already considered and decided by this Court in WPC No.1889/2025 vide order dated 20.05.2025. In the said case, after considering the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, it has been categorically held that prior consent of the land owner is not mandatory for erection of electricity poles or transmission lines undertaken for public utility purposes. It has further been held that though the land owner cannot seek injunction against such public utility work, he is entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with law. 10 Considering the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner for removal of the electricity pole cannot be granted. However, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to 10 compensation deserves consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law. 11 Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.05.2025 passed in WPC No.1889/2025 with a direction to the competent respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compensation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to pass an appropriate reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12 It is further observed that the petitioner shall not create any obstruction in the public utility work relating to installation and maintenance of the electricity infrastructure in question. 13 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh