1 2026:CGHC:26124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1641 of 2022 1 - A.S. Associates Through- Its Partner Aadityandra Shukla S/o Late Rama Shanker Shukla, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 492101 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Through- Chief Engineer, Block- 3 Vidyut Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 492001 3 - National Highway Authority Of India Through- Chief Engineer, National Highway Campus, Janta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 4 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Through- Managing Director, First Floor, Udyod Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 492001 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate through V.C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.06.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents no.2 & 3 to remove the electricity tower that has been erected 6.8.1 on the allotted land of the petitioner within a stipulated time period. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents no.2 & 3 to bear all the cost that would be incurred in removing the electricity tower from the allotted land of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents no 2 & 3 pay an amount of Rs. 5 Lac as compensation to the petitioner for illegally occupying the allotted land of the petitioner. 10.4 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, 3 which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is similar, identical and stands squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WPC No. 1889 of 2025 (Jaikumar Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 20.05.2025. They further submit that the said order has been affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No. 505/2025. They pray that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the observations and findings recorded therein. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:– “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 4 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 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 5 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.***** 8.***** 9***** 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. 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 6 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection to the aforesaid submission. 4. Since the grievance of the petitioner is identical to the one considered in WPC No. 1889 of 2025 (Jaikumar Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 20.05.2025 and the petitioner in the present case is also seeking the same relief, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of and in line with the aforesaid order. 5. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha