High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:34762-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 12:00:51 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 505 of 2025 Jaikumar Agrawal S/o Late Padumnath Agrawal, Aged About 94 Years Resident- Agrawal Printers And Flex, Power House Road Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Danganiya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 Superintending Engineer (Eht- C And M) Circle, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Bilaspur, Tifra Raipur Road Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 4 Executive Engineer, Eht (Maintenance) Division, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Tifra Raipur Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2 5 Assistant Engineer, Eht (Maintenance) Division, Sub-Division Champa, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Tifra Raipur Road, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 6 Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, Tehsil Akaltara/ Baloda, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 Project Director, (P.I.U) National Highways Authority Of India, Tifra, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 8 Government Of India, Through Ministry Of Power, Shram Shakti Bhawan Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 110001 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No. 2 to 5 For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.07.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1889 of 2025 by which, the learned Single Judge has
Decision
disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to 3 provide adequate compensation to the petitioner, following a hearing with the petitioner, and the petitioner was directed not to undertake any actions that would impede the construction of the electricity transmission towers and the interim order granted vide order dated 15.04.2025 was vacated. 2. (a) The brief facts as projected by the appellant/ writ petitioner is that the petitioner is a nonagenarian and an agriculturist by profession and is 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 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, 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 4 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. Central Government SOP and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. (b) The Petitioner raised his objections through legal notice dated 31/12/2024, but these were summarily disregarded, with respondents falsely asserting that landowner consent was not required and thereafter issuing arbitrary compensation notices 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 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 5 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. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 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 ines 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 6 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. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the same plea which has been taken before the learned Single Judge with a prayer to stop the illegal construction for erection of transmission tower on the land of the petitioner and payment of exemplary damages. 5. (i) Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction activity being undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (CSPTCL) for installation of 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 violated the binding conditions of the Approval Order dated 11.03.2024, thereby rendering it null and void by virtue of Clause 23 which stipulates automatic revocation in case of any breach. 7 (ii) According to the petitioner, the respondents entered the land of petitioner without any notice, survey, or consent and began construction by digging 16 large pits and later & 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner highlights that despite the timely legal objections raised by the petitioner via notice dated 31.12.2024, respondents arrogantly dismissed his consent as "not required and deemed his objections as "not tenable", 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 without any legitimate assessment, which the petitioner rightly rejected as an afterthought meant to cover up unlawful activity. (iii) It is also submitted that the project is merely a diversion of an existing line due to the National Highway No. 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 8 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, prays for allowing the present writ appeal. 6. (A) 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 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 raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding the sanction order stands refuted and has no merit. 9 (B) According to the respondents, the argument 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,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 10 laying electricity transmission lines Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner regarding unauthorized entry and construction is unfounded. (C) Learned counsel would submit that 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, etc. 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 not applicable to the present case as the primary objection raised by petitioner pertains to the use of his land for the construction of 11 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. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Bare perusal of the records show that the consent from the landowner is not a requisite for 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 land owner is entitled solely to compensation and not to an injunction, as has been held in the case of Century Rayon Limited Vs. IVP Limited reported in (2021) 20 SCC 758 and Power Grid Corpn. Of India Ltd V. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. Reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143. 9. Further, 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. 12 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 11. Ergo, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri