Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 17.04.2025 Order passed on 20.05.2025 WPC No. 1889 of 2025 1 - Jaikumar Agrawal S/o Late Padumnath Agrawal Aged About 94 Years Resident- Agrawal Printers And Flex, Power House Road Korba (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar - Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Danganiya, Raipur (Cg) 3 - Superintending Engineer (Eht C And M) Circle Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Bilaspur, Tifra Raipur Road Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer Eht (Maintenance) Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Tifra Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Engineer Eht (Maintenance) Division, Sub-Division Champa, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Tifra Raipur Road, Bilaspur (C.G) 6 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir Tehsil- Akaltara/ Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Project Director (P.I.U) National Highways Authority Of India, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G) 8 - Government Of India Through Ministry Of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State (Cause Title is taken from CIS System)
Legal Reasoning
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. 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 13 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
Arguments
: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The Petitioner is the owner of 8.73 acres of agricultural land in Village Korbi, Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), on which respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) have illegally dug 16 large pits and begun construction of transmission towers without prior notice, consent, or compliance with the mandatory conditions of theApproval Order dated 11/03/2024 issued by the State Government. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - “10.1 May direct to, respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) that construction work in land of petitioner may be immediately stopped due to illegal construction for erection of transmission tower on the land of the petitioner mentioned in Annexure P-16, because granted permission by CG State Government vide order dated 11/03/2024 (Annexure P-1) has become infructuous and nullified due to non-compliance of its mentioned (Annexure P-1) condition by Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL), and prayer is also that direction may be given to Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) to restore the actual position of land of Petitioner 10.2) May consider that there is no effect of the order Annexure P-10 and P- 13 for both dated 22/01/2025 issued in absence of Petitioner and without knowledge of Petitioner, by Respondent no 6 (Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue) which has been issued ex-parte and in hurry, to legalize the illegal work of Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) retrospectively 3 10.3) May consider that the work of construction of transmission tower and transmission lines done by Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL), on the petitioner's land is the illegal and unauthorized work 10.4) May direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) to remove all erected structures and restore the land to its original condition 10.5) May direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) to pay exemplary damages to Petitioner for causing mental harassment to Petitioner for illegal action of Respondent no. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) without authority and done without knowledge and without intimation to the Petitioner 10.6) May direct Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) that no further work may be carried out in any of Petitioner's land, detail of which is given in Annexure P- 16. 10.7) May direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) to bear the cost of the present litigation, including court fees and legal expenses incurred by the Petitioner, as the illegal and unauthorized actions of the Respondents have compelled the Petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court for justice. 10.8) May grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, a 94-year-old citizen of India and an agriculturist by profession, is the lawful owner of 8.73 acres of agricultural land located in Village Korbi, Patwari Halka No. 012 (presently Halka No. 00008), Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, comprising Khasra Nos. 705/7, 730/5, and 658/8 admeasuring 1.3100 hectare, 1.0740 hectare and 1.1490 hectare respectively (collectively 4 referred to as the "land of the petitioner"). Approximately 4.86 acres (55.7%) of this land, (referred to as the "affected land area") has been illegally encroached upon and disturbed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL), who, without notice, consent, or adherence to the binding conditions of the Approval Order dated 11/03/2024 of the State Government (Annexure P-1), initiated the construction of transmission towers as part of a diversion project necessitated by the construction of National Highway No. 130A. Sixteen large pits were dug initially, followed by eight more pits on 08/03/2025 in Khasra No. 705/7, amounting to serious and continued encroachment, despite clear statutory requirements mandating prior identification of affected land in the presence of the landowner, payment of compensation, and formal permission from the competent authority upon objection, as stipulated under the Chhattisgarh Government Order dated 20/02/2015 (Annexure P- 2), Central Government SOP dated 14/06/2024 (Annexure P-5), and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (Annexure P-8). The Petitioner raised his objections through legal notice dated 31/12/2024 (Annexure P-7), but these were summarily disregarded, with respondents falsely asserting that landowner consent was not required (Annexure P-12), and thereafter issuing arbitrary compensation notices (Annexure P-10 and P-13) without any site inspection, measurement, or presence of the petitioner. No notice or compensation was provided at all for Khasra Nos. 730/5 and 658/8, yet construction work is ongoing to date. Moreover, the respondents failed to obtain required permission 5 from the District Magistrate despite the objections raised by the petitioner, as mandated under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, thereby rendering the entire construction process illegal and in violation of the statutory safeguard provisions designed to protect landowners. The actions of respondents not only breach condition nos. 4, 18, and 21 of the Approval Order, but also violate condition no. 23, which provides that any breach results in automatic revocation of the permission of State Government, yet the construction continues unlawfully. The land of petitioner has been targeted disproportionately, without proper mapping or survey, and his advanced age prevents him from physically resisting these unauthorized acts, raising strong suspicion of foul play and abuse of power. The illegal construction has resulted in destruction of crops, loss of agricultural income, and permanent damage to the property of petitioner, thereby violating his constitutional rights under Article 300A (right to property), Article 21 (right to livelihood and dignity), and Article 19(1)(g) (right to occupation), necessitating urgent judicial intervention to halt further damage and restore the rule of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction activity being undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) 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. It is submitted that the respondents have brazenly 6 violated the binding conditions of the Approval Order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-1), thereby rendering it null and void by virtue of Clause 23 which stipulates automatic revocation in case of any breach. The respondents entered the land of petitioner without any notice, survey, or consent and began construction by digging 16 large pits and later 8 more, affecting over 55.7% of the 8.73 acres of agricultural land of petitioner, all in clear violation of the mandatory procedures laid down under the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006, the Chhattisgarh Government Order dated 20.02.2015 (Annexure P-2), and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of Central Government dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that despite the timely legal objections raised by the petitioner via notice dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), respondents arrogantly dismissed his consent as “not required” and deemed his objections as “not tenable” (Annexure P-12), thereby flouting Rule 3(1)(b) of the Works of Licensee Rules which mandates obtaining permission from the District Magistrate upon such objections. No survey or compensation process was conducted in the presence of petitioner as required under para 5 of the 2015 State Order. Furthermore, the respondents attempted to retrospectively justify their actions by arbitrarily issuing compensation notices (Annexure P-10, P-13) without any legitimate assessment, which the petitioner rightly rejected as an afterthought meant to cover up unlawful activity. It is also submitted that the project is merely a diversion of an existing line due to the National Highway No. 7 130A, not a new transmission line, and yet the majority of the diversion towers are being installed solely on the land of petitioner without proper mapping, measurement, or adherence to guidelines regarding equitable land use or alternative methods of installation. Given the advanced age of 94 years of petitioner, the targeted encroachment on his land alone raises serious suspicion of mala fide action and abuse of power. The respondents have further failed to consider alternative methods for tower placement, such as space-saving technologies or using adjacent Government land, thereby violating both Annexure-II and Point 7 of the Central Guidelines. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that these actions are in direct violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner under Article 300A (right to property), Article 21 (right to livelihood and dignity), and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any occupation), and constitute an egregious breach of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the illegal construction work, direct removal of the unauthorized towers and pits from the land of petitioner, and restore his rights by quashing the purported authority under which such actions have been carried out. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the sanction order dated 11/03/2024 has been cancelled due to non- compliance is entirely baseless and factually incorrect. The compensation has been duly calculated and offered to the petitioner as per written communications dated 24/06/2024 and 8 22/01/2025. In fact, the petitioner himself refused to accept the compensation as evidenced by his written communication dated 24/01/2024. Therefore, the argument of self-cancellation of the sanction order stands refuted and has no merit. The argument raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding the necessity of his consent before the commencement of work on his land is also 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, 9 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 contention of learned counsel for petitioner regarding unauthorized entry and construction is unfounded. The project in question, the diversion of the electricity transmission line by M/s NTPC due to National Highway 130A, is a matter of national importance. The electricity supplied by M/s NTPC serves the public at large, not any private interest. 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. The reliance placed on the Right of Way Policy dated 14/06/2024 is misplaced. The policy is 10 not applicable to the present case as the primary objection raised by petitioner pertains to the use of his land for the construction of transmission towers. The Right of Way Policy does not mandate prior consent from the landowner, and the law only entitles the petitioner to compensation. Hence, the present petition does not warrant any consideration under the Right of Way Guidelines. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 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 authority of the Telegraph Authority in undertaking the 11 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 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 12 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.”
Decision
disposed of. Shayna Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge