T.bhuvaneswari Vs The District Collector Cum ... On 29 November, 2013

T.Bhuvaneswari vs The District Collector Cum ...
on 29 November, 2013
Madras High Court

T.Bhuvaneswari vs The District Collector Cum ... on 29 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.11.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
W.P.No.18548 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
T.Bhuvaneswari .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Erode District. Erode.
2. The Deputy General Manager,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
K.R.Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO),
Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam (Via),
Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem.
3. The Chief Engineer,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
765 KV DC Line, 17/4, Vivekanandar Street,
Ghandi Nagar, Naciyanoor Road, Erode. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi, Sr. Counsel

M/s.V.S.Sivasundaramfor
For Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B Dolia
O R D E R
Mr.R.Gandhi, Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the owner
of lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9, measuring an extent of 2.08 acres. She has
purchased the property under two sale deeds, dated 23.01.1982 and 20.06.1988, bearing
Regn.Nos.41/1982 and 308/1988, respectively, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Kodumudi. The
lands are used for cultivation, and they abut Karur to Erode State Highways. She has three sons and
one daughter. Therefore, she has decided to construct residential houses for them. Her elder son is
engaged in cultivation of 1.60 acres. There are 150 coconut trees. He submitted that the remaining
40 cents have been earmarked to construct a dwelling house for her sons.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 1

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 20.09.2012, officials of the
2nd respondent, inspected her lands, without any intimation. Subsequently, she came to know that
the original schedule of transmission lines were not passing through her lands. According to him,
due to the objections raised by adjacent landowners, the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd., K.R.Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO), Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam
(Via), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem, 2nd respondent herein, has changed the alignment. The
present proposal of erecting the tower, and passage of HT Electricity Line over the lands owned by
the petitioner, would cause serious hardship.
3. According to the Learned Senior Counsel, the total width of the petitioner's land is 184 feet, and
the proposed HT Electricity Line would pass through the middle of the land, by which, 70% of the
land utility would be lost. Whereas, if the lines are drawn 80 ft., away, on the Eastern side, the
damage would be less. It is also the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel, by the proposed
laying of HT Electricity Lines, the entire market value of the land would be diminished.
4. He further submitted that the petitioner sent a representation, dated 24.09.2012, to the Deputy
General Manager and Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the respondents 2 and
3, respectively to consider shifting of HT Electricity Lines on the eastern side of the petitioner's land.
The representations remained unanswered. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send
another representation to the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, the 1st respondent.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without waiting for the orders from the District
Collector cum District Magistrate, the respondents 2 and 3, have proceeded with the work. Hence,
she was constrained to file W.P.No.28337 of 2012, for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents
therein, from in any manner erecting or drawing High Tension Electricity Line, 765 Kilo Volt DC
Line, over the petitioner's lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9, Solakalipalayam,
Chenna Sumuthram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.
6. By order dated 18.10.2012, W.P.No.28337 of 2012, was disposed of, with a direction to the
respondents 2 and 3 therein, to refer the matter to the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the
1st respondent therein, to consider the objections of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders.
Pursuant to the same, the District Collector, sent a notice directing the petitioner to appear and in
response to the same, the petitioner submitted her detailed written objection and written arguments
on 25.02.2013 and 11.03.2013, respectively.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that without considering her objections in proper
perspective, the District Collector cum District Magistrate, the 1st respondent, vide impugned
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.354/2013/k4, dated 13.06.2013, has rejected her request. In the abovesaid
circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this writ petition, for a Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.354/2013/k4, dated
13.06.2013 and to forbear the respondents 2 and 3, from in any manner, erecting or installing, High
Tension Electricity Line 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, over her lands, in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8
and 278/9, Solakalipalayam, Chenna Sumuthram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District. In
support of the above submissions, Learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the

documents enclosed in the typed set of papers.
8. The Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., has filed a detailed counter affidavit,
wherein, he has contended that Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., is a Government of India
Enterprise & Central Transmission Utility. It is a Corporation of National Importance, incorporated
as a "Government Company", under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, by Government of
India, with a view to develop an efficient power Transmission System Network, throughout the
country and to establish the National Power Grid, in the Country. The Corporation is a Deemed
Transmission Licensee in the capacity of Central Transmission Utility, as envisaged under Sections
38, 85 and 40 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
9. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the Government of India, in exercise of powers
conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), has notified the
respondent-Corporation as the 'Central Transmission Utility', vide Notification, dated 27th
November, 2003, published vide Gazette of India No.1084, dated 4th December, 2003. As per
Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, 'Central Transmission Utility' shall be deemed to be a
'Transmission Licensee' under the Act. As per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the
Appropriate Government, may by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant
for the transmission of electricity, confer upon the 'Licensee' any of the powers which the Telegraph
Authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
10. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the Government of India, in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has passed an order, dated 24.12.2003, vide
Gazette of India No.1148, authorising the respondent-Corporation, to exercise all the powers vested
in the Telegraph Authority, under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in respect of Electrical
Lines and Electrical Plants established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for
Transmission of Electricity or for the purpose of Telephonic or Telegraphic communication,
necessary for proper co-ordination of the works.
11. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, relates
to power to place Telegraph Lines and Posts. Under Section 10 thereof, the telegraph authority may,
from time to time, place and maintain telegraph lines under, over, along or across, and posts in or
upon, any immovable property, provided that the Central Government shall not acquire any right
other than that of user only in the property under, over, along across, in or upon which the
Telegraph Authority places any Telegraph Line or Post. Section 11 empowers the telegraph
authority, at any time, for the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any telegraph
line or post, to enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or post has
been placed. The statutory provisions, referred to supra, clearly empower the respondent
Corporation, to place and maintain Transmission Lines under, over, along or across and
Posts/Towers in or upon any immovable property. For the said purpose, the Corporation need not
acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along or across, in or upon
which the respondent Corporation places Transmission Lines or Posts/Towers.

12. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the subject matter of the present Writ Petition is
765 KV Power Transmission line from Tuticorin Pooling Station (Kovilpatti) to Salem Pooling
Station (Dharmapuri), as part of transmission system associated with LTOA generation projects, in
Tuticorin area, which this respondent Corporation has been entrusted with, under approval of
Government of India, vide No.11/4/2007-PG dated 23.06.2010. The anticipated length of the
Transmission Line is about 367 KMs with 1000 Towers. It is submitted that route of the
transmission line and that of tower positions were finalized on the basis of techno economical
consideration. Pursuant to the approval accorded by the Ministry of Power, Government of India,
the work has commenced and as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, foundations
numbering 850 had already been completed. Erection of towers numbering 125 had also been
completed.
13. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the transmission line passes through the
petitioner's property, connection Location Nos.AMK 9/0 and AMK 10/0. Foundation work in
respect of Location No.AMK 10/0 was completed, six months ago. Foundation work in respect of
Location No.AMK 9/0 is in progress. The cost of the project/scheme is estimated at Rs.1,940.00
Crores and it has been envisaged, to cater to the power requirements of all southern states and
Tamil Nadu, in particular, and scheduled to be commissioned by February 2014.
14. It is further submitted that 33.5 meters on either side of the alignment line, between two towers
(along the route), is the electrical safety zone, wherein, trees beyond a particular height and
permanent structures, beyond safety clearance are prohibited. In case of interference or interruption
of trees to the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, they are
required to be cut and removed. It is submitted that route of the transmission line, as well as tower
positions have been finalized, purely, on the merits of techno-economic consideration.
15. It is further submitted that on 24.09.2012, the Petitioner's husband addressed a letter to the
Corporation to erect the transmission line, without affecting the Petitioner's land. On 08.10.2012,
the Petitioner addressed a letter to District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode District, 1st
respondent herein, objecting to erection of HT lines, over her land and requested for taking the
same, to the eastern side of her land, leaving 140 to 150 feet width approximately.
16. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.28337 of 2012, for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the
Corporation from erecting of installing High Tension electricity line over her properties. This Court,
by an order, dated 18.10.2012, has directed the Corporation to refer the matter to the 1st respondent
herein, for consideration of the objections of the Petitioner, within a period of two weeks, from the
date of receipt of copy of the order and the 1st respondent was directed to issue notices to the parties
concerned, hear them and to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders, on merits,
particularly, considering Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within a period of four weeks,
thereafter.
17. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 08.01.2013, the Chief
Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India, Erode, 3rd respondent, addressed a letter to the 1st
respondent herein, seeking of right of way, for erection of HT line, over the property of the

Petitioner. On 01.03.2013, the 1st respondent inspected the land in question, and conducted an
enquiry on 11.03.2013 and that the Petitioner was represented by her Learned Counsel. During the
enquiry, the petitioner requested for shifting the HT line from the original alignment by 80 feet
towards eastern side of her property, so as to cause minimum damage to her lands.
18. It has been represented on behalf of the Corporation before the 1st Respondent that, if the
request of the Petitioner to shift the HT line by 80 feet, has to be acceded to, then the lines will have
to pass through inhabited house sites and it would also result in cutting of more number of coconut
trees. It was also contended by the Corporation that as per the Central Electricity Authority
(Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, an overhead line shall not cross
over an existing building, as far as possible. It was also contended by the Corporation that the
original alignment has been finalized, on the basis of techno economical consideration. The District
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, 1st Respondent, after taking into consideration the
materials placed before him, by impugned order, dated 13.06.2013, granted permission, under
Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to the Corporation, for laying of HT lines over the
Petitioner's property.
19. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,
does not contemplate issuance of any notice, for the purpose of carrying out its works, as
empowered. It is further submitted that the request of the petitioner for shifting the HT line from
the original alignment by 80 feet was considered by the 1st Respondent, at the time of enquiry and
rejected by the 1st Respondent, by a detailed speaking order. While rejecting the request of the
Petitioner, the 1st Respondent has also stated that if the HT line has to be shifted by 80 feet, it would
affect houses and lot of coconut trees. While considering the case of the petitioner, the 1st
Respondent has also referred to the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and
Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. If the case of the Petitioner has to be accepted, then it would
result in maximum damage, being caused to the inhabited houses, in and around the area. It is
further submitted that the google map would show that three houses, would be get affected, if the
line has to be shifted by 80 feet, towards the eastern side, as requested by the petitioner.
20. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the alignment of the route was finalized, on the
basis of techno economical considerations, the dwelling houses, on either side of the transmission
line and other factors, like road crossing, canal and the coconut grooves, in the particular area. The
project is envisaged for a public purpose. The 1st respondent has rightly concluded that the
provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act will apply only in respect of the existing lines, and that the
same will not apply to new lines, as in the case on hand.
21. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that as per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules,
"nothing contained in Rule 3 shall affect the powers conferred upon any Licensee under Section 164
of the Act". The Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 164 of The
Electricity Act, 2003, has passed an order, dated 24.12.2003, vide Gazette of India No.1148,
authorizing the 3rd respondent-Corporation, to exercise all the powers vested in the Telegraph
Authority, under part III of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in respect of Electrical Lines and
Electrical plants, established or maintained, or to be so established or maintained for the

Transmission of Electricity or for the purpose of Telephonic or Telegraphic communication,

necessary for proper co-ordination of works. As per the said provision of law, the Corporation is
empowered to place and maintain power transmission lines under, over, along or across, and
posts/towers in or upon, any immovable property. It does not stipulate issuance of personal notice
or prior consent from the private land owners.
22. The 3rd respondent has further submitted that the 1st respondent has described the property as
a vacant land, since there is no permanent building in the property. Only in that context, the 1st
respondent has stated that the land is vacant. With regard to coconut trees, the Corporation has
submitted that the petitioner would be paid compensation for the same, as they have to be cut, for
the purpose of laying of transmission line. In so far as turmeric plants are concerned, the
Corporation has submitted that the Petitioner can continue to grow the same, and damage, if any to
the same, during the execution/construction would be suitably compensated. Reiterating the above,
Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent made submissions and prayed
to dismiss the writ petition.
23. Denying the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and
based on the averments in the reply affidavit, Mr.R.Gandhi, Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the market value of the said land is more than Rs.3 Crores. Since the lands
are abutting Erode-Karur Highways Road, the value of the subject land, is on the rise. Drawing High
Tension (HT) transmission line in the middle of the land would affect the petitioner's land. The land
will be unfit for human habitation/dwelling. Income from the lands would be reduced. He further
submitted that the third respondent herein, without following the law, rules and regulations, has
deviated the route, in order to fulfill the interest of the petitioner's adjacent land owner, by deviating
the original alignment in a zig zag manner, which is evident from the picture taken from the google
map. Only for extraneous consideration, deviation has been made, to avoid the value of adjacent
land, being affected. He further submitted that the power and license conferred by the Central
Government, as per the documents relied on by the respondent Corporation have been misused by
the Power Grid Corporation. They have misused the words, Techno-economic consideration , as a
shield to safeguard the illegality, for deviating the original alignment and the specific allegation
raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, has not been properly denied or explained
by the third respondent.
24. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the foundation work in respect of AMK 10/0 was
completed six months ago. But it is evident that, after filing of the earlier Writ Petition before this
Court, after receiving the objection from the petitioner and without getting the permission from the
District Collector, Erode, 1st respondent herein, respondents 2 and 3, in a hurried manner, have
completed the foundation, insofar as location AMK 9/0 is concerned. Learned Senior Counsel
further submitted that the petitioner has requested the authorities to shift the transmission lines
from the proposed alignment to 80 feet, on the eastern side, along the boundary of the property and
that she has not asked for shifting of the lines, affecting the interest of any third party. According to
him, if shifting is done, necessity to cut more number of coconut trees will not arise. He further
submitted that there is no necessity to invoke the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to
safety and electric supply Regulation) 2010. There is no existing building, in and around the

petitioner's land.
25. According to him, Regulation 2010 is not at all applicable to the case on hand and he has denied
the contention of the respondents that there are three houses, located adjacent to the petitioner's
land and that the same would be affected, if the line has to be shifted, 80 feet on the eastern side, as
requested by the petitioner. He further submitted that Section 17(3) of Indian Telegraph act deals
with the power of the District Magistrate, when any objection is raised by the land owner, for
removal (or) alteration of telegraphic line or post on property, other than the property of the local
authority.
26. It is his further contention that nowhere in Section 17(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is stated
that the said Section would apply only to the existing line and not applicable to new lines. He further
submitted that the 1st respondent has not considered the valid objections raised by the petitioner for
shifting the line 80 feet, on the eastern side of the petitioner's land and not given proper reasons, for
rejecting the petitioner's claim. He further submitted that Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act,
specifically emphasizes that while exercising the power conferred by the authorities, they shall do
little damage, by laying line or post, in a particular property and it does not empower them to alter
the entire route alignment. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
27. The impugned order of the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode, dated 13.06.2013,
reads as follows:
<nuhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspd; bray;Kiwfs;.
Kd;dpiy Kidtu; nt/f/rz;Kfk;. ,/M/g/ e/f/354-2013-nf4 ehs; 13/06/2013 bghUs;: EiHt[ mDkjp ?
<nuhL khtl;lk; ?
<nuhL tl;lk; ? bfhLko cs;tl;lk; ?
brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; ? g[y vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs;
tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j kpd;ghij mikj;jy; ? Ml;nrgpj;J jpUkjp/ o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; brd;id
cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; hpl; kD jhf;fy;
bra;jJ ? khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;
tprhuiz bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jy;
? bjhlu;ghf ghu;it: 1/brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz kD vz;/28337-2012 jPu;g;g[iu ehs;
18/10/2012/ 2/jp-s;/ gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;

,e;jpah ypl;/. foj ehs; 08/01/2013 3/khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;
g[yj;jzpf;if ehs; 01/03/2013 4/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspd;
tprhuiz ehs; 11/03/2013 ?????
Miz <nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLko cs;tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8
kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikg;gij epy chpikahsu; jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; Ml;nrgid
bjhptpj;J brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12 jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L ghu;it 1?d;go jPu;g;g[iu
tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;nghpy; gtu;fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;,e;jpah Kjd;ik nkyhsu; nkw;go g[yj;ij jzpf;if
bra;J Ml;nrgid ePf;fp jUkhW ghu;it 2?y; fhQqk; fojj;jpy; nfhhpapUe;jdu;/ ,t;tpdj;jpy; khtl;l
Ml;rpj;jiytuhy; tprhuiz kw;Wk; g[yj;jzpf;if bra;ag;gl;lJ/ <nuhL tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y
vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j kpd;ghij bray;tij Ml;nrgpj;J
jpUkjp/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; brd;id cau;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12?d;go tHf;F bjhlu;e;J
18/10/2012?y; ,t;tHf;fpw;F jPu;g;g[iu tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpy; tprhuiz bra;J ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; gphpt[
16?d; fPH; Kot[ bra;J Mizapl bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjdog;gilapy; tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/
tprhuizapy; Ml;nrgidjuhuhd jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtu; 11/03/2013 md;W jdJ tHf;fwp"u; K:yk;
khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspk; mspj;j jdJ thJiuapy; (Affidavit) gpd;tUkhW bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ <nuhL
khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLko cs;tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9
g[y';fspy; jkf;F 2/02 V/g{kp cs;sJ vd;Wk; mjd;tHpahf cau;kpd; mGj;j ghij eLtpy; bfhz;L
bry;fpd;wdu;/ ,g;g[yj;jpy;; 40 brz;l; g{kpapy; k";rs; gapu; bra;J tUfpnwhk;/ ,g;g{kpahdJ fhsp';fuhad;
tha;f;fhy; ghrd trjp bfhz;lJ/ ,g;g{kp <nuhL Kjy; fU:u; tiuapyhd khepy beL";rhiyapy cs;sJ/
,g;g{kpapy; vdJ kfd;fSf;F FoapUg;g[ fl;l cj;njrpj;Js;nsd;/ ,e;epiyapy; gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;
,e;jpah jdJ cau; kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f cj;njrpj;Js;sdu;/ mt;thW mikj;Jtpl;lhy; vd;dhy; tPL fl;l ,ayhJ/
nkYk; gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/ jdJ cau; kpd; mGj;j ghijia tist[ besthf bfhz;L
bry;yhky; neuhf fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; cau; kpd; mGj;j ghij vdJ g{kpapd;
fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf mika[k;/ nkYk; rhiy g[wkhf 140 Kjy; 150 mo tiu ,lk; xUg[wkhf fpilf;Fk;/ mt;thW
mike;jhy; vdJ g{kpapd; xU ghfj;jij vd;dhy; gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s ,aYk;/ mjpy; jd; kfd;fSf;F tPL fl;l VJthf
,Uf;Fk; vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ nkYk; ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) ? d;go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ
epy chpikahsu;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy;
gtu;fpnul; fhu;g;nuc&d; ghpt[ 10(o)?d;go epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwthd ,Gg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy;
bray;glhky; vdJ g{kpapy; kpd; ghijia tist[ bespthf bfhz;L brd;W mjpf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sdu;/
vdnt ,e;jp je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17(2)?d;go kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyiz bra;J gphpt[ 17(3)?d;go
khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; Miz tH';FkhW bjhptpj;Js;shu;/ ,J bjhlu;ghd tprhuizapd; nghJ gtu;fphpl;
fhu;g;gnurd; Kjd;ik nkyhsu; nehy; M$uhfp Ml;nrgizf;F fPH;f;fz;lthW gjpy; mspj;Js;shu;/ kpd;ghij
mikg;gJ bjhlu;ghf gphpt[ 10?19gp ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; 1885 kw;Wk; gphpt[ 164 ,e;jpad; vyf;hprpl;o rl;lk;
2003?d;go muRbtspaPL S.O.1463(E) ehs; 24/12/2003?d;go gpuRhpf;fg;gl;lLs;sJ/ J}j;Jf;Fo Kjy;
jUkg[hp tiu 765 kpd;ghij mikg;gJ bjhu;ghf kj;jpa kpd;rhu Jiw fojk; 11-4-2007-PG ehs;
23/06/2010?d;go mDkjpaspj;Js;sJ/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghijia 80 mo fpHf;F g[wkhf
khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; m';F jw;nghJ epiyapy; cs;s tPLfspd; nkyhf kpd;ghij mika[k;epiy
Vw;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; epiwa bjd;id ku';fis btl;lntz;oa fl;lhak; Vw;gLfpwJ/ ,jdhy; ,d;Dk; gy gpur;ridfs;
Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ/ epiwa egu;fs; Ml;nrgid bjhptpf;Fk; tha;g;g[s;sJ/ ,e;jpa kpd; tpepnahfr;rl;lk;
kw;Wk; xG';FKiw rl;lk; 2010 gphpt[ 60(1)?d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPl;od;kPJ kpd;ghij jlk;
bry;fpd;w tifapy; jpl;lk; mikf;f ,ayhJ/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; ,e;jpa je;jpr; rl;lk; gphpt[ 17?y; 2?d;go kpd;ghijia

80 mo fpHg[wkhf khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyid bra;J gphpt[ 17(3) ?d;go khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; Miz tH';Fk;go
nfl;Lf;bfhz;Ls;shu;/ ,e;ja je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17 vd;gJ Vw;fdnt kpd;ghij mikf;fg;gl;oUg;gpd; mjid
ghprPyiz bra;J khw;wp mikf;f cj;jutpLtjw;fhd rl;lkhFk;/ ,e;neu;tpy; kpd;ghij VJk; mikf;fg;gltpy;iy/
vdnt ,g;gphptpy; Ml;nrgizjhuu; nfhhpf;if Vw;f ,ayhJ/ jw;nghJ mikf;fg;gl cs;s kpd;ghij Techo
Economical Considerations?d; mog;gilapy; Kgj;jpl;lkhdJ epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwtha ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk;
gl;rj;jpy; ru;ntbra;J jpl;lk; mikg;g[ Kot[bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ,e;neu;tpy; Ml;nrgizjhuu; xUtuJ nfhhpf;ifapd;go
kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ,ayhJ/ mt;thW fpHg[wk; 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk;
,Hg;gPl;iltpl mjpf ,Hg;gPL muRf;F Vw;gLk; epiy cs;sJ/ nkYk; kpd;ghij nfhg[uk; AMK 10/10 (152/0)
mLj;jjhf mika[k; AMK 9-0 kpd; nfhg[uj;jpw;F Vw;whw;nghy; mikf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ jw;nghJ mjid
khw;wpdhy; AMK10-0 nfhg[uk; ,of;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW ,of;fg;gl;L kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikj;jhy;
muRf;F nkYk; mjpf ,Hg;g[ Vw;gLk;/ ,jdhy; Vw;fdnt ru;nt bra;J mikf;fg;gl;l ghijia rpwpJk; khw;wp
mikf;f tHptifna ,y;iy/ kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk; ,Hg;gpw;F ,Hg;gPL tH';f ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o)
?d;go nghJkhd tpjpKiwfs; cs;sd vdt[k;. vdnt jw;nghJ cs;s jpl;lj;jpd;gona cau;kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f
cj;jut[ tH';FkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;lhu;/ Ml;nrgizjhuhpd; nfhhpf;if gtu;fphpl; fhu;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah
ypl;/. Kjd;ik nkyhsu; tpsf;fk; kw;Wk; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; g[yj;jpzf;if kw;Wk; tprhuizapd;
mog;gilapy; fPH;f;fz;l tpgu';fs; mwpatUfpwJ/ 1 jw;nghJ kpd;ghij mikf;f Ml;nrgiz bra;a[k;
jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtuJ g{kp fhypaplkhf cs;sJ/ 2/ Ml;nrgizjhuu; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghij
khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; tPLfs;. epiwa bjd;id ku';fs; Mfpait ghjpf;Fk; epiy cs;sjhy; epiwa egu;fs;
Ml;nrgiz bra;a tha;g;g[ cs;sJ/ 3/ kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; ghy tpiuak;. BghUs; tpiuak;
Vw;gl;L bghJ eyd; ghjpf;Fk; epiy Vw;gLk;/ 4/ kj;jpa kpd;rhu ghJfhg;g[ kw;Wk; tH';Fjy; xG';FKiw
rl;lk; 2010?d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPL kw;Wk; epiyahd fl;Lkhd';fSf;F nkyhf cau;kpd;dGj;j ghij
bfhz;L bry;y rl;lj;jpy; tHptif ,y;iy/ 5/ ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) ?d;go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ epy
chpikahsu;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gK; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk;/ vdnt ,itfspd; mog;gilapy; bghJ eyd;
fUjpa[k; epy chpikahsuJ Ml;nrgidapid epuhfhpj;J <nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLko cs;tl;lk;.
brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikj;jpl ,e;jpa je;jp
rl;lk; 1885 gphpt[ 16?d;go gtu;fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. epWtdj;jpw;F mDkjp tH';fp
cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ Xk;/-? nt/f/rz;Kfk;.
khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;
<nuhL/
-cz;ik efy; - cj;jut[g;go-
khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;fhf Translated version of the above contents are as follows:
Proceedings of the District Collector, Erode District Present: Dr.V.K.Shanmugam, I.A.S.
R.C.354/2013/K4 Dated: 13.06.2013
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub: Laying of High Tension Electrical Line through lands in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in
Chennasamudram Village - Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District - one

Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, filed a Writ Petition before the Chennai High Court stating for objections
District Collector enquired and issued orders - regarding.
Ref: 1. Order dated 18.10.2012 in the Writ Petition No.28337/2012 on the file of High Court,
Madras. 2. Letter dated 08.01.2013 of M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
3. Spot Inspection, of the District Collector on 01.03.2013.
4. Enquiry of the District Collector on 11.03.2013.
-----
ORDERS :-
One Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari has filed a W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras objecting to
lay an Electric Line passing through the land in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in
Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and orders were
passed under reference 1st cited. Accordingly, the Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India
has requested in his letter under reference 2nd cited to inspect the aforesaid land and to set right the
objections.
The District Collector enquired and conducted the Spot Inspection in the said place. One
Tmt.Bhuvaneshwari, filed W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras and objected to the laying
of High Tension Electric Line through the lands in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 at
Chennasamudram Village, Erode Taluk and orders were passed on 18.10.2012, in this case. In that
Order, it was directed to enquire and decide U/s.16 of Indian Telegraph Act and to pass orders.
Based on that, enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, one Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, the objector
informed as stated below, in her Affidavit which was submitted to the District Collector through her
advocate on 11.03.2013.
She has stated that she owned a land of 2.02 acres in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 at
Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and that high tension
electrical line has been laying in the middle of her land. They cultivate turmeric in the said land of
40 cents. The said land has the facility of being irrigated through Kalingarayan canal. The said land
is situated in the State High Road from Erode to Karur. She has proposed to construct a residential
building in the said land for her sons. In this situation, the Manager, Power Grid Corporation of
India has proposed to lay a High Tension Electric Line in the middle of her lands. If such Electric
Line is laid, she could not construct a house in the said land. Further, if the Power Grid Corporation
of India, lays a High Tension Electric Line without curves and bends but straightly on the margin of
the eastern boundary by 80 feet on the alternate way, the High Tension Electrical Line, would be on
the eastern boundary of her land. Moreover, on the road side, there would be place 140 to 150 feet,
available on one side. If it is set up like that, she could utilise a portion of the land. In that place, she
would be able to construct houses for her sons. Further, as per section 10(D) of Telegraph Act, the
Power Grid Corporation did not act so that minimum loss would be caused to the owner of the land

but laid the electrical line with bends and curves over her land, thereby, causing much loss.
Therefore, the District Collector has stated that after examination as per section 17(2) of Indian
Telegraph Act and directed to pass order as per section 17(3). The Chief Manager of Power Grid
Corporation appeared in person during the enquiry regarding this and replied to the objection,
which is as follows :-
The Government publication in S.O.1463(E) dated 24.12.2003 has been published as per section
10-19B, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and section 164 of Indian Electricity Act 2003, regarding the
laying of electrical line.
The Central Electricity Department in its letter dated 23.06.2010 has granted approval for laying
765 KV, electrical line from Tuticorin to Dharmapuri.
As has been informed by the objector; in the event of changing the electricity line by 80 feet on the
eastern side; there is a situation in which the electricity line would be crossing over the houses,
which are there presently. Further, there arises a compulsion for felling down a large number of
coconut trees. Consequently, there is a chance of several issues cropping up leading to many
individuals raising objections in this regard. As per section 60(1) of the Indian Electricity
Distribution Act and Regulation Act, 2010; scheme could not be formulated in such a manner that
the electricity line crosses over the houses already constructed. The objector has requested the
District Collector to examine the change of electricity line by 80 feet on the eastern side as per
section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and issue order u/s 17(3) of the said act. Section 17 of the
Indian Telegraph Act contemplates that if electricity line has already been laid it should be
examined and orders shall be passed for changing it. In this instance, there is no electricity line laid.
Hence, under this section, the demand of the objector could not be accepted.
The present electricity line, which has been laid on the basis of the Techno Economical
considerations, is a comprehensive scheme. It was decided to survey and implement the said
scheme, so that the owner of the land will incur minimum loss. In this instance, as per the demand
put forth by an objector; the electricity line could not be changed and laid. If it is laid by altering 80
feet on the eastern side the loss incurred by the Government will be more than the loss incurred by
the petitioner. Further, the electrical tower AMK 10/0 (152/0) has been formed, suitable to the
electrical tower AMK 9/0, next to it. If it is altered presently, the AMK 10/0 tower would have to be
demolished. If it is demolished like that, the Government would incur further an excessive loss.
Therefore, there is not even any possibility for altering the path (electrical line) which has been
already surveyed and laid. There are sufficient rules and regulations as per section 10(D) of Indian
Telegraph Act to give compensation to the petitioner for the loss incurred by him.
On the basis of the demand made by the objector; the explanation given by the Principal Manager of
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the spot inspection of the District Collector enquiry; the
following details have come to be known.
1. The land belonging to Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, who has presently raised objection to set up the
electricity line; is a vacant land.

2. In the event of the objector seeking for altering the electricity line route; since the houses, a lot of
coconut trees would be adversely affected; there is possibility of many individuals who would raise
objection.
3. In case the electricity line route is changed, there would be waste of time and money; as a result of
which the Public Welfare would be affected.
4. As per the Central Electricity Safety and Supply Regulation Act, 2010; there is no provision in the
Act to take the high voltage electricity line, over the already constructed houses and the permanent
structures.
5. As per section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act; while putting up the electricity line, it should be
done in such a manner that the owners of the land will incur lesser loss.
Therefore, on the basis of all these factors and considering the Public Welfare; the objection raised
by the land owner is rejected. It is ordered that permission is granted to the Power Grid Corporation
of India Company as per section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 to lay the electricity line over the
land in Survey No.275/4, 278/3, 8, 9 Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub-Taluk, Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
Sd/- V.K.Shanmugam,
Sd/-
To
1. Tmt.D.Bhuvaneshwari,
W/o.Thandavan,
E-23, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 1.
2. Principal Manager,
M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
17/4-G, Vivekanandar Street,
Nasiyanur Road,
Erode.
28. Before adverting to the facts of this case, let me have a cursory look at the f
(20) "electric line", means any line which is used for carrying electricity for any pur
(a) any support for any such line, that is to say, any structure, tower, pole or other
(b) any apparatus connected to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity;
(22) "electrical plant" means any plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance or any part
(a) an electric line; or
(b) a meter used for ascertaining the quantity of electricity supplied to any premises;
(c) an electrical equipment, apparatus or appliance under the control of a consumer;
(40) "line", which means any wire, cable, tube, pipe, insulator, conductor or other similar thing
(including its casing or coating) which is designed or adapted for use in carrying electricity and
includes any line which surrounds or supports, or is surrounded or supported by or is installed in
close proximity to, or is supported, carried or suspended in association with, any such line;

(48) "overhead line" means an electric line which is placed above the ground and in the open air but
does not include live rails of a traction system;
(61) "service-line" means any electric supply-line through which electricity is, or is intended to be,
supplied--
(a) to a single consumer either from a distributing main or immediately from the Distribution
Licensee's premises; or
(b) from a distributing main to a group of consumers on the same premises or on contiguous
premises supplied from the same point of the distributing main;
(72) "transmission lines" means all high pressure cables and overhead lines (not being an essential
part of the distribution system of a licensee) transmitting electricity from a generating station to
another generating station or a sub-station, together with any step-up and step-down transformers,
switch-gear and other works necessary to and used for the control of such cables or overhead lines,
and such buildings or part thereof as may be required to accommodate such transformers,
switch-gear and other works.
29. Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, deals with overhead lines and the said Section is
extracted hereunder:
ž8.Overhead lines:- (1) An overhead line shall, with prior approval of the Appropriate Government,
be installed or kept installed above ground in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).
(2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply--
(a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used
or intended to be used for supplying to a single consumer;
(b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within premises in the occupation or
control of the person responsible for its installation; or
(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.
(3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub- section (1), impose such
conditions (including conditions as to the ownership and operation of the line) as appear to it to be
necessary.
(4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time after the end of such
period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it.
(5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any structure or other object
which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line,

interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the placing of such line,
interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or
transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority
specified by the Appropriate Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree,
structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit.
(6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or authority
specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the
overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable,
and such person may recover the same from the licensee.
(emphasis supplied)
30. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in
certain cases, which is extracted hereunder:
The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical
plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic
communications necessary for the proper coordination of works, confer upon any public officer,
licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject
to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose
and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers which the telegraph
authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the
purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or
maintained.
31. Sections 173, 174 and 175, deal with Inconsistency in laws, Act to have overriding effect, and
provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws respectively and the
said Sections are extracted hereunder:
™73. Inconsistency in laws.--Nothing contained in this Act or any rule or regulation made
thereunder or any instrument having effect by virtue of this Act, rule or regulation shall have effect
insofar as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the
Atomic Energy Act, 1962 or the Railways Act, 1989.
174. Act to have overriding effect.--Save as otherwise provided in Section 173, the provisions of this
Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
175. Provisions of this Act to be in addition to and not in derogation of other laws.--The provisions of
this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
32. Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with repeal and saving. The said Section reads as
follows:

"185. Repeal and saving.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 2010), the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998)
are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,
(a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule,
notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or
declaration made or any licence, permission, authorisation or exemption granted or any document
or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of this Act;
(b) the provisions contained in sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), and
rules made thereunder shall have effect until the rules under sections 67 to 69 of this Act are made;
(c) the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under section 37 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of
1910) as it stood before such repeal shall continue to be in force till the regulations under section 53
of this Act are made.
(d) all rules made under subsection (1) of section 69 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of
1948) shall continue to have effect until such rules are rescinded or modified, as the case may be;
(e) all directives issued, before the commencement of this Act, by a State Government under the
enactments specified in the Schedule shall continue to apply for the period for which such directions
were issued by the State Government.
(3) The provisions of the enactments specified in the Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, shall apply to the States in which such enactments are applicable.
(4) The Central Government may, as and when considered necessary, by notification, amend the
Schedule.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2), the mention of particular matters in that section,
shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals.
33. Some of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, are extracted hereunder:
"10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.--

The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that--
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the
purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government, or to be so
established or maintained;
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property
under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or
post;
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect
of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the
permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little
damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than
that referred to in clause (c); shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage
sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.
11. Power to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts.--The telegraph
authority may, at any time, for the purpose of examining, repairing, altering or removing any
telegraph line or post, enter on the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the line or
post has been placed.
14. Power to alter position of gas or water pipes or drains.--The telegraph authority may, for the
purpose of exercising the powers conferred upon it by this Act in respect of any property vested in or
under the control or management of a local authority, alter the position thereunder of any pipe (not
being a main) for the supply of gas or water, or of any drain (not being a main drain):
Provided that--
(a) when the telegraph authority desires to alter the position of any such pipe or drain it shall give
reasonable notice of its intention to do so, specifying the time when it will begin to do so, to the local
authority, and, when the pipe or drain is not under the control of the local authority, to the person
under whose control the pipe or drain is;
(b) a local authority or person receiving notice under clause (a) may send a person to superintended
the work, and the telegraph authority shall execute the work to the reasonable satisfaction of the
person so sent.

16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property
other than that of a local authority.-
(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause
(d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that
the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those
powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he
shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10,
clause (d), it shall, on application for the purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District
Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions
in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the
Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, whose all the disputing parties
have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined
under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and
hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive
compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to
share in it.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4)
shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the
whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has
received the same.
17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post on property other than that of a local authority.--
(1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or posts has been placed by the
telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in
or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to
deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph
line or post should be removed to another part or thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in
from, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly:
Provided that, if compensation has been paid under Section 10, clause(d), he shall, when making an
requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the
removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be smaller sum.

(2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply
to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or
alteration.
(3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-section (2) may, in his discretion, reject
the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line
or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form;
and the order so made shall be final.
34. Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, deals with Powers to Board for placing wires,
poles and the same is as follows:
"42. Powers to Board for placing wires, poles, etc. - [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in
Sections 12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 (9 of 1910), but without prejudice
to the requirements of Section 17 of that Act "where provision in such behalf is made in a sanctioned
scheme, the Board shall have, for the placing of any wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays apparatus and
appliance for the transmission and distribution of electricity, or for the transmission of telegraphic
or telephonic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works of the Board, all
the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885
(13 of 1885) with regard to a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so
established or maintained: Provided that where a sanctioned scheme does not make such provision
as aforesaid, all the provisions of Sections 12 to 19 of the first mentioned Act shall apply to the works
of the Board.
(2) A generating company may, for the placing of wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays apparatus and
appliances for the transmission of electricity, or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephonic
communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works of the generating company,
exercise all or any of the powers which the Board may exercise under sub-section (1) and subject to
the conditions referred to therein."
35. Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, deals with the duty to supply on request and the said
Section reads as follows:
"(1) Save as otherwise provided in tis Act, every distribution licensee, shall, on an application by the
owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month
after receipt of the application requiring such supply :
Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new
sub-stations, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after
such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate
Commission.
Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of
electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider

necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.
(2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric
line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1) :
Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a
supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee
to pay to him such price as determined by the Appropriate Commission.
(3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in sub-section
(1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default."
36. The scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, has been explained in a Full Bench of Kerala
High Court in Mammoo vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1979 Kerala Law Times 801 and at
paragraph 13, the Full Bench observed thus:
"13. The scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act may now be adverted to Section 10 of the Act, as
already indicated, gives the Telegraph authority power to place and maintain telegraph line in or
upon any immovable property. The proviso indicates that such power is to be exercised only for
telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government or to be so established and
maintained, that the Central Government acquires only the right of user, that in the case of local
authority the exercise has to be with permission of that authority and that in the exercise of such
power as little damage as possible is to be caused. These are in the nature of restrictions in the
exercise of the power and do not restrict the discretion to determine the property over which the
lines are to pass or posts are to be erected. That discretion is in the telegraph authority. If he is
resisted or restricted he seeks permission from the District Magistrate whose adjudication does not
cover the question whether line is to be drawn over any specific item of property or whether posts
are to erected or not in any specific item of property. Section 16 does not indicate that as within the
power of the District Magistrate. The enquiry by the District Magistrate would be in the nature of a
ministerial enquiry. There is no question of calling for evidence, sifting such evidence, and coming
to a judicial decision thereon. In the event such judicial decision on issues was contemplated by
Section 16(1) there would necessarily have been indication in the Section as to the issues that could
be so considered and judicially disposed of by the District Magistrate. No doubt Section 16(1)
provides that in granting permission to the Telegraph Authority the District Magistrate is to exercise
his discretion. (emphasis supplied)
37. In Binapani Basu v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 Cal. 258, at Paragraph 8, the Calcutta
High Court, held as follows:
"Section 10 gives legal sanction for committing trespass which the telegraph authorities would not
have been entitled to commit but for such sanction. Such trespass again may result in some
damages. But Section 10(d) does not limit the compensation to such damage only. It speaks of any
damage sustained by reason of exercise of such powers. Clause (d) of Section 10 clearly indicates
that in doing any act within the sanction of Section 10 the telegraph authority must take the caution

of causing as little damage as possible. When such an act is done, the authorities shall pay full
compensation for any damage sustained by reason of exercise of such powers. Such damage, covers
not only the damage for the trespass itself but any damage that may be sustained due to any tortious
action on the part of the telegraph authorities while exercising their powers under Section 10. The
tortious act is not an independent act; it arises from negligent exercise of powers under Section 10
involving the immovable property in respect of which such power is being exercised."
38. In Maharastra State Electricity Board v. Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai reported in AIR 1988 Bom.
75, a notification was issued empowering the Electricity Board to exercise all the powers under
Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, the notification did not specifically state that the
Board is empowered to enter upon any property for placing wires, erect poles, etc. By a resolution,
the Board framed the scheme for established of 110 KV, EHV sub-stations at Shiroli and other places
in Kolhapur District. The case of the Board was that for the execution of the said Scheme, the powers
of the Telegraph Authority under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was vested in it, as
provided under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 and thereby, the Board was empowered to enter upon
any land, to erect poles and lay wires, cables, etc., for transmission of electricity. The Board has
chartered the route of the said transmission line. During the course of construction of the
transmission line, under the aforesaid scheme, some of the land owners objected. As a result of the
objection raised, the Board made an application before the concerned District Magistrate, under
Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, and that the District Magistrate permitted the Board to
proceed further, in exercise of the powers under the Telegraph Act and the Act of 1948. Thereafter,
the land owners filed a suit for a perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The said suit, after
trial, has been decreed, as aforesaid and that the appeal preferred by the Board, has also been
dismissed by the first appellate Court, giving rise to second appeal, before the Bombay High Court.
The land owners also challenged the order of the District Magistrate, passed under Section 16 of the
Telegraph Act in Writ Petition No.5302 of 1992 and that a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court, disposed of the writ petition, by observing that the impugned order of the District
Magistrate would merge in the final order to be passed in the second appeal, arising out of the suit
filed by the land owners against the Board. After considering the statement of objects and reasons of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1948 (as amended), and the relevant provisions, viz., Sections 28 and 42
of the said Act, at Paragraph 11, the Bombay High Court, at Paragraph 11, held as follows:
"11. The very fact that the notification states that for execution of this scheme the Board shall
exercise all the powers of Telegraph Authority vested in it as provided in Section 42 of the said Act
means the power has been given to the Board under Section 42 for exercising the powers of the
Telegraph Authority notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. There was absolutely no necessity in restating in the notification
that the Board shall have all the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Indian
Telegraph Act for placing of any wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays, apparatus and appliances for the
transmission and distribution of electricity when the notification states that the Board shall exercise
all the powers of Telegraph Authority vested in it as provided under Section 42 of the said Act. The
notification, therefore, clearly empowers the Board, its officers, servants and agents to exercise all
the powers of Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act for execution of the scheme
which has been sanctioned and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian

Electricity Act would not apply. The Courts below, therefore, seriously erred in holding that in the
notification published under Section 28(3), the Board has not been empowered the powers of
Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act and that the provisions of Section 12 to 19 of
the Indian Electricity Act were required to be followed."
Taking note of the decision made in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd., v. Kerala
State Electricity Board, Trivandrum reported in AIR 1972 Ker. 47, wherein, the Full Bench of the
Kerala High Court considered the legality and constitutionality of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity
Act, which is quite similar to Section 42 of Act, 1948, a Hon'ble Single Judge of Bombay High Court
in Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai's case reported in AIR 1988 Bom. 75, at Paragraph 13, held as
follows:
"13. There can be no doubt that laying of electric supply lines is of utmost importance, need of hour
and life and blood of progress and development and the said process cannot be allowed to be
blocked on technical grounds. In the present case, the notification dated 30-10-1986 means that the
Board exercises the powers of Telegraph Authority in execution of the scheme, and, therefore, there
is no impediment for the Board and its officials to exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority
possessed under Part III of Indian Telegraph Act and do all such acts necessary for execution of the
Scheme."
It is worthwhile to reproduce the judgment made in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private
Ltd.,'s case (cited supra), considered in Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai's case (stated supra), as
follows:
"We quite realise that Section 10 is contained in an enactment which came into force on the 1st
October, 1885, at a time when even the placing of telegraph lines was a phenomenon and that the
act concerned itself only with the placing of telegraph lines which in scope and extent and in
dimensions are entirely different from the laying of electric supply lines in a modern city or a state
where one can expect, and one can see, a net work of lines being drawn across country, over the
properties, and near buildings and other structures. The exercise of the powers under Section 10 of
the Telegraph Act, controlled by Section 16 thereof, may be quite inadequate for the supply and
distribution of electricity in modern times. In fact we feel that entirely different provisions which
will provide a more flexible and speedy procedure have become indispensable. But the legislature in
enacting Section 51 of the Electricity Act has chosen to confer on the public officer, the licensee or
other person chosen by the State Government only the powers of a telegraph authority under the
Telegraph Act."
In Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai's case (stated supra), Bombay High Court, taking note of a decision
in Rajak v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.. Indore reported in AIR 1988 MP 172,
wherein, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, "once the power has been conferred under
Section 42 of the Act read with Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act there can be no valid objection to
the implementation of the sanctioned scheme on the principles of natural justice or on the ground of
unauthorised user of the petitioner's land."

39. In Rajak and ors. vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Indore and anr., reported in AIR
1988 Madhya Pradesh 172, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that
the petitioner therein could not object to the implementation of a scheme for erection of tower and
laying of transmission lines over certain lands on the ground that no notice is served on the land
owners and the principles of natural justice are not complied with.
40. In Jiviben Motibhai Patel v. Executive Engineer (C &M) Gujarat Electricity Board, Baroda
reported in 1996 (1) GLR 470 : 1995 AIHC 6359, the Gujarat High Court, at Paragraphs 25 and 28,
held š5. It becomes very clear from the provisions of Section 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act
coupled with provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act that the Board was not required to
obtain consent of the petitioner for doing the impugned work or for any works as defined in Section
2(n). It is also no! obligatory on the part of the competent authority which has been conferred
powers of the Indian Telegraph Act under Section 10 of the said Act, to issue prior notice to the
owner of the property over which electric supply line is proposed and before exercising power under
Section 10. In view of the conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 51 of the Electricity Act and
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, for exercise of powers in laying down poles and construction
of electric line, consent or prior intimation was not necessary. The only right to the owner or the
occupier, as the case may be, is to claim compensation compensation has already been awarded by
the Additional District Magistrate. Therefore, the act of placing poles and laying over head electric
line in the field of the petitioner cannot be said to be unauthorised in the absence of prior
permission of the District Magistrate.
28. Now, relevant section is Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The exercise of powers under
Section 10 is not conditional on compliance of provisions of Section 16(1). The powers given under
Section 10 are, as such, absolute. It is only when there is obstruction or resistance in exercise of
powers, then in that event, the authority is obliged to approach the District Magistrate. In absence of
any resistance or obstruction, it would not be necessary at all for the authority to approach the
District Magistrate. In the present case, no objection or resistance was made until the poles were
installed. Therefore, there was no necessity to obtain order of the District Magistrate under Section
16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Therefore, on that ground also, the second contention is also not
sustainable.
41. On the aspect, as to whether, prior consent is required, this Court has considered a case in
E.Venkatesan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras reported in AIR 1997 Mad. 64,
wherein, writ petitions were filed, by the land owners, objecting to the digging up of pits for erecting
poles in order to draw electric wires/cables over the lands. It was contended that no notice was given
to the pattadars and in the absence of any consent of the owners of patta lands, the
respondents-Electricity Board has no jurisdiction or power or authority to enter into the patta lands,
dig pits, erect poles or draw high tension wires over patta lands. It was also contended that the
electric wires be drawn from the nearby poramboke land, available abundantly on the eastern side of
the lands. Therefore, a Writ of Prohibition or a Mandamus, forbearing them from erecting pole or
drawing high tension wires or cables over the lands of an extent of 0.39.5 hectares. Defending the
action, the Board submitted that Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, gives authority for
placing the poles or towers in private lands. It was also contended that under Section 51 of the

Indian Electricity Act, the Board can exercise the powers under Sections 10 to 19 and 19-A of
Telegraph Act, 1885, for laying lines. It was further stated that in exercise of powers under Section
51 of the Electricity Act, the Government has issued Orders in G.O.Ms.No.1455, dated 06.06.1961
and in view of the power exercised under Telegraph Act read with Electricity Act and also Electricity
Supply Act, they are entitled to draw electric lines, and the land owners are entitled to claim only
compensation for damages, if any, caused to the property. Added to that, the Board has further
contended that the interests of the public has to be taken into consideration. On the abovesaid
grounds, dismissal of the writ petition was prayed for. After considering Section 10 of the Telegraph
Act and Section 51 of the Electricity Act and the decisions in Provash Chandra Sett v. Gouripore
Electric Supply Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1960 Cal. 311, Bharat Plywoods & T.Products v. EL. Board
reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47, Deva Raj v. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow reported in AIR
1977 ALL. 452, Mammoo v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1980 Kerala 18 (FB) and H.Bhadur
Singh v. The Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Transmission Line
Division reported in (1991) 2 Andh.L.T. 7 and having regard to the Notification of 1961, issued by the
Telegraph Act, Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani, (as he then was), held as follows:
"13. In this connection, it may also be useful to consider the scheme under Section 10 of the Indian
Telegraph Act. It gives the telegraph authority power to place and maintain a telegraph line under,
over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The proviso indicates that such
power is to be exercised only for telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government or
to be so established and maintained, that the Central Government Acquires only the Right of User,
that in the case of local authority the exercise has to be with permission of that authority and that in
the exercise of such power as little damage as possible is to be caused. These are in the nature of
restrictions in the exercise of the power and do not restrict the discretion .to determine the property
over which the lines are to pass or posts are to be erected. The discretion is in the Telegraph
Authority. (AIR 1980 Kerala 18 (FB) - Mammoo v. State of Kerala).
14. In view of the Notification of 1961, the words 'Telegraph Authority' in Section 10 of the Telegraph
Act have been substituted by the words 'State Electricity Board'. In view of the substitution, the State
Electricity Board gets power to locate towers on any land owned by any person.
In this connection, it is also better to take note of paragraph 18 of the Full Bench Decision of the
Kerala High Court reported in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd., v. Kerala State
Electricity Board, Trivandrum reported in AIR 1972 Ker. 47. The said paragraph reads thus:--
"The power that can be conferred under Sec. 51 of the Electricity Act upon a public, officer, licensee
or any other person is only for the purpose of placing electric supply lines. It can hardly be expected
that this power will be utilised arbitrarily for causing loss or damage to owners or occupiers of
property. There can, of course, be difference of opinion as to whether a line should be placed over a
particular property or not. This must, in the nature of things, be a matter for the statutory
authorities created under the Electricity Act to decide. It is too much to suppose that the officers,
licensees and other persons empowered under S. 51. will act without any guidance or control from
the statutory authorities such as the State Electricity Boards created under the Supply Act and
without sanction or approval from the senior officers of the Board who have to decide on the policies

regarding distribution and supply and the alignment of the lines to be drawn and such allied
matters. The purposes for which the electric supply lines may be placed are clear from the section
itself. In the case of licensees, normally, the licenses issued would indicate in what area and in what
manner electricity should be distributed and supplied. These will afford sufficient guidelines for the
exercise of the powers. One cannot expect the State Government to empower any public officer or
any person who may have no idea how electric supply lines should be placed. And, though it is
suggested that an Assistant Engineer is not a proper authority on whom the powers under the
Telegraph Act may be conferred under S. 51 of the Electricity Act, we are not satisfied that this
contention is sound. In the circumstances, the restrictions such as those that have been imposed can
only be considered to be reasonable in the interest of the general public. One may have to suffer
some detriment in the user of property to serve the common good and he cannot complain when full
compensation is paid for the detriment. We are unable to accept the contention that the restrictions
imposed on the user of the property are unreasonable. We negative this contention as well."
While explaining the obligation on the part of the Government or the Licencee, to provide electricity,
Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd., v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum
reported in AIR 1972 Ker. 47, as extracted in E.Venkatesan's case, is worth reproduction, In the
same decision, their Lordships further held thus (at pp. 51-52 of AIR) :-
".....The Electricity Act is a law to provide for the supply and use of electrical energy. Such supply
and use of electrical energy has become a necessity. Electrical energy has become a commodity of
ordinary and daily use in homes, factories and offices, in fact everywhere. The demand for this is
growing day by day. The need for generating more and more electricity and the system to provide for
its easy, quick and economic supply to every person requiring it has become indispensable for the
needs of the community. Power has, therefore, to be taken for the purpose of facilitating generation
and quick distribution and supply of electrical energy. And this is provided by the Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948, and also particularly by S. 51 of the Electricity Act read with S. 10 of the
Telegraph Act."
15. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 51 of the
electricity Act in the case (AIR 1973 Kerala 95) Kerala State Electricity Board v. P. M. Maitheyan).
There, the question was, whether mandatory injunction could be issued against the Kerala
Electricity Board for installing a power over the property of a person from whom written consent
was not obtained. Their Lordships, while considering Section 10 of the Telegraph Act read with
Section 51 of the Electricity Act, came to the conclusion that the Electricity Board has been conferred
with powers and they have got the power to lay electric lines over properties belonging to private
persons and no consent of the owner of the land is required for that purpose. Following an earlier
Full Bench decision of that High Court in Bharath Plywood and Timber Products Private Limited
case (supra), their Lordships said that the officer of the Electricity Board has only lawfully drawn
electric lines through the private property and that consent is not required. In paragraph 3 of the
judgment (at page 542) (of Ker LT) : (at p. 96 of AIR), their Lordships have held thus :--
"......The subject has been discussed elaborately by a Full Bench of this court in Bharat Plywood &
Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, (FB). There, it is laid down that the

power conferred under Sec. 51 upon any public officer, licensee or any other person is for the
purpose of placing electric supply lines, that under the Act if any individual has any objection to the
lines being laid across his property, he has to raise objection to the laying of the lines and that the
Electricity Authorities are then bound to approach the District Magistrate for obtaining permission
to lay the lines. It is clear from the provisions in sub Ss. 1 and 2 of S. 16 of the Telegraph Act that the
telegraph authority is bound, in case of resistance or obstruction by the owner of occupier, to resort
to the procedure indicated in sub-S. 1 of S. 16, In other words, the authority has to get an order from
the district Magistrate before exercising the power so conferred. In this case, the owner of the
property has raised no resistance or objection when the lines were laid over this property. It was
long after the lines were laid that the respondent purchased the property from the original owner.
There is no justification in his now saying that the lines should not have been laid over the property
as the law had permitted him the right to object to the laying of the line."
In the same volume, i.e. 1972 Ker LT 856 (Poulo kunj ouseph v. K. S. E. Board), the question that
arose for consideration was, what is the consequence of a consent originally given but subsequently
withdrawn. A learned Judge of the Kerala High Court held in that case thus:--
"A survey of the provisions contained in Ss. 18(c), 26 and 42 of the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948, S.
51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and S. 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, would make it
clear that the placing and carrying of electric lines over the properties even of private individulas by
the Electricity Board and its officers in discharge of the statutory obligations laid on the Board under
the provisions of the Acts in question are not in any way dependant upon the consent of the
individuals concerned being so, the legal position appears to be plain that the withdrawal of consent
by the third respondent by itself cannot automatically entail a dismantling or removal of the electric
lines laid by the Board or its officers over the third respondent's property for the purpose of giving
service connection to the petitioner. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 attempted an argument that
the provisions of the section would not be applicable to service lines such as what is involved in this
writ petition. On the language of the section which refers to the placing of electric supply lines....... it
is not possible to read this restriction in the section. Nor is it possible to find any such restriction in
the remaining words or language used in the section."
18. A learned Judge of this court also had occasion to consider this question, and the same is
reported in 1994 Writ LR 445 (M.Nithyanadham v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board),
where their Lordships followed the Full Bench decision of various other High Courts, and came to
the conclusion that the owner of the property is entitled only to claim compensation as provided
under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act for damage caused to the property. It was held in that case
thus:--
"As the provisions stand it is hot obligatory on the part of the competent Authority to issue prior
notice before exercising power under the provisions of the Act. No doubt, it will be proper and
certainly desirable that the owner of occupier should be informed before acts are done on his
property. It is conceivable that when the parties are so informed, the exact location and the
alignment of the line can be settled without resistance or obstruction by mutual understanding and
discussion. However that be, considering the provisions in the Telegraphs Act and the provisions of

the Indian Electricity Act, it is not necessary that there should be prior notice. A Full Bench of the
Kerala High Court has also taken a similar view. Provisions of S, 42 are very clear, and at the end of
the 20th century, it is no longer open to anybody to contend that high tension towers cannot be put
up.
S. 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, gives authority for placing the poles or the towers in a
private land and clause (d) referred to above provides for payment of compensation. S. 16(1)
provides for the Board approaching the District Magistrate in case of resistance by the owner S.
16(3) provides for the mode for fixing the compensation in case of dispute regarding the sufficiency
of the compensation.
In the light of the non-obstante clause in S. 42, excluding in categoric terms the applicability of
Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in my considered opinion, it is not
open to the petitioners to rely on S. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
As rightly pointed out in the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in , the only right that
persons like the petitioners are left with is to obtain compensation from the authorities concerned.
The counsel for the Electricity Board has also fairly conceded at the time of hearing that the
petitioners have a right to obtain compensation for the loss they have suffered. Therefore, the
Electricity Board is directed that on receipt of application from the petitioners for payment of
compensation, it should fix the amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of the market
value prevalent on the date of erection of poles. A duty is cast on the Electricity Board to decide the
compensation payable to the petitioners for the loss suffered by them. Therefore, the Electricity
Board has to decide the compensation amount payable to the petitioners within three months from
the date of receipt of application from them.
Now that the Electricity Board is given permission to take the high power tension line through the
lands of the petitioners in the interest of public, the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority
and other Municipal and public authorities are directed to consider the applications, if any, filed by
the petitioners for planning permission, etc., and sanction the same as per Rules except on the
ground of passing of the high tension power line."
On the aspect, as to whether, the user of the land by the licencee amounts to acquisition, at
Paragraph 19 of the judgment, this Court held that, "19. From the above settled position of law, it is
clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read
with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land. They are only making use of
the land for the purpose of laying electric lines for which full compensation is given for the damage
caused. It is also clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the poles or
constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them.
20. In this case, the fact that there was a notification in 1961 is not a matter in dispute. Subsequently
proceedings have been issued by the first respondent on 18-12-1993 whereby the scheme was
approved, and it was also declared that the Board will exercise power of Telegraph Authority under

Section 45 of the Electricity Supply Act, and, therefore, the Electricity Board shall not be bound by
the provisions of Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In view of the
notification and also the approved Scheme, no argument can be put forward by the petitioners that
the officers of the Electricity Board are not entitled to enter the property or to draw the electric line.
Once the power under the Telegraphs Act is given to the public officers of the Board, they are also
entitled to dig pits and also instal towers over the property. The question of consent from the
petitioners does not arise for consideration, nor is it required under law."
It is worthwhile to reproduce some of the decisions considered in E.Venkatesan's case (cited supra),
on the aspect, as to whether notice is required to be given to the land owners, which are as follows:
"9. As seen from the decision ( Provash Chandra Sett v. Gouripore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., reported
in AIR 1960 Cal. 311) A learned Judge of that High Court said that for empowering Public Officers to
perform the duties under the Telegraph Act, notice need not be given to any of the parties since no
dispute was being decided. In that decision, it was held thus:--
"Section 51 does not require the State Government to determine or decide any dispute between two
contending parties. Supposing the State Government was minded to confer upon the licensee
powers which the telegraph authority possesses, in general terms, S. 51 or any other provision of the
Electricity Act does not contain any provision whereby the State Government is required to hear any
person or persons who may in future be affected by the exercise of such powers. Indeed when such
general powers are sought to be conferred, it is not even known which person or persons may in
future be affected by the exercise of such powers. Even when the power is conferred in restricted
terms the State Government while exercising the powers under S. 51 is not called upon to decide a
dispute arising out of a claim made by one party and opposition by the other and to determine the
respective rights of the contesting parties. The State Government cannot be said to exercise a
quasi-judicial power while conferring upon the licensee powers under S. 51 whether general or
special, and the State Government is not required to give the party affected an opportunity of being
heard.
An administrative power conferred by any statute upon any public authority must always be
exercised reasonably and in good faith. Cases may arise where such a power cannot be said to have
been exercised reasonably unless notice has been given to the person interested before the exercise
of such power and such persons have been asked to show cause why the power should not be
exercised. However, a provision for the giving of a notice ought not to be implied in S. 51. The giving
of such a notice could not be reasonably insisted upon where the power was being conferred in
general terms. Similarly, it is not incumbent upon the State Government to give such a notice even
when the power is conferred in special or restricted terms".
10. A similar question came for consideration before a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, and the
decision rendered thereon is corresponding to 1970 Ker LT 872 (Full Bench) Bharat Plywoods & T.
Products v. El. Board). Their Lordships said that while invoking the power under Section 51 of the
Electricity Act, the Authorities are not acquiring any land and, therefore, there is no question of any
acquisition or requisition, as contended by the petitioners. Their Lordships held thus (At pp. 50-51

of AIR):--
"Any public officer, licensee or any other person on whom the powers of a Telegraph authority under
Part III of the Telegraph Act have been conferred by the State Government under S. 51 has no power
to take initiative for the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of the
conferment of such power. There is no acquisition or requisition of land involved when the powers
under S. 10 of the Telegraph Act are exercised. This is clear from the poriviso (b) to Sec. 10 of the
Telegraph Act. The only right involved is the right of user of the property for the purposes
mentioned in the Section. The fact that an authority on whom powers under Sec. 10 of the Telegraph
Act have been conferred may have certain rights and that certain other authorities may take steps
for acquisition of land for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be the criterion for
deciding he whether her the stadtutory provision in S. 51 of the Electricity Act or that in S. 10 of the
Telegraph Act is discriminatory. The power to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act can be
exercised only by the State Government or the Collector, as the case may be. There can, therefore, be
no question of discrimination".
11. In the decision reported in AIR 1977 All. 452 (Deva Raj v. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow),
a Division Bench of that High Court has held thus :--
"By virtue of the notification issued under Section 51 of the Electricity Act of 1910, the words
"Telegraph authority" in Section 10 of . the Telegraph Act were substituted by the "State Electricity
Board". In view of the notification read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, it is not possible to
contend that the State Electricity Board, had no power to locate towers on the land owned by a
person.
Neither Section 51 of the Electricity Act of 1910 nor Section 10 of the Telegraph Act provides any
procedure under which compensation shall be determined. It is thus not necessary for the owner of
the land to make any formal application for determination of compensation for loss, if any, suffered
by him, on account of the action of the Electricity Board".
12. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had occasion to consider a similar question, and the same is
reported in (1991) 2 Andh LT 7 (H. Bhadur Singh v. The Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board, Transmission Line Division). In the said decision, a learned Judge of that High
Court has held thus:--
"By virtue of S. 42 of the Electricity Supply Act vesting in the Board the power possessed by the
Telegraphic authorky, the Board for the limited purpose of erecting a transmission line is not
obliged to acquire any land belonging to any person.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he will be put to much loss and damage due to erection of
poles. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he has got a right to claim
compensation and this is not the proper forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. When the Board
has got ample power to lay the lines for public purpose and in public interest without recourse to the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner has no right to question the same in writ

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits warranting interference by
the High Court. The petitioner is at liberty to claim compensation before the competent authority, if
he so desires".
42. In S.M. Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1999 Karnataka 475, the Court, at Paragraphs
17 and 25, held as follows:
"17. The next contention is that Section 28 notification has not been duly published. As said earlier it
is not an acquisition proceeding. The electrical line is being drawn for the supply of power to the
consumers. It is sufficient to inform the public indicating the village through which the line is being
drawn. As a matter of fact, the definite area on which the tower, etc. are to be placed can be known
only after a spot inspection is made and viability is worked out. But I should certainly hasten to add,
that if the Sy. Nos. in the village are also indicated, that will make the notification more precise.
Such details will also inform the affected person to arrange his affairs. But, absence of these details
are not fatal. When the line has to travel a long distance as in this case, non mention of the Sy. Nos.
is not certainly fatal. Many a time drawing of the line depends on the soil condition and other local
situation as well. If that be so, they cannot in advance contemplate as to through which property the
line will have to be drawn. They need only say as to the village through which the line is being
drawn. That has been complied in this case, and as such there is substantial compliance of the
statute.
20. The contention urged, namely, that consent of the owners of the land through which the line
travels was not secured by respondents 4 and 5 before laying the poles and towers to draw the
electric line recedes to background, when we remember that the line is being drawn in exercise of
the powers conferred, under the Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the
Talegraph Act. If there is an order in this behalf, then no consent is called for."
43. In K.Maruthamuthu v. The District Magistrate [W.P.(MD)No.4388 of 2007, dated 24.05.2007],

after referring to Sections 172, 185, 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 14 of the Act,
empowering the appropriate Government to grant licence to any person to transmit electricity, as a
licensee or to distribute electricity, The Hon'ble Mr.P.K.Misra, at Paragraphs 10 to 12, held as
follows:
™0.A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the State Electricity Board, which
was constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is deemed to be the State Transmission
Utility and a licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as such shall be deemed
to be a State Transmission Utility and a licensee under the Act, which would have power to erect
transmission lines and for the aforesaid purpose it is obviously vested with the jurisdiction to erect
towers, if necessary even on the lands belonging to private persons. However, by virtue of the
provisions contained under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as Rule 3 of the
Rules, if any objection is raised by any person relating to erection of power supply lines, necessary
permission from the District Magistrate is required.

11.It is of course true that under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the concerned
Authority is obliged to do as little damage as possible and he is also required to pay compensation to
all persons interested for any damage sustained by such persons by reason of the exercise of such
power. Similarly, under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, the District Magistrate is required to fix the amount
of compensation or annual rent or of both to be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. In the
present case, no assessment regarding compensation payable has been made by the District
Magistrate. This may be because the writ petitioners have not specifically claimed any compensation
to be paid. However, merely because the District Magistrate has not assessed the compensation
payable, it cannot be said that the order passed by the District Magistrate permitting the Electricity
Board to erect the towers for supporting the electricity supply lines cannot be characterised as void
or without jurisdiction. There is no provision either under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or under
the Rules which makes the payment of compensation as a condition precedent for the permission to
be granted. The provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Rules contemplate that there is
statutory obligation on the Authority concerned, including the licensee to pay such compensation
and failure to do so would attract penal provisions. However, payment of such compensation can be
a condition subsequent rather than a condition precedent.
12.Both under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as under the Rules, it is expected
that the licensee shall cause the least damage. In the present case, it has been pointed out that the
Electricity Board has carefully chosen the places where the towers are to be erected with a view to
cause least inconvenience and damage to the persons concerned. Nothing was specifically pointed
out before the District Magistrate to come to a conclusion that in fact the damage likely to be caused
could have been minimised by erecting the towers on any other part of the lands. Similarly, nothing
has been averred specifically in the present writ petitions in support of the submissions that the
provisions contained in Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or in the Rules were
transgressed in any manner. As already indicated, the main contention seems to be the lack of
authority on the part of the Electricity Board on various legal grounds. However, factually, no
assertion seems to have been made that the places have been selected arbitrarily or are in any way
inconvenient or inappropriate. In the abovesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the observation of the District Magistrate, contained in the internal page 9 of his
order, to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has already got the authority from the
Government to exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the provisions of Section 164
of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not correct inasmuch as no such authority has been issued specifically
under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has been argued by the petitioner therein that the observation of
the District Magistrate may appear to be slightly inappropriate, in the sense that, there does not
appear to be specific authorisation under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 after such Act has
come into force. However, the learned Judge observed that such authorisation issued under Section
51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 can be said to be still holding the field, by virtue of the
provisions contained in Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. This Court held that, To sum up
the conclusions, it can be said that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall be deemed to be the State
Transmission Utility and a licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 by virtue of the
provisions contained in Section 172(a) read with the notifications issued from time to time by the
State Government under the proviso to the said Section. In view of the authorisation issued under
Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which can be deemed to be continuing by virtue of

Section 185(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board can be considered as
the State Transmission Utility as well as the licensee and authorised to exercise the powers under
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The exercise of the power by the Electricity Board is obviously for
the public purpose and it cannot be said that there is any embargo on the Board under Section 39 of
the Electricity Act, 2003. This is so because the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board can be considered not
only as a State Transmission Utility but also as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. There is
nothing on record to show that the places proposed to be utilised for erecting the towers are likely to
cause more damage than necessary. However, the land owners are entitled to get compensation
which has to be ascertained by the District Magistrate and for the aforesaid purpose an enquiry shall
be held by the District Magistrate which should be concluded after giving opportunity of hearing to
all concerned, including the owners of the property, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since there is a statutory
obligation on the part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to pay compensation, it is expected that
the Board would pay such compensation within a period of one month from the date of
determination by the District Magistrate. However, it would be open tot he owners to raise
appropriate dispute before the appropriate forum relating to extent of compensation, if they are so
advised. Notwithstanding the direction that the District Magistrate is required to assess the
compensation payable, it is always open to the petitioners and the Electricity Board and respondent
No.3 to fix the amount of compensation payable on the basis of mutual discussion. The Electricity
Board can proceed with the work in respect of the lands of the three writ petitioners and this need
not await the determination/payment of compensation.
44. In Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust v. Power Grid Corporation of India reported in AIR 2008 Jhar.
34, the Jharkand High Court has observed as follows:
. Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Electricity Act, 1910 for short) inter alia authorized
the licensee to lay down or place electric supply lines with consent of the owner or the occupier of
the land. Section 51 of this Act provided inter alia that notwithstanding anything contained in
Sections 12, the Central Government for inter-State transmission system, could confer upon a
licensee, any of the powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Similar provisions are made in Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which also provides that
appropriate Government may vest powers of Telegraph Authority with the licensee.
Section 67(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 inter alia provides that a licensee may lay down or place
electric supply lines. Section 67(2)(a to d) inter alia provides that the Appropriate Government may,
make rules specifying- (a) the cases and circumstances in which the consent in writing of the owner
or occupier shall be required for carrying out works; (b) the appropriate authority which may grant
permission where the owner or occupier objects; (c) the nature and period of notice to be given by
the licensee before carrying out works; and (d) the procedure and manner of consideration of
objections and suggestions etc. Section 176(2)(e) inter alia provides that the Central Government
may make Rules, about the works of licensees affecting the property of owner or occupier under
Section 67(2). Rules 2006 are made in exercise of such powers. Rule 3 inter alia authorizes the
licensee to carry out works, lay down or place electric supply lines or other works on or over any
land, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of land. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 provides that

Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164
of the Act (emphasis supplied). Thus even if it is accepted that Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910
continued as per Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, till the rules under Section 67 of this Act,
2003, were made; powers under Section 164 of this 2003 Act, which are akin to the powers
contained in Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, was exercised by notification dated 24.12.2003.
As already noticed above, the provisions of Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910, were subject to the
provision of Section 51 of that Act.
6. There appears to be some purpose behind the provisions contained in Section 51 of the Electricity
Act, 1910; Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003; and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2006. For
early completion of important projects, power has been reserved with the appropriate Government,
to issue notification vesting Powers of Telegraph Authority with the licensees, where consent is not
required, under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act. Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 had
overriding effect over Section 12 of that Act. Similarly, Section 164 read with Sub-rule (4) of Page
1801 Rule 3 of the Rules, 2006, has overriding effect over Rule 3(1) to (3). Section 42 of the Indian
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 also reserves such powers, and is exception to Section 12 of the
Electricity Act, 1910.
8. In view of scheme of the Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Electricity Act, 2003,
the Rules of 2006 and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act; and the notifications dated 24.12.2003, it is
clear that prior consent from the petitioners was/is not required. It is worthwhile to reproduce the
judgments relied on, in Ajay Munjal Memorial Trust's case, as follows:
In the Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 134, Suku Mahto
v. State of Bihar, one of the disputes was that, the licensee could not place transmission line without
taking consent as provided under Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The High Court refused
to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking into consideration that
the project was of national importance and was nearing completion; and if the licensee is directed to
approach the District Magistrate to obtain necessary permission as per Section 12(2) of the
Electricity Act, the same may cause further delay in the project. It was further noticed that the right
of an individual sometimes has got to give way to the right of public at large.
11. Paragraph 19 of the judgment in Venkatesan v. Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Madras,
reads as follows:
From the above settled position of law, it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power
under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not
acquiring any land. They are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines for
which full compensation Page 1802 is given for the damage caused. It is also clear therefrom that no
notice is required to the owner before laying the poles or constructing any tower, nor any consent is
required from them.
12. In paragraph 15 of the judgment in Rajak and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.,
Indore, it was observed as follows:

In view of the power vested in the Generating Company NTPC under Section 42 of the Act read
with part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, there can be no valid objection by the petitioners to the
implementation of the sanctioned scheme either on the principles of natural justice or on the ground
of unauthorized user of petitioner's land in respect of which compensation has been provided for
under proviso (d) to Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
45. In T.S.T.Kaznavi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board reported in 2008 (2) MLJ 703, the land owner
filed a writ petition, challenging erection of high tension electric line tower in his land, on the
ground that no notice was given to him. It was also contended that the property was sought to be
acquired, without following due process of law. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has contended
that as per Sections 164 and 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Board has the power of the
Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, with regard to laying of lines and
erecting poles. The said power has already been conferred on the Electricity Board by the
Appropriate Government viz., Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 51 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 in G.O.Ms.No.1455 (P.W.D.) dated 06.06.1961 and extended by Notification
dated 28.06.2004, and as such, the Electricity Board, being the Transmission Licensee under the
Electricity Act,2003, is not bound by the provisions of Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of Indian
Electricity Act, 1910. After considering the relevant provisions, viz., Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Electricity Act,
2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court discussed the powers of the State Government to issue a
notification, the powers of the telegraph authority, etc., and at Paragraphs 9, 13 and 14, held as
follows:
9. Under the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, the Electricity Board had the power of placing any wires
or poles, wall brackets, stays apparatus and appliances for transmission and distribution of
electricity or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephonic communications necessary for the
proper co-ordination of the works of the Board, which power the telegraph authority possesses
under Indian Telegraph Act,1885. However, the said power of the Board under the said Act was
notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910
and without prejudice to the requirement of Section 17 of the said Act......
13. Now, coming to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, Part III Section 10 of the said
Act empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts. The said
provision makes it very clear that while doing the said work to maintain telegraph-line upon any
immovable property, the Central Government does not use the power of acquisition of any right
except the right of user in respect of the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the
telegraph authority places any telegraph-line. It also makes clear that while performing the function,
the authority shall do all necessary things so as to make as little damage as possible. In cases of any
damage caused and disputes raised in that regard, Section 16 provides the procedure for settling
such disputes. It makes clear that when an occupier resists or obstructs the conduct of the authority,
then the District Magistrate is empowered to grant permission to the authority and in cases where
any dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of compensation to be paid under Section 10(d), then
the procedure is contemplated to be followed by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
property is situated......

14. The Electricity Act,2003, which holds the field received the assent of the President of India on
26.05.2003 and it was published in the gazette on 02.06.2003 to consolidate the laws relating to
generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and generally for taking
measures conducive to development of electricity industry, promoting competition therein,
protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas, rationalisation of electricity
tariff, ensuring transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion to efficient and environmentally
benign policies, constitution of Central Electricity Authority, Regulatory Commissions and
establishment of Appellate Tribunal, etc. The Electricity Act,2003 is having overriding effect subject
to Section 173 of the Act, which relates to the Consumer Protection Act,1986 or the Atomic Energy
Act,1962 or the Railways Act,1989. The provisions are also stated to be in addition to and not in
derogation of other laws, under Sections 174 and 175.
The Court, at Paragraph 20, further held that, "20. As per Section 39(1) of the Electricity Act,2003,
the State Government has notified the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as "State Transmission Utility"
as stated in the counter affidavit of the Board. By virtue of the powers under Section 67(2) of the
Electricity Act,2003, the Government has framed Rules called, "The Works of Licensees
Rules,2006". These Rules relate to the works of licensees pertaining to the distribution and supply
of electricity to the consumers. Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 enables the appropriate
Government to grant approval regarding overhead lines. Section 185 of the Electricity Act,2003,
which repealed the Indian Electricity Act,1910, Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 and the Electricity
Regulatory Commission Act,1998, saves any action taken under the previous Acts and Laws in so far
as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of Act,2003, stating that such acts are deemed to be the
acts under the new Act.
After considering Sections 164 and 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Court further held that, "22.
Thus by exercise of the powers under Sections 164 and 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act,2003 and in
continuation of the powers already conferred under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910, the
respondent Electricity Board acted as a telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 in
performing the functions as State Transmission Utility."
On the aspect of compensation and while construing the provision of Section 10 of the Indian
Telegraph Act,1885, along with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, a Full Bench of
Kerala High Court in Arya Antherjanam vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandraum (AIR 1996
Kerala 309 (FB)) held that in respect of cutting of trees for the purpose of erecting transmission
lines, the land owners are entitled to claim compensation for diminution in market value of the
property. The decision of the Full Bench in Arya Antherjanam's case, as extracted in T.S.T.Kaznavi's
case (cited supra), is worth reproduction:
"11. We find merit in the contention of the claimants that since capitalisation method is not being
adopted for assessing the quantum of compensation for cutting trees it is open to the land owners to
claim compensation for diminution in market value of the property. Section 10 proviso (d) makes it
mandatory that while drawing the line through any property in exercise of the powers given under
S.10 the authority shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by
them by reason of the exercise of such power. In 1961 Ker LT 238: (AIR 1961 Ker 237) (supra) the

Division Bench of this Court observed that destruction of trees standing on agricultural land is one
of the items of damage, which can be valued and assessed. We are in agreement with the view. It
would mean that apart from the compensation for damage done to the trees there can be other
damage to the land for which compensation can be claimed. As mentioned earlier, in 1967 Ker LT
938 (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has accepted the principle that even after granting
compensation for destruction of the trees owners of the property can claim compensation for
diminution in market value of the land by the erection of transmission towers and of electric posts
and by the stringing of electric wires. The same view was taken in 1989 (1) Ker LT 451:(AIR 1989
KER 198) as follows (at p.208 of AIR):-
"Since the compensation payable under S.10(d) of the Telegraph Act is the just equivalent of what
the owner has been deprived of, he is entitled also to any diminution in value of land for the reason
of the drawal of overhead power lines across the land".
We are in full agreement with the above view taken by the two Benches of this Court regarding the
eligibility for compensation on diminution of land value."
The Full Bench has also held that while deciding about the compensation regarding the diminution
of the value, it is the duty on the part of the claimant to mitigate the damages in the following terms:
" 20. In the light of the above discussion we are inclined to take the view that the claimants have
duty to mitigate the damage by resorting to any other cultivation which is reasonably possible in the
land covered by the electric line and can be carried on economically. Of course the Board cannot
compel the claimants to carry on cultivation underneath the electric line. But if such cultivation is
reasonably possible and at the same time they failed to carry on such cultivation it will be a factor for
consideration at the time of quantification of the damages."
Ultimately, the Full Bench has held as follows:
" 22. In this case it is the claimant who knows best as to how his land could be cultivated with other
crops which would not violate the restrictions regarding open space to be left from the electric lines,
towers and posts. It is quite plausible that every landowner would be using the land beneath the
electric lines (be they of high tension or low tension) to raise cultivation or for some other purpose
except of course for growing tall tress or constructing high structures. Thus, regard being had to the
common course of natural events, the Court can draw a presumption that agricultural operation in a
reasonably profitable manner can be carried on in the affected land except growing tall trees. Hence
the burden is on the claimant to rebut the said presumption.
23. The upshot of the above discussion is that it is open to the owners of the land to claim
compensation for diminution in land value when towers and poles are erected on and electric lines
drawn over their lands subject to the conditions detailed in this judgement. The quantum of
damages shall be fixed on the basis of the principles enunciated hereinabove. Whether claimants
had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the damage or not is a question to be considered by the
District Judge on the evidence in each case and subject to the presumption and onus indicated

above."
On the aspect of compensation, in M.Nithyanandham and two others vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board, Madras-2 and others (1994 WLR 445), The Hon'ble Dr. Justice
AR.Lakshmanan,J.(as he then was), while analysing the provisions of the Indian Electricity
Act,1910; Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, held that
there is no obligation on the part of the competent authority to issue any prior notice. It was held
that it is not open to anybody to contend that high tension towers cannot be put up and in the light
of the non-obstante clause in Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948, the applicability of
Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 are excluded and the only option open
to the affected person is to claim compensation as damages as per the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act,1885. The decision of the Full Bench in M.Nithyanandham's case, as extracted in
T.S.T.Kaznavi's case (cited supra), is worth reproduction:
"26. The above section, in my opinion, authority for placing the poles or the towers of private land
and clause (d) referred to above provides for payment of compensation. S.16(1) provides for the
Board approaching the District Magistrate in case of resistance by the owner. S.16(3) provides for
the mode for fixing the compensation in case of dispute retarding the sufficiency of the
compensation.
27. In the light of the non-obstante clause S.42, excluding in categoric terms the applicability of
Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in my considered opinion, it is not
open to the petitioners to rely on S.12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. As stated above, the
petitioners strongly relied on the decision reported in 1959 (II) MLJ 446. In that case, Basheer
Ahemd Sayeed, J., was pleased to deal only with the scope of S.12. The scope of S.42 was apparently
not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. Therefore, the petitioners herein cannot call in aid
the said decision.
28. It was argued by Mr.A.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the learned Judge
had observed in the above decision that only apparatus and appliances to be placed and high tension
wire cannot at all be used or put up. The petitioners cannot rely upon the observations made by the
learned Judge. Provisions of S.42 are very clear and at the end of the 20th century, it is no longer
open to anybody to contend that high tension towers cannot be put up.
29. A decision of Sethuraman,J., in 91 L.W.558 was also brought to my notice wherein the learned
Judge has held that the Electricity Board can fix compensation.
30. Thus, I am of the view, that as the provisions stand and discussed above, I do not think that it is
obligatory on the part of the competent authority to issue prior notice before exercising power under
the provisions of the Act. No doubt, it will be proper and certainly desirable that the owner or
occupier should be informed before acts are done on his property. It is conceivable that when the
parties are so informed, the exact location and the alignment of the line can be settled without
resistance or obstruction by mutual understanding and discussion. However that be, as I
understand the provisions in the Telegraphs Act and the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, I do

not consider it necessary that there should be prior notice. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court
has also taken a similar view in the decision reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 47 cited supra."
In T.S.T.Kaznavi's case (cited supra), this Court has considered the decision of this Court in
E.Venkatesan and Others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras (AIR 1997 Madras
64), wherein, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Subramani (as he then was), while construing Section 51 of
the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 along with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, has held
that while coordinating the work of transmission, the Electricity Board need not acquire lands and
therefore, no notice is required to the owner before laying poles or constructing any tower, nor any
consent is required, as the lands are used only for the purpose of laying electric lines. After analysing
the entire case law as well as the provisions of the Act, in detail, the learned Judge held as under:
"19. From the above settled position of law, it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises
power under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not
acquiring any land. They are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines for
which full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is also clear therefrom that no notice is
required to the owner before laying the poles or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required
from them."
In T.S.T.Kaznavi's case (cited supra), a learned Single Judge also considered a decision made in
W.P.No.49172 of 2006, etc., batch, dated 18.01.2007 and distinguished the same, as hereunder:
"27. In the present case, it is crystal clear that the Board acted as the State Transmission Utility as
per Section 2(67) of the Electricity Act,2003 and by virtue of Notification issued by the State
Government under Section 39 (1) of the said Act, the Board is not engaged in the business of trading
of electricity and therefore, it is certainly different from the Power Grid Corporation and in that view
of the matter, the above said judgement is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The
powers of the Board as "State Transmission Utility" is that of telegraph authority traceable under
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 and therefore, in cases of dispute as to compensation
regarding the properties, necessarily the procedure under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph
Act,1885 has to be followed.
28. In any event, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the major point which is urged by the
petitioner is that the property was sought to be acquired without following due process of law and by
virtue of various judgements, especially relating to the powers of the Board as "State Transmission
Utility", there is no necessity to give any notice for the purpose of erection of tower or for making
"transmission lines" and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed, except the
right under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, which enables the petitioner to get
compensation for any damages sustained by him while the Board exercising its powers as "State
Transmission Utility" and the compensation is determinable as per Section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
46. In Braham Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2008 (NOC) 2034 (ALL), placing reliance on the
judgment of the Madras High Court in E.Venkatesan & Ors. vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board Madras & Ors. [AIR 1977 Madras 64], the Allahabad High Court held that when a Licensee
exercises powers under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act,
the owner is not entitled to any notice before laying the poll or construct any tower, nor any consent
is required from them.
47. On the issue, as to whether, consent is required or whether there is any need to initiate any land
acquisition proceedings for the user of the land by the licencee is dealt with, in G.V.S.Rama Krishna
v. A.P.Transco reported in AIR 2009 AP 158, the petitioners therein, alleged that the original route
for erecting the poles and transmission lines, has been changed at the instance of certain influential
ryots and the respondents intended to draw the lines through the lands owned by them. They
further contended that without obtaining any consent, the officials have trespassed into their lands.
Despite the protest, poles were sought to be erected and hence, the writ petition. A contention has
been raised that the respondents therein are bound to initiate proceedings under acquisition lands.
In the counter affidavit filed in opposition, A.P.Transco, rep., by its Managing Director, has
contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 07-10-2003, has authorised A.P.
Transco to place the electricity lines for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of
telephonic or telegraphic communications under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In
view of the said powers conferred on the Transmission Corporation, a notification was issued, and
that the same was published in A.P. Gazette, dated 17-07-2007, notifying the transmission scheme
for two Nos.400 KV double circuit lines for loop-in and loop-out of Nunna-Srisailam /
Narasaraopet, 400 KV double circuit lines to VTPS(Stage-IV). The Transco also envisaged erection
of 400 KV LILO of 400 KV Srisailam-Nunna DC Line to VTPS- IV stage at Vijayawada, to evacuate
500 MV power generated from VTPS-IV stage. This was essential to strengthen the 400 KV network
to improve and stabilize the voltage profile of the power system network. It was further stated that
laying of the electric lines was with a view to augment the power supply and the total cost of the
project was Rs.19 Crores and if the line was not laid before 1st March, the department would be
suffering a loss of Rs.12 Crores per day as the VTPS would be producing 500 MW power and the
same has to be evacuated by March, 2009. So far as the title claimed by the petitioners in respect of
the lands in question and the allegation that the respondents have illegally entered into possession
of their land, it was stated that the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated under
the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that a Gazette notification has been issued on
17-07-2007. Since no objections were received pursuant to the said Gazette notification, Transco
decided to proceed ahead with the scheme. Though the plea that initially, it was intended by the
respondents to lay the line in the property belonging to the Railways was not disputed, it was
explained therein that since the same required lot of time to get necessary clearance and due to
certain technical reasons, the proposal had been changed and it was decided to lay the line adjacent
to the existing line. It was explained that the existing line was erected more than ten years ago and
by laying a new parallel line, the farmers would be put to minimum inconvenience. Thus it was
pleaded that the decision to lay the present line was only in the best interest of the farmers and not
for any other extraneous reasons, as alleged by the petitioners. It was also contended that as a
matter of fact series of meetings were held in the office of the Sub-collector and most of the persons
in whose lands the lines were proposed to be laid attended the said meetings, and gave their consent
for laying the line. Some of the petitioners before the Court, also attended the meeting and agreed
for laying the lines through their lands. It was also explained that marking for commencement of

construction of the lines in question was taken on 29-12-2008, after serving notices to all the
concerned farmers through registered post. A notice was also pasted at Panchayat Office for
intimation to the farmers. Thus it was contended that the action taken by the respondents was
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and that acquisition of the
land, as contended by the petitioners was not provided under the law. It was further explained that
since the existing line of 220 KV would be dismantled, after the new line is laid, no damage would be
caused to the petitioners as alleged. After considering a catena of decisions, the Andhra Pradesh
High Court, at Paragraphs 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15, held as follows:
8. The Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) has been enacted consolidating the laws
relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use of electricity and thereby
repealing the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Electricity Regulatory
Commissions Act, 1998. The said Act came into force w.e.f. 10.06.2003.
9. The material on record shows that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.115, Energy PR.III, dated
07-10-2003 thereby conferring upon the A.P. Transco the powers for placing of the electric supply
lines or electric plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or
telegraphic communications necessary for the proper coordination of works that a telegraph
authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
13. As noticed above, prior to the enactment of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Indian Electricity Act,
1910, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 were in force and there were various provisions
governing erection of transmission lines or other connected work through, in or upon or under the
private lands.
14. As per Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the consent of the local authority or of the
concerned owner or occupier is necessary to enable the licensee to lay down or place any electric
supply line or other work in, through or against any building or on, over or under any land not
dedicated to public use whereon any electric supply line or work has not already been lawfully laid
down by such licensee. Under Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, it was permissible for the
Government to confer upon any public officer, Transmission Utility, Transmission Licensee or any
other person engaged in the business of transmission or supplying energy to the public, any of the
powers which the telegraph authorities possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for the placing
of electric supply lines.
15. That apart, Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provided for preparation of a
sanctioned scheme relating to the laying of transmission lines by a generating company and under
Section 29 every such scheme estimated to involve a capital expenditure exceeding such sum as may
be fixed by Central Government shall be submitted to the Central Electricity Authority constituted
under the said Act for its concurrence. That apart, sub-section (2) of Section 29 mandated that the
generating company shall cause such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette of the State and
in local news papers granting not less than two months time to the persons interested to make
representations on such scheme. Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, further provided

that where a provision is made in a sanctioned scheme for placing electric supply lines,
notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910, the State Electricity Board shall have all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses
under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to a telegraph established by the
Government for placing of any wires, poles and etc., for the transmission of electricity. The proviso
to Section 42 (1) further made it clear that where a sanctioned scheme does not make a provision as
aforesaid, all the provisions of Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 shall apply. As
regards the scope of Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, at Paragraphs 17 and 18, has considered its earlier decisions, as follows:
™7. So far as the scope of Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is concerned, it was held
by this Court in Bhaskara Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. APSEB, Hyderabad [1998 (6) ALT 436 =
1998 (6) ALD 781, as under:
A cumulative reading of provisions of sub-section.(1) of Section.42 of the Electricity(Supply)

Act,1948 with that of proviso make it apparently clear that if the sanctioned scheme provides for any
of the things contemplated under Sections.12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the
officers of the Board can exercise similar powers conferred upon the authorities of the Telegraph
Department under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. In the instant case, since the
sanctioned scheme provides for laying of lines and construction of towers, it should be held that the
Board and its officers have the power to invoke the provisions of Part-III of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 and, therefore, prior consent is not necessary as required under Section 12 of the Indian
18. An identical question was again considered in B.Krishna Mandadi Vs. Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited, Hyderabad [2002 (1) LS 332] and it was held as under :
A generating company engaged in generation, transmission and supply of electricity is empowered

under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 to lay electric poles, construct transmission
towers on any private land without giving any notice and without causing damage to the property
provided there is a scheme published as required under Section 28. Even while erecting
transmission lines, if any damage is caused, by reason of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act read with
Section 42 (1) and (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, a generating company has to pay
compensation for the damage sustained by the owners of the land or owners of the crops. As
regards the aspect of consent from the owner or occupier, at Paragraph 19, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court, further held as follows:
From the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it is clear that prior to the enactment of Electricity
Act, 2003, consent of the owner or occupier was necessary where there was no authorization under
Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Similarly, where a sanctioned scheme is published as
required under Section 28 read with Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, transmission
towers or lines can be laid on any private land without giving any notice and without causing
damage to the property. However, if any damage is caused, compensation shall be paid for the
damage sustained as provided under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. After

considering the provisions to Sections 67 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Court, at
Paragraph 20, further held as follows:
Both the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed under
the Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force with effect from 10.06.2003. Under the new Act i.e.,
Electricity Act, 2003 though there is no provision with regard to preparation and sanctioning of any
scheme relating to establishment of generating stations, sub-stations or transmission lines as
required under Section 28 of the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provisions similar to
Sections 12 and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 have been incorporated under Section 67 and
Section 164 respectively. On the aspect, as to whether, consent from the landowner is required, as
provided for, under Section 12 of the Act, when the appropriate Government issued an order, under
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finally, at Paragraph 22, the Andhra Pradesh High Court
held as follows:
"23. Admittedly no such Rules have been made till today. What shall be done till such Rules are
made is provided under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same may be extracted
hereunder :
S. 185 Repeal and saving (1) Save as otherwise Provided in this Act, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
(9 of 1910), the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) and the Electricity Regulatory
Commissions Act, 1998 (14 of 1998) are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal,-
(a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule,
notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or
declaration made or any licence, permission, authorisation or exemption granted or any document
or instrument executed or any direction given under the repealed laws shall, insofar as it is not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the
corresponding provisions of this Act;
(b) the provisions contained in sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and
rules made thereunder shall have effect until the rules under sections 67 to 69 of this Act are made; (
emphasis supplied )
(c) the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under S.37 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 (9 of 1910)
as it stood before such repeal shall continue to be in force till the regulations under section 53 of this
Act are made.
(d) all rules made under sub-section (1) of S.69 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948)
shall continue to have effect until such rules are rescinded or modified, as the case may be;
(e) all directives issued, before the commencement of this Act, by a State Government under the
enactments specified in the Schedule shall continue to apply for the period for which such directions
were issued by the State Government.

(3) The provisions of the enactments specified in the Schedule, not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act, shall apply to the States in which such enactments are applicable.
(4) The Central Government may, as and when considered necessary, by notification, amend the
Schedule.
(5) Save as otherwise Provided in sub-section (2), the mention of particular matters in that section,
shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of S.6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
(10 of 1897), with regard to the effect of repeals.
24. In view of Section 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is not in dispute that the provisions
contained in Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, still govern the field since as on
today no rules are made under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
25. Therefore, the legality or otherwise of the impugned action of the respondents in proposing to
erect the poles for two Nos.400 KV Double Circuit Lines through the lands of the petitioners has to
be examined in the light of Sections 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 12 to 18 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. After considering Section
12 of the Old Act, 1910, at Paragraph 27 to 29 and 31 to 35, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as
follows:
š7. A reading of Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 makes it clear that the acts
specified under Section 12 (1) cannot be carried out without the consent of the concerned owner or
occupier. However, the question that arises for consideration is whether Section 12 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 is applicable to the case on hand.
28. On an analysis of Section 67 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is apparent that
whenever an order is passed by the appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under Section
164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the placing of electric lines for the transmission of electricity,
conferring upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of
supplying electricity any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the placing of telegraphic lines and posts for the purposes of a
telegraph established by the Government, such public officer, licensee or any other person engaged
in the business of supplying electricity stands in the same position as regards the exercise of power
as the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. However, in the absence of such an
order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if a licensee i.e., a person who has been granted
a licence to transmit electricity or to distribute electricity under the Act, proposes to place electric
lines, electric plant or other works necessary for transmission or supply of electricity, Section 67 of
the Electricity Act, 2003 comes into operation and consequently it is mandatory to obtain the
consent of the concerned owner or occupier as required under Section 12 (2) of the Indian
29. In the instant case, Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has admittedly been invoked and in
exercise of the powers conferred thereunder the Government of A.P. conferred on the A.P. Transco

the powers which the telegraph authority possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Consequently, Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 has no application and the A.P. Transco,
for the purpose of placing the electric supply lines in the private lands, is competent to exercise all
the powers possessed by the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
.....
31. As could be seen, Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph
authorities to place and maintain the telegraph lines under, over, along or across and posts in or
upon any immovable property. However, the said power shall not be exercised in respect of any
property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority without the
permission of that authority. The proviso (d) to Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 further
made it clear that while exercising powers conferred under Section 10 the Telegraph authority shall
do as little damage as possible and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property
other than the property under the control or management of the local authority shall pay full
compensation to all the persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise
of the said powers. It is also relevant to note that as per proviso (b) of Section 10 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only
in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority places any
telegraph lines or posts.
32. Thus it is clear that the powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 can be
exercised without acquiring the land in question, however, the only right that can be exercised is the
right of user in the property and for the purposes mentioned in that Section.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read
with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the A.P. Transco
to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric posts for the transmission of electricity on
or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any
damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words,
neither the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or
occupier.
34. It is also relevant to note that since Sections 28 or 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are not
saved under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is no need to publish a sanctioned scheme
nor it is necessary to give any notice by publication in local news papers as required under Section
29 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In spite of the same, the notification dated 14.07.2008
was published in the A.P. Gazette as well as two local dailies inviting objections from the interested /
aggrieved persons and no objections were received from anyone.
35. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary,
illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Hence,
no Mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with the erection of poles
and transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners. However, this shall not preclude the

petitioners to claim the compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law
in case any damage is sustained to their property.
48. In W.P.No.5827 (W) of 2009, dated 25.08.2009 [Calendula Realtors Private Limited v. CESC
Limited], the question that was posed to Calcutta Court was, on being resisted by the petitioner
therein, whether the licencee CESE Ltd, was required to obtain permission of the District Magistrate
to proceed further for installation of the Overhead Transmission Line. In the said case, in terms of
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the State Government has authorised CESC, to exercise all
powers vested in the telegraph authority, under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was
contended that the order of the Government passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act,
authorised to exercise all the powers in the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, in respect of the electrical lines and electrical plants. In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, CESC has been authorized to exercise all the
powers vested in the Telegraph Authority under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in
respect of the electrical lines and electrical plant established or maintained, or to be so established
or maintained for the supply of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic
communication necessary for the proper co- ordination of the works within the licensed area of the
CESC. The above authorization was subject to compliance by the CESC to the requirements of the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules made thereunder.
49. In the above reported case, on the aspect of natural justice to the property owner, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties therein, is as follows:
Next, he argued that providing natural justice to a property owner that is contemplated in terms of
provisions contained in Section 16(1) or Section 17 of the 1885 Act has been provided to the
petitioner even before commencement of the work in compliance with the said authorization and
the order of approval issued by the State Government on October 30, 2006 in pursuance whereof
the said notification was issued. If right to resist/obstruct in terms of Section 16(1) of the 1885 Act is
to be recognized, resistance/obstruction would be a never ending process. It may so happen that
between the date of publishing the said notification and date of exercise of powers under Section 10
of the 1885 Act, transfer of property by sale may be effected and the transferee would then claim a
right either to resist/obstruct the work when trespass is committed and/or even after completion of
the project, relocation or removal could be asked for. This, according to him, cannot be the intent of
the statutory provisions particularly when a project of immense public importance is involved. In
support of his contention that prior consent of the property owner is not required to be obtained
when the licensee intends to lay lines or place towers over/on private property,
50. The further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, in the above case
was that the special terms imposed by the State Government does not mean that the right envisaged
by Section 16(1) of the 1885 Act is done away with and that the same does not also, contemplate
non-compliance of Sections 10 and 16 thereof. It has been further argued that the provisions of the
1885 Act cannot have truncated application; either it applies as a whole or not at all. It has been
submitted that in terms of Section 17 of the 1885 Act, a property owner even has the right to claim
relocation of lines or poles and since the District Magistrate has even the power to direct removal of

lines or posts to any other part of the property to a higher or lower level or to direct alteration of its
form, it is too late in the day to contend that so far as erection of towers by CESC is concerned, the
petitioner would have no right at all.
51. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner therein, all the three provisions i.e. Sections
10, 16 and 17 of the 1885 Act would have application. According to him, the petitioner has a right to
resist, which has been exercised and therefore CESC must comply with the statutory provision i.e.
obtain the permission of the District Magistrate before it proceeds further to excavate land and/or
dig holes for laying foundation of the tower proposed to be erected on plot No.2278.
52. With reference to the West Bengal Works of Licence Rules, 2006, a further contention has been
made in the above unreported case that even in terms thereof, a licencee cannot encroach upon the
private property, without the consent of the owner and that the permission of the officers in rule 3
must be obtained, prior to the commencement of work. After considering the relevant statutory
provisions and a plethora of judgments, the Calcutta High Court that, The scheme of the 1885 Act
appears to be that while the telegraph authority exercises the power to place and maintain a
telegraph line, under, over, along or across, and posts under or upon, any immovable property, it is
under an obligation to do as little damage as possible and it shall be liable to pay full compensation
to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those
powers. It seems to be settled law that by necessary implication compliance with principles of
natural justice while a telegraph authority exercises power conferred by Section 10 of the 1885 Act is
excluded and consent of the landowner of the immovable property on which posts/poles are
required to be erected is not a condition precedent. It may be so, in a given case, that the authority
to commit trespass is non-existent. It is in such a situation, the legislature intended that once the
telegraph authority is resisted or obstructed while it exercises powers conferred by Section 10 in
respect of a property referred to in clause (d) thereof that the District Magistrate may, in his
discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. As has rightly
been held in Bharat Plywood (supra), the expression "shall be permitted to exercise them" is
significant. The District Magistrate himself has no power to authorize trespass but he has power to
allow/permit trespass. That would obviously depend on his satisfaction that the telegraph authority
has been conferred power in terms of the Section 4 of the 1885 Act. In my reading of the 1885 Act,
however, the choice of the property for the purpose of drawing the line or erection of tower made by
the telegraph authority under Section 10 of the 1885 Act cannot be interfered with by the District
Magistrate while he exercises power envisaged in Section 16(1) thereof. If that power is to be
conceded, it would militate against absolute power to trespass conferred by Section 10 in terms of
authorization under Section 4. I am inclined to hold that the District Magistrate's enquiry would be
a limited one, - he must satisfy himself that requisite permission has been given to the authority
mentioned in Section 10 to discharge the functions enumerated thereunder and that resistance or
obstruction which a property owner may raise, on a reasonable construction of the relevant
statutory provisions [Section 10 (d) read with Section 16(1)], must be confined to the question as to
whether the licensee has authority to exercise Section 10 powers or not, and Section 16 can never be
read in a manner to authorize a property owner to stall the entire programme of installation of posts
and lines. It would clearly be contrary to the spirit of the 1885 Act to accept a contention that a
land-owner would have the right of seeking removal or alteration of a telegraph line after execution

of the work has commenced even though he may not have any such right before actual
commencement of execution.
Any discussion on the topic, in my view, would be incomplete if I do not refer to the observation of
another Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mammoo vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1979 Kerala
Law Times 801. In paragraph 13 of the decision, it has been observed thus :
"13. The scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act may now be adverted to. S.10 of the Act, as already
indicated, gives the Telegraph authority power to place and maintain telegraph line in or upon any
immovable property. The proviso indicates that such power is to be exercised only for telegraph
established or maintained by the Central Government or to be so established and maintained, that
the Central Government acquires only the right of user, that in the case of local authority the
exercise has to be with permission of that authority and that in the exercise of such power as little
damage as possible is to be caused. These are in the nature of restrictions in the exercise of the
power and do not restrict the discretion to determine the property over which the lines are to pass or
posts are to be erected. That discretion is in the telegraph authority. If he is resisted or restricted he
seeks permission from the District Magistrate whose adjudication does not cover the question
whether line is to be drawn over any specific item of property or whether posts are to erected or not
in any specific item of property. S.16 does not indicate that as within the power of the District
Magistrate. The enquiry by the District Magistrate would be in the nature of a ministerial enquiry.
There is no question of calling for evidence, sifting such evidence, and coming to a judicial decision
thereon. In the event such judicial decision on issues was contemplated by S.16(1) there would
necessarily have been indication in the Section as to the issues that could be so considered and
judicially disposed of by the District Magistrate. No doubt S.16(1) provides that in granting
permission to the Telegraph Authority the District Magistrate is to exercise his discretion.
The above observations were considered necessary to be made because relying on the decision in
Bharat Plywood (supra) it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate
functioning under Section 16(1) was required to reach a judicial decision. After considering contents
of paragraph 23 of Bharat Plywood extracted supra, the Full Bench further observed, "We cannot
read this to mean that in reaching the decision the District Magistrate acts as a Court or that his
proceedings are judicial proceedings."
The law laid down in Mammoo (supra) has been followed in Kunjulakshmi vs. District Magistrate,
reported in 1986 Kerala Law Times 1320. I share the views expressed by the Kerala High Court in
these decisions, and I also agree with the dicta in Scindia Potteries v. Purolator India Ltd., AIR 1980
Del 157 that power under Section 10 is absolute, that Section 16 of the 1885 Act is in aid of the
discharge of statutory duty and exercise of statutory power postulated by Section 10, and that
Section 16 cannot be regarded as a condition precedent to the exercise of that power while
disagreeing with the view expressed in Bharat Plywood (supra) to the contrary.
Relying on the decision in Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, Varanasi & Ors., v. XIth Additional
District Judge, Varnasi & Ors., reported in 1996 AIHC 3936 (Allahabad), I further hold that apart
from compensation on account of trespass and damage to property, a property owner would not be

entitled to anything more in case a licensee exercises power to erect towers/lay down overhead line
for transmission of electricity. Section 10(d) read with Section 16(1) makes the intent of the statutory
provisions clear.
The requirement of complying with natural justice at the pre-execution stage, which is excluded by
necessary implication and limited application thereof at the stage contemplated in Section 16(1) of
the 1885 Act, has been made a condition precedent in the present case by the State Government
while it issued written order under Section 68 of the 2003 Act, thereby making it obligatory for
CESC to hear the affected persons if they intended to object in response to the said notification
published in the newspapers. It would not be fair, just and reasonable to assume that when power
possessed by a telegraph authority under Part III of the 1885 Act is conferred on a licensee engaged
in transmission of electricity, that would necessarily carry with it powers exercisable by a property
owner to resist/obstruct once power is exercised in terms of Section 10.
53. In Ramakrishna Poultry v. R.Challappan reported in 2009 (16) SCC 743, the appellant therein
filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, seeking for a re-alignment of the transmission lines, so
that, either his poultry sheds could be avoided or the height of the tower/pylon could be raised. The
main thrust of the challenge was with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate, to direct
change of alignment of a transmission line, under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, in he light of
Section 51 of The Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is equivalent to Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, empowering the appropriate Government to confer on any Authority or person engaged
in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, any of the powers, which the Telegraph
Authority possesses under the Telegraph Act, with respect to placing of telephonic lines or posts for
the purpose of a telephone established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or
maintained.
54. In the above reported case, on behalf of the appellant therein, it has been submitted that the
Hon'ble Division Bench went wrong in holding that under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the
District Magistrate had no power to change the alignment and that the Hon'ble Division Bench has
failed to notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under Section 16, but under Section
17(3) of the said Act.
55. Another ground of challenge in the above reported case was that the impugned order of the
Hon'ble Division Bench was contrary to the earlier order dated 31st January, 2007, directing the
Corporation to approach the District Magistrate concerned, in each case for permission to deal with
the objections raised by the petitioners therein, with the further direction that the said District
Magistrate would consider the objections, and pass orders, in accordance with the provisions,
indicated in the said order.
56. It has also been urged in the above unreported case that since the same had become final
between the parties, there was no scope for any contrary order to be passed, as has been done in
terms of the impugned order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.522/08, holding that
under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, the District Collector is not empowered to change the
alignment.

57. It has been further contended that as application submitted by the appellant therein, being one
under Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, it is within the power and jurisdiction of the District
Magistrate to direct a small deviation of the transmission line over the appellant's own lands, the
expenses wherefor would be borne by the appellant, so as to avoid its passing directly over the
poultry sheds.
58. Per contra, it has been contended that the Government of India, in exercise of its powers
conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act of 2003, have passed an order, authorizing the
Corporation to exercise all the powers vested in the Telegraph Authority, under Part III of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in respect of electrical lines and electrical plants established or
maintained, or to be so established or maintained for transmission of electricity or for the purpose
of telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper coordination of work. After
considering the rival contentions of both sides, at Paragraph 27, the Apex Court, held as follows:
š7. However, what goes against the case of the Appellant-Company is the fact that the purchases of
the land for starting the poultry business and the erection of the poultry sheds were effected at a
point of time when the process of identifying the route of the transmission lines was already in
progress and survey work was being undertaken. We find it difficult to accept that the Appellant-
company did not have knowledge of the ongoing project, which is for the benefit of a large number
of people of the area as against the interest of a single individual. In view of the objections on behalf
of the Power Grid Corporation that the deviation in the transmission lines, as suggested on behalf of
the Appellant-company, could not be practically achieved, we are left with the next best solution,
i.e., to increase the clearance between the lowest point of the sag of the transmission cable and the
top most portion of the appellant's poultry sheds. It should not also be forgotten that from the point
of the sag on both sides the cable moves upwards and the clearance becomes even greater on both
sides of the lowest spot. During the hearing we had asked Mr. Tripathi to confirm with the
Engineers of the Power Grid Corporation to explore the possibility of raising the height of the towers
even further to lessen the damage, if any, that may be caused to the egg laying capacity of the layers
in the appellant's poultry farm.
59. In K.Subba Raju v. Executive Engineer, TLC Division, APTRANSCO and Ors., reported in 2010
(4) ALD 358 = 2010 (4) ALT 758 = 2010 (2) APLJ 243, owner of the land, being aggrieved by the
rejection of the request of the petitioner to lay the underground cable, and against the action of
TRANSCO to proceed with the overhead lines, over the property of the petitioner, has sought for a
Mandamus. Having regard to the position that no rules have been framed under Section 67(c) of the
Electricity Act, 2003, at Paragraphs 4 to 7, the Andhra Pradesh Court, summed up the arguments, as
follows:
œ. The powers of the authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 for erection of poles and
transmission lines on private land was considered by this Court in detail in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA
v. A.P. TRANSCO, HYDERABAD [2009 (3) ALT 502] and it was held that Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute
power of the A. P. TRANSCO to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric posts for the
transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to

claim compensation if any damage was caused by reason of placing of such electric supply lines.
5. It is to be noticed that Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowers a licensee to carry out
works to lay down and place electric lines, electrical plant and other works. Section 67 (2) further
provides that the appropriate Government may, by rules made by it, specify the cases and
circumstances in which the consent in writing of the appropriate government, local authority, owner
or occupier as the case may be shall be required for carrying out the said work.
6. While observing that no such rules were made by the appropriate Government in exercise of rule
making power under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court in G.V.S. RAMA
KRISHNA'S case (cited supra) held that in terms of the Repeal and Savings clause under Section 185
(2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 18 of the repealed
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 continue to govern the field and consequently in the absence of an order
under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the consent of the owner or occupier under Section 12
(1) of the repealed Act was essential.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while relying upon the above decision and
while drawing the attention of this Court to the contents of the counter-affidavit, wherein it was
explained that G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 7.10.2003 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, conferring the powers on the AP TRANSCO, submitted that
the ratio laid down in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA'S case (cited supra) squarely applies to the present
case and therefore the impugned proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated merely on the ground
that consent of the petitioners was not obtained. After considering the submissions, at Paragraphs
9 to 12, held as follows:
9. Having carefully considered the above submissions, I do not find any substance in any of the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the Works of Licensees
Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 were not taken into
consideration in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA'S case (cited supra) and this Court proceeded on the basis
that no Rules were made under Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. While observing that as
per Section 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions contained in Section 12 (2) of the
repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910 under which the consent of the owner or occupier was
essential, shall have effect until the Rules are made under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003,
this Court made it clear that such consent of the owner or occupier was necessary only in the
absence of an order under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
10. It is also relevant to note that in G.V.S. RAMA KRISHNA'S case (cited supra), Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 was invoked conferring on the AP TRANSCO the powers which the Telegraph
Authority possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the circumstances, on facts it was
concluded in G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA'S case (cited supra) that Section 12 of the Indian Electricity
Act, 1910 which provided for the consent of owner / occupier had no application and therefore the
action impugned was neither arbitrary nor illegal.

11. The provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 are in pari materia to Section 12 of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Admittedly the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are applicable only where the works have been
taken up by the licensee under Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. As clarified in
G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA'S case (cited supra), Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the
rules made under Section 67 (2) govern the field only in the absence of an order under Section 164
of the Electricity Act, 2003. In a case where an order is passed by the appropriate government in
exercise of the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the licensee is competent to
exercise the powers which the Telegraph Authority possessed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
with respect to the placing of telegraphic lines and posts for the purpose of a telegraph established
by the Government. Since the powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 can be
exercised without acquiring the land in question, once an order is passed by the appropriate
government under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the public officer, licensee or any other
person engaged in the business of supplying electricity shall be entitled to proceed with the works of
placing the electric lines without acquiring the land in question.
12. It is not in dispute that in the instant case a notification has been issued invoking Section 164 of
the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, Section 67 (1) of the said Act or the Works of Licensees Rules,
2006 made under Section 67 (2) are not attracted and as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondents can proceed with the
placing of electric supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of the electricity on or over the
lands of the petitioner without acquiring the same and there is also no need to obtain his consent.
60. In Ajith K.N., v. State of Kerala [W.P.(C)No.3278 of 2010 (H), dated 18.05.2010], the Kerala
High Court, observed as follows:
™0. With regard to the legal position, it is very much evident that the exercise of powers of the
telegraph authorities by the officers authorised by notification issued by the Government, under
Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 (similar to the relevant provisions in the Electricity Act, 2003)
stands very much settled and it does not amount to any unreasonable restriction on the right to hold
the property conferred under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, as made clear by the Full
Bench of this Court in 1970 KLT 872.
61. In Himmatbhai Vallbhbhai Patel v. Chief Engineer (Project), Gujarat Energy Transmission
reported in AIR 2011 Guj. 405, the objection of the petitioner therein was that poles were sought to
be erected on his agricultural lands and that no consent was obtained, under Rule 3 of the Works of
Licencee's Rules, 2006, framed in accordance with Section 67 of the Act. The Writ Petition was
dismissed. The contentions raised in the appeal, as formulated by the Hon'ble Division Bench, are as
follows:
(a) that the action of the respondents in proposing to erect polls for laying 66 K.V. overhead
electricity lines passing through the agricultural land of the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The main bone of contention in this regard
was to the effect that the respondents are bound to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition

of the lands and the consent of the owners ought to have been obtained with prior notice before
entering into their property;
(b) the second contention was to the effect that public notice dated 29th July 2010 published by the
respondents in this regard makes reference of the provisions of Repeal Act and that names of the
villages where lands are situated and/or their survey numbers are not mentioned therein and,
therefore, the notice is of no consequence. The contention was that the area where the land of the
appellant herein is situated is not mentioned in the notification. To put it more elaborately, the
respondents cannot undertake works in that area which are not included, mentioned in the notice
dated 29th July 2010.
(c) the third contention before the learned Single Judge was to the effect that respondent no.3
Company is a transmission company and is not engaged in the business of supply of electricity
under the Electricity Act, 2003, and that, therefore, cannot undertake the process of laying overhead
electricity lines, without obtaining consent from the owner of the property, in view of the provisions
contained under Rule 3 of "Works of Licensees Rules, 2006" framed in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 67 of the Act, which, inter alia, provides that the licensee may carry out works with the
prior consent of the owner for occupation of any particular building or land, however, any prior
consent of the owner has not been taken by the respondent Company. After extracting the public
notice issued under Section 29 and 42 of the Electricity Act, 1948, at Paragraphs 10 and 11, the
Hon'ble Division Bench, discussed the scope of Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and
Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as hereunder, ™0. As per Section 12 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910, the consent of the local authority or of the concerned owner or occupier is
necessary to enable the licensee to lay down or place any electric supply line or other work in,
through or against any building or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon
any electric supply line or work has not already been lawfully laid down by such licensee. Under
Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, it was permissible for the Government to confer upon any
public officer, Transmission Utility, Transmission Licensee or any other person engaged in the
business of transmission or supplying energy to the public, any of the powers which the telegraph
authorities possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for the placing of electric supply lines.
11. That apart, Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provided for preparation of a
sanctioned scheme relating to the laying of transmission lines by a generating company and under
Section 29 every such scheme estimated to involve a capital expenditure exceeding such sum as may
be fixed by Central Government shall be submitted to the Central Electricity Authority constituted
under the said Act for its concurrence. That apart, Section (2) of Section 29 mandated that the
generating company shall cause such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette of the State and
in local news papers granting not less than two months time to the persons interested to make
representations on such scheme. Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, further provided
that where a provision is made in a sanctioned scheme for placing electric supply lines,
notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910, the State Electricity Board shall have all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses
under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to a telegraph established by the
Government for placing of any wires, poles and etc., for the transmission of electricity. The proviso

to Section 42 (1) further made it clear that where a sanctioned scheme does not make a provision as
aforesaid, all the provisions of Sections 12 to 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 shall apply. After
considering the judgment in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Private Ltd., v. Kerala State
Electricity Board, Trivandrum and others reported in AIR 1972 Ker. 47 (FB),Bhaskara Housing (P)
Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. APSEB, Hyderabad [1998 (6) ALT 436 = 1998 (6) ALD 781 and B.Krishna
Mandadi Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad [2002 (1) LS 332], at Paragraphs
15 and 16, in Himmatbhai Vallbhbhai Patel's (cited supra), the Court observed as follows:
™5. From the ratio laid down in the above decisions, with which we are in complete agreement, it is
clear that prior to the enactment of Electricity Act, 2003, consent of the owner or occupier was
necessary where there was no authorization under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Similarly, where a sanctioned scheme is published as required under Section 28 read with Section
42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, transmission towers or lines can be laid on any private land
without giving any notice and without causing damage to the property. However, if any damage is
caused, compensation shall be paid for the damage sustained as provided under Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
16. Both the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 stood repealed under
the Electricity Act, 2003 which came into force with effect from 10.06.2003. Under the new Act i.e.,
Electricity Act, 2003 though there is no provision with regard to preparation and sanctioning of any
scheme relating to establishment of generating stations, sub-stations or transmission lines as
required under Section 28 of the repealed Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, provisions similar to
Sections 12 and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 have been incorporated under Section 67 and
Section 164 respectively. After extracting Section 67 and 184 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Court,
further observed as follows:
As could be seen, though Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is identical to Section 12 (1) of,
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Section 67 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 varies from Section 12 (2)
of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Section 67 (2) does not say that the consent of the owner
or occupier is mandatory but the matters where the property of other persons is affected by the
works of the licensee have been left to be provided by the appropriate Government by way of Rules
in exercise of its rule making power. Taking note of the fact that no rules have been framed under
Section 67 of the Act, 2003, the Court, after extracting Section 185, repeal and the saving provision,
and having regard to the statutory position, as per Section 185(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, would still govern the field, the Court proposed
to examine the correctness of the action of the respondent in erecting the poles, in the light of
Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910
and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and after extracting paragraphs 22 to 27 from
G.V.S.Ramakrishna's case, the Gujarat High Court, at Paragraph 30, held as follows:
›0. We have exhaustively dealt with this issue in the above referred paragraphs and we have
explained as to why consent is not necessary. The paragraph which has been relied upon by the
learned counsel of the above referred judgment itself makes it clear that principles of natural justice
can be read into a statute which is silent unless a statutory provision specifically or by necessary

implications dispenses with the principles of natural justice. These observations are important.
On the aspect, as to prior notice and consent, at Paragraph 31, the Court held as follows:
"31. As explained earlier that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 164 of the
Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land, they are
only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines, for which, full compensation is
given for the damage caused. It is clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before
laying the polls or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them.
As regards the contention, as to whether, there is any need to give a detailed public notice and in the
event of failure to give all the particulars in such notice, is fatal to the execution of the work, the
Court at Paragraph 32, held as follows:
32. It is also relevant to note that since Section 28 or 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are not
saved under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is no need to publish a sanctioned scheme
nor it is necessary to give any notice by publication in local news papers as required under Section
29 (2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In spite of the same, the notification dated 29-7-2010
was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette as well as local dailies inviting objections from the
interested/aggrieved persons and no objections were received from anyone. While doing so, the
Court in Himmatbhai's case (cited supra), considered a portion of the judgment in S.M.Rao v/s.
State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1999 Karnataka 475, dealing with public notice and consent,
which is extracted hereunder:
›5. We may refer to one judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in this regard in the
matter of S.M.Rao v/s. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1999 Karnataka 475. In paragraphs 17
and 20, the High Court observed as under:
"17. The next contention is that Section 28 notification has not been duly published. As said earlier it
is not an acquisition proceeding. The electrical line is being drawn for the supply of power to the
consumers. It is sufficient to inform the public indicating the village through which the line is being
drawn. As a matter of fact, the definite area on which the Tower etc., are to be placed can be known
only after a spot inspection is made and viability is worked out. But I should certainly hasten to add,
that if the Sy. Nos. in the village are also indicated, that will make the notification more precise.
Such details will also inform the affected person to arrange his affairs. But, absence of these details
are not fatal. When the line has to travel a long distance as in this case, non- mention of the Sy. Nos.
is not certainly fatal. Many a time drawing of the line depends on the soil condition and other local
situation as well. If that be so they cannot in advance contemplate as to through which property the
line will have to be drawn. They need only say as to the village through which the line is being
drawn. That has been complied in this case, and as such there is substantial compliance of the
statute.
20.The other contention urged, namely that consent of the owners of the land through which the
line travel was not secured by respondents 4 and 5 before laying the poles and towers to draw the

electric line recedes to background, when we remember that the line is being drawn in exercise of
the powers conferred, under the Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the
Telegraph Act. If there is an order in this behalf, then no consent is called for."
62. In P.Santhana Raj v. The Chief Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Source, Chennai
[W.P.(MD)No.8844 of 2011, dated 08.11.2011], The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian,
considered a case, where the landowners opposed to the erection of poles, because their consent was
not acquired, as required under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. While considering the
arguments of the petitioners therein that, as per Section 185(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the
provisions of Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, would continue to operate, until
the Rules under Sections 67 to 69 of the Electricity Act, 2003, are made and that therefore, consent
of the owners of the land, ought to have been obtained by the authority, The Hon'ble Judge, after
considering the entire gamut of law on the subject, at Paragraph 40, held as follows:
œ0. A combined reading of Section 67 (2) (a) to (d) of the 2003 Act together with (I) Rule 3 (1) and
3 (4) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 (II) Section 164 of the 2003 Act and (III) Sections 10 and
16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, would lead us to the following conclusions:-
(i) In normal circumstances, the licensee would require the prior consent of the owner or occupier of
any land, by virtue of Rule 3(1)(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006, read with Section 67 (2)(a)
to (d) of the Electricity Act 2003.
(ii) But if the appropriate Government has, in terms of Section 164 of the 2003 Act, by order in
writing, conferred upon any Public Officer or licensee, the powers of a telegraph Authority under the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for placing of electric lines or electric plant, then the requirement of
prior consent under Rule 3(1)(a) need not be complied with. This is in view of Rule 3(4) of the
Works of Licensees Rules 2006.
(iii) In other words, if the appropriate Government had passed an order empowering the licensee to
exercise any of the powers conferred by the Telegraph Act, 1885, then the licensee can invoke
Sections 10 and 11 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and simply enter upon any private land and carry out
necessary works, without the prior consent of the owner. But if the appropriate Government had not
passed any order in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 conferring such a power upon
the licensee, to exercise any power under the Telegraph Act, then the licensee has to obtain prior
consent of the owner or occupier, as per Rule 3(1)(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules 2006 to carry
out the works. On the aspect, as to whether, prior consent of the owner is necessary, before
erecting the poles, towers or supply lines, on a private land, The Hon'ble Judge, at Paragraph 41,
further held that it depends upon whether the appropriate Government had conferred powers upon
the licensee, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or not. Having regard to the statutory
provisions, Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910,
the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, in Permanent B.P.(CH)No.368, Technical
Branch, dated 25.08.2010, at Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44, the Court held as follows:

œ2. To find an answer to the above question, we may have to go back once again to the Electricity
Act, 1910. Section 51 of the 1910 Act stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections
12 to 16 and 18 and 19, the appropriate Government may by order in writing, confer upon any Public
Officer, Central/State Transmission Utility, Licensee, Transmission Licensee or any person engaged
in the business of transmission, any of the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph
Act, 1885. As a matter of fact, Section 51 of the 1910 Act is in pari materia with Section 164 of the
2003 Act, with only a slight modification. While Section 51 of the 1910 Act refers to Central
Government in the case of Inter State Transmission and the State Governments in the case of Intra
State Transmission, Section 164 of the 2003 Act refers only to Appropriate Government .
Additionally, Section 51 of the 1910 Act, speaks of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for
transmission of energy. But Section 164 of the 2003 Act speaks of electric lines or electrical plant for
the transmission of electricity. Except this, the provisions of both are almost identical.
43. It is seen from para 4 of the Board proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in
Permanent B.P.(CH) No.368, Technical Branch, dated 25.8.2010, that the appropriate Government
had already conferred powers upon the Electricity Board to exercise the powers of the Telegraph
Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. This conferment had been made by the Government, in
terms of Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, much before the 2003 Act was issued. This
conferment made under Section 51 of the 1910 Act should be deemed to be a conferment under the
corresponding provision of the 2003 Act, namely Section 164, since it is not inconsistent with any of
the provisions of the 2003 Act. This is in view of Section 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Under Section 185 (2)(a) of the 2003 Act, any notification, declaration or authorisation made under
the repealed enactments would be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provision of
the 2003 Act, if it is not inconsistent with the 2003 Act. Since the power of the appropriate
Government under Section 51 of the 1910 Act, to empower a licensee to exercise the powers of the
Telegraph Authority, is retained in tact, under Section 164 of the 2003 Act, there is no inconsistency.
Therefore, the only condition prescribed in Section 185(2)(a), namely that the act done in terms of
the previous enactment should not be inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, is also
satisfied. Hence, the power conferred upon the TNEB by the State Government under Section 51 of
the 1910 Act, is deemed to be the power conferred under the corresponding provision of the new Act
viz., Section 164.
44. Thus it is clear that the respondents have been conferred with the powers exercisable by the
Telegraph Authority in terms of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Therefore, Rule 3 (4) of the
Works of Licensees Rules 2006, would come into play in the case on hand. Consequently, the
requirement of prior consent of the owner or occupier, prescribed under Rule 3(1)(a) of these Rules
will not affect the powers deemed to be conferred upon the respondents under Section 164 of the
2003 Act, by virtue of Section 185(2)(a) of the 2003 Act read with Section 51 of the 1910 Act.
Summarising the legal position, at Paragraph 58, the Court held as follows:
8. Therefore, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the following conclusions emerge:-
(i) The provision of Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910, requiring the licensee to obtain consent
of the owner or occupier of the land on which it is proposed to carry out certain works, stands

repealed, in terms of Section 185 (1) and 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, with the issue of the
Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 67 (2) of the 2003
Act.
(ii) Primarily, Rule 3(1)(a) the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 requires the licensee to obtain the
prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land on which it is proposed to carry out
certain works. (iii) If the owner or occupier refuses to give consent and raises objections, the
licensee may obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of
Police, in terms of the first proviso under Rule 3(1).
(iv) But in cases where powers are conferred upon the licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, the provisions of Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 will not apply. In
other words, where the appropriate Government had conferred upon the licensee, the powers of a
Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, the licensee need not take recourse to the
procedure prescribed by Rules 3(1) to (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. But the licensee
shall take recourse to the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
(v) Since Section 164 of the 2003 Act, corresponds to Section 51 of the 1910 Act, the power conferred
by the Government upon a licensee, in terms of Section 51 of the 1910 Act, is saved by Section
185(2)(a) of the 2003 Act. Therefore, the power conferred upon the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by
the Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 51 of the 1910 Act, could continue to be exercised by
the Board, as though those powers were conferred under Section 164 of the 2003 Act.
(vi) Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, does not contemplate consent or permission of the
owner or occupier of a property, for the purpose of placing and maintaining a supply line, under,
over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The only case where Section 10
contemplates permission is in respect of a property vested in or under the control or management of
any local authority.
(vii) Though Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, does not make it incumbent upon the licensee to
obtain permission of the owner or occupier, it does not also reduce his ownership or right of
possession into something farcical. The right of the owner or occupier to resist or obstruct any act
undertaken under Section 10, is recognised indirectly in Section 16(1), which requires the licensee to
obtain an order of the District Magistrate, in such circumstances. A careful reading of Section 16(1)
would show two things viz., (a) that the District Magistrate exercises his power under this Section, in
his discretion and (b) that what the District Magistrate does under Section 16(1) is akin to the
removal of obstruction as ordered by an Executing Court in terms of Order XXI, Rules 97 and 98 of
the Code. Any resistance on the part of the owner or occupier after an order is passed by the District
Magistrate becomes a punishable offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, by virtue of
Section 16 (2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
(viii) The words resisted or obstructed appearing in Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 have
to be given their ordinary meaning. They have to be understood as defensive acts as pointed out by
the Apex Court in Santosh Kumar v. State [AIR 1951 SC 201]. Actual physical acts of omission and

commission at site or on the spot, is not necessary to constitute resistance or obstruction, as held by
the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. Paradip Port Trust [1990(4) SCC 250]. The method of
resistance/obstruction adopted by people, vary from person to person depending upon their status,
level of education, mental orientation and social upbringing. Therefore, any kind of objection or
protest by the land owner would tantamount to obstruction/ resistance. Such an interpretation is
necessary in view of the fact that the Telegraph Act is a colonial Act of pre-Constitutional days,
which came to be adapted after the Constitution and which has come to be borrowed by the
Electricity Act, 2003 to interfere and infringe upon the rights of owners of private property to their
unhindered enjoyment. The Supreme Court pointed out in Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., {2011 (4)
SCC 769} that even the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is "a pre-constitutional legislation of colonial
vintage and is a drastic law, expropriatory in nature". Therefore, any interpretation to such
enactments should conform to the Constitutional goals and rights. Despite the fact that the right to
property is no more a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, it is
nevertheless a constitutional right under Article 300-A. In several decisions, the Supreme Court has
held that to hold property is not only a Constitutional right but also a human right. {see Lachhman
Dass v. Jagat Ram {2007 (10) SCC 448}, Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel
{2008 (4) SCC 649}, N.Padmamma v. S.Ramakrishna Reddy {2008 (15) SCC 517}, Chandigarh
Housing Board v. Major General Devinder Singh {2007 (9) SCC 67}. Therefore, a dignified protest,
even in the form of a formal letter, notice or telegram, would amount to obstruction within the
meaning of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Once such a protest is lodged, the licensee
should seek an order from the District Magistrate.
63. In P.Nachimuthu and others v. The District Collector [W.P.No.22967 of 2011, dated 30.11.2011],
it was the submission of the petitioners therein, that the first respondent therein, does not have the
power or authority to pass the impugned order. Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 only
confers the power only on the appropriate Government, for granting permission to lay the overhead
lines. Since no rules have been framed under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the provision
contained under Sections 6 to 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 will have to be made applicable.
Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot over-ride Section 68 of the said Act. The provisions
contained under Section 183 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be made applicable to other
provisions. The provisions contained under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have not
been followed.
64. It was further submitted that the cart track is a public property and therefore the petitioners
have the locus standi to file these writ petitions and once a property becomes a public property, the
same cannot be allowed to be used by other persons. Reliance has also been made to following
decisions, viz., S.N.Chandrashekar and Another v. State of Karnataka and others [(2006) 3 SCC
208], A.Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council, Perambalur and others [(2009) 15 SCC 351], Hari Ram
v. Jyoti Prasad and Another [(2011) 2 SCC 682], Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others [AIR 2011 SC 1123], Power Grid Corporation of India ltd., v. Ram Naresh Singh and Others
[AIR 2011 PATNA 83] and C.Ram Prakash and Another v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
and Another [2011-4-L.W.924].

65. Per contra, the respondents have contended that in view of the Electricity [Removal of Difficulty]
(fifth) Order, 2005, no licensee is required for the generating Company. Section 2(16) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 deals with dedicated transmission lines and therefore, the same is governed
by the Electricity [Removal of Difficulty] (fifth) Order, 2005. The appropriate Government under
Section 2(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is the State Government. Action has been taken by the first
respondent under Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The procedure contained under Section 10
of the Electricity Act, 2003 has been complied with. Since no rules have been framed under Section
180 read with 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 by the State Government there is no basis for the
contentions raised by the petitioners. The respondents have further contended that the above
contentions have been raised, either before the first respondent therein, or in the affidavit. It was
also contended that the petitioners do not have the locus standi to question the order of the first
respondent. Inasmuch as the petitioners are neither owners nor occupiers as stipulated either under
the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 or under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, they cannot question the
order impugned. The respondents placed reliance on the following decisions, viz., Bharat Plywood
and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd., v. Kerala State Electricity Board [AIR 1972 KERALA 47],
M.Nithyanandham and two others v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 and
others [1994 WRIT L.R.445], E.Venkatesan and others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Madras and others, [AIR 1997 MADRAS 64], T.S.T.Kaznavi v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [2008
(2) MLJ 703], R.Kannan v. Power Grid Corporation (India) Ltd., and others [W.A.NO.464 OF 2008,
ORDER DATED 10.04.2008], R.Santhana Raj and Another v. The Chief Engineer,
Non-Conventional Energy Source, Anna Salai, Chennai and Others [W.P.(MD)NO.8844 OF 2011,
ORDER DATED 08.11.2011].
66. While distinguishing the difference between dedicated transmission lines, as defined in Section
2(16) and overhead lines in Section 2(48) of the Electricity Act and Section 2(72), which deals with
transmission lines, The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.Sundresh, at Paragraph 23 of the judgment, held
as follows:
š3. A conjoint reading of the above said provision would show that Section 2(16) of the Electricity
Act, 2003 deals with dedicated transmission lines which is a separate category. The said dedicated
transmission lines are confined to a generation station referable to section 10 of the Act. Section
2(72) of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with all other transmission lines other than dedicated
transmission lines. Overhead lines have been specifically dealt with under Section 2(48) of the
Electricity Act, 2003. A combined and conjoint analysis of above three Sections would lead to the
conclusion that they operate on their own distinct and separate fields. In other words, a dedicated
transmission line as defined under Section 2(16) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not a transmission
line provided under Section 2(72) or a overhead line under Section 2(48) of the Electricity Act,
2003.
67. As regards the powers conferred under Sections 67, 68, 176, 180, 183 and 185 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, the learned Judge, observed as follows:
Sections 67, 176 & 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003:

26.Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the subjects over which, the appropriate
Government may by rules specify. Section 67(2) sub-clause (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals
with the procedure and manner of consideration of objections. Section 176 of the Electricity Act,
2003 provides for the power of Central Government to make rules. Accordingly, Section 176(2)(e) of
the Electricity Act, 2003 provides for rule making power over the works of licensees affecting the
property of owner or occupier of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003. A similar
power has been provided by the State Government under Section 180 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Therefore under Sections 176, 180 read with 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appropriate
Government can make rules over the works of licensees affecting the right of the property of others.
In accordance with the same, the Central Government has made rules, namely the Works of
Licensees Rules, 2006. Unfortunately, no such rules have been framed by the State Government.
Therefore, in the absence of any specific rules made by the State Government, under Section 180
read with 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the rules framed by the Central Government cannot be
made applicable as it is not the appropriate Government under Section 2(5) of the Electricity Act,
2003.
Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003:
27.Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates that an overhead line shall be installed only with
the prior approval of the appropriate Government. This Section has to be read with the definition of
overhead line as provided under sub-clause 48 of Section 2. As discussed above, the definition of
sub-section 48 of Section 2 would certainly exclude the dedicated transmission line as provided
under sub-section 16 of Section 2 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Section 183 and 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003:
28.Section 183 of the Electricity Act, 2003 speaks about the power of the Central Government to
remove the difficulties by way of making the order removing the difficulties. The proviso to the said
Section says that no such order shall be made after the expiry of two years from the date of
commencement of the Act. It is under this provision, the Electricity [Removal of Difficulty] (fifth)
Order, 2005 has been made by the Central Government by which exemption has been given to the
generating company. Section 185 speaks about the repeal and saving. Under Section 185(2)(b) of the
Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions contained under Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910 and rules made thereunder shall have effect until the rules under Sections 67 to 69 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 are made. Therefore, this is no difficulty in holding that under Section 185 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions contained under Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity
Act, 1910 would be made applicable in the absence of any rules made by the State Government but
the same provisions cannot be made applicable to the petitioners as they are neither the owners nor
the occupiers.
Analysis:
29.In the light of the discussions made above, it is very clear that in view of the provisions contained
in Electricity [Removal of Difficulty] (fifth) Order, 2005, no licence is required for the third

respondent for establishing, operating or maintaining a dedicated transmission line. The legal
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been answered by the Electricity
[Removal of Difficulty] (fifth) Order, 2005 the said order is extracted hereunder:
"S.O. 794(E) Whereas the Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
came into force on the 10th June, 2003;
And whereas section 7 of the Act provides that any generating company may establish, operate and
maintain a generating station without obtaining a licence under this Act if it complies with the
technical standards relating to connectivity with the grid referred in clause (b) of section 73;
And whereas sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of this
Act, the duties of a generating company shall be to establish, operate and maintain generating
stations, tie-lines, sub-stations and dedicated transmission lines connected therewith in accordance
with the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder;
And whereas sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, a person may construct, maintain or operate a captive generating plant and
dedicated transmission lines;
And whereas a dedicated transmission line in terms of sub-section (16) of section 2 of the Act is an
electrical supply line for point-to-point transmission for connecting a captive generating plant or a
generating station to any transmission line or sub-stations or generating stations or the load centre,
as the case may be;
And whereas such a dedicated transmission line is neither a transmission line in terms of
sub-section (72) of section 2 of the Act nor it is a distribution system connecting the point of a
connection to the installation of consumer in terms of sub-section (19) of section 2 of the Act;
And whereas difficulties have arisen regarding the requirement of a transmission licence for
establishing, operating or maintaining a dedicated transmission line;
Now, therefore, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 183 of the Act
hereby makes the order in respect of establishing, operating or maintaining a dedicated
transmission line, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, to remove the difficulties, namely;
1. Short title and commencement:-
(1)This order may be called the Electricity [Removal of Difficulty] (fifth) Order, 2005.
(2)It shall come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Establishment, operation or maintenance of dedicated transmission lines:-

A generation company or a person setting up a captive generating plant shall not be required to
obtain license under the Act for establishing, operating or maintaining a dedicated transmission line
if such company or person complies with the follows: (a) Grid code and standards of grid
connectivity;
(b) Technical standards for construction of electrical lines;
(c) System of operation of such a dedicated transmission line as per the norms of system operation
of the concerned State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) of Regional Load Despatch Centre (RLDC)
(d) Directions of concerned SLDC or RLDC regarding operation of the dedicated transmission line.
68. In Sathya Sai Warehousing & Logistics Part (SSS) Pvt. Ltd., v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board reported in 2012 (3) LW 625, the request of the petitioner for alternative route for
erecting a tower line was rejected. The Superintending Engineer, proceeded with the erection of the
tower line, as per the Electricity Act, 2003. Inter alia, it was challenged on the grounds that the
tower line should not be erected, without the permission of the owner or occupier. Per contra,
placing reliance on Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Board has contended that
G.O.Ms.No.102 Energy (C3) Department, dated 10.12.2009 has been issued by the Government,
granting approval to the Board, for executing 230KV transmission lines, from Arasur 400 KV SS to
Arasur 230 KV SS. The said Government Order is passed in terms of Sections 68 and 164 of The
Electricity Act, 2003. It has been passed based on feasibility study and after considering the
technical parameters. The Electricity Board has further submitted that for the purpose of laying
electric lines or electrical transmission of electricity, Section 164 enables the Government or the
authority to invoke the provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act. A contention has also been raised
that objections of the land owner can be with reference only on the aspect of compensation, that
would be determined under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and that the land owner has no right to
seek for any alignment of the route. Having regard to the above contentions, a learned Single Judge,
at Paragraphs 8 to 11, held as follows:
8. A reading of Section 164 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 would
reveal that for the implementing the scheme as per Government Order the authority has the same
power as that of the Telegraph authority. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 gives the
power to enter upon and there is no restraint except complying with the requirement of Section 16
of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
9. The petitioner in this case has asked for reallocation of the line based on certain technical
parameters. There is no resistance or obstruction for the laying of the electric line. Therefore,
Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
does not come into play. The only question that remains to be considered is whether the line can be
altered or relocated.
10. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 enables the appropriate Government to draw an
evacuation scheme and implement it and it is not in dispute. Admittedly, no rules have been framed

in terms of Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 185(2)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003
which deals with Repeal and Saving provides that the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 18 of
Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Rules made thereunder will apply. Further, Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 also provides that the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 will be made
applicable for the purpose of implementing the Government order for placing of electrical line or
electrical plant for the transmission of electricity. A reading of the above provisions makes it clear
that in respect of a scheme the mode of implementation is by following the mandate of Section 164
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, provides for
compensation and petitioner can have no grievance on that as the respondents are not denying it.
11. A Division Bench of this Court in C.Ram Prakash and another vs. Power Grid Corporation of
India Ltd., and another reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 593 in its decision dated 23.08.2011 considered
the scope of the term objection. Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act made applicable in
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 were considered by the Division Bench in the above cited
decision, and held that it is not necessary that every obstruction or resistance should be considered
and the authority should be approached. In the above referred decision, the Division Bench of this
Court has clearly held the scope of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in
paragraphs 22, 23 and 24.
22. Scope of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885:
The power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is rather wide and extensive. While
exercising the power, it is not necessary for the respondent No.1 to put to individuals, who owned
the land on notice. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has got power under Sections 10 and 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Such a power has been conferred upon the respondent No.1 in public
interest. The exercise of the said power by erecting the towers with overhead lines would not amount
to an acquisition. It is true that such an action would diminish the value of the property of an
individual, but at the same time, it cannot be termed as an acquisition. Since Section 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides mechanism of compensation, the appellants can have no
grievance.
23. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act provides for a mechanism by which the respondent No.1
can approach the second respondent, if there is an obstruction or resistance, it is not necessary that
in each and every case, the respondent No.1 will have to approach the second respondent whenever
there is an objection. The word objection has got a different connotation than the words resistance
or obstruction. A resistance or obstruction would mean preventing the statutory body from carrying
out the public duty. Whereas an objection is merely a form of protest. Further, under Section 16 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, the respondent No.2 has got no power to go into the merits of the case and
find out as to whether the alignment proposed is correct or not and there is any possibility of
realignment. The prescription of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is very specific to provide
aid to the respondent No.1 to perform its statutory duty. Considering the scope of Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act vis-a-vis Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scindia Potteries v. Purolator India Ltd., AIR 1980 Del
157 as follows:

9... The exercise of power under Section 10 is not conditional on compliance with the provisions of
Section 16(1) of the Act. The power given under Section 10 is absolute. It is only when there is a
resistance or obstruction in the exercise of that power that the occasion to approach the District
Magistrate arises. If there is no resistance or obstruction, there is no occasion for the telegraph
authority to approach the District Magistrate. The alleged oral protest relied upon by the appellant
appears to us to be a made up story. Two telegraph poles were affixed on the appellants' property in
February, 1974. The telephone lines and connections were thereafter given from time to time. Till
the landlord-tenant dispute arose between the appellant and Purolator India Ltd., no objection was
raised by the appellant. No doubt in April, 1978 the appellant gave notice to the telegraph authority
under Sections 17 and 19-A of the Act and may be that the telephone connections in May, 1978 can
be treated as the ones objected to but then Sections 17 and 19-A have a different purport. The
resistance and obstruction envisaged by Section 16(1) of the Act is different. This will be clear on a
reading of sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. It is for the purpose of Section 188 IPC., that an
application is to be given under Section 16(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate. Section 188, IPC
makes the disobedience of an order duly promulgated by the public servant an offence. Section 16 is
really in aid of the discharge of statutory duty and exercise of statutory power postulated by Section
10. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down therein.
24. The learned counsel for the appellants made reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Arumugam v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra). We are afraid that the said case has no
relevance to the present case on hand. The Full Bench of this Court was dealing with a conscious
omission made by the legislature touching upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India, whereas
considering the object behind the Indian Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act, 2003, and in view of
the power available under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondent No.1 has got
every jurisdiction to erect the towers. In Sathya Sai's case, the learned Single Judge, at Paragraphs
12 to 15, further observed that, "12. It has been clearly held by the Division Bench that the authority
while considering the objection has no role insofar as alignment is concerned. In the present case as
per the Government Order the approval for execution of power plant evacuation line, in exercise of
power under Section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003 has been granted and therefore, there is no
power vested with the Superintending Engineer to grant any relief as sought for in the
representation for change of alignment.
13. The Division Bench decision clearly mandates that the objection of the land owner will not be of
any consequence for the purpose of alignment but it can be only with regard to the issue relating to
compensation that will be determined under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. Therefore, the
petitioner's plea for change of alignment cannot be considered by this Court.
14. In any event, the impugned letter is a reply given to the petitioner after considering the request
for re-alignment. That has been considered by the Superintending Engineer and declined in view of
the Government Order and scheme. The representation of the petitioner has been replied and it
does not give a cause of action for the petitioner to file the writ petition. No provision of law is
shown to have been breached to maintain this writ petition. There is no obstruction in order to force
the respondents to approach any authority under the provisions of the Electricity Act or the Indian
Telegraph Act.

15. My attention is drawn to the earlier order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36566 of
2007 dated 28.1.2008 (T.S.T.Kaznavi vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep. by its Chairman and
Others), which I had followed in an earlier occasion in W.P.No.6353 of 2010 dated 22.6.2010 relying
upon a Full Bench Decision of the Kerala High Court in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products
Private Limited vs. - Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum and others reported in AIR 1972
Kerala 47 (V.59 C 10)(1). These cases are prior to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court referred to above. After the decision of the Division Bench in C.Ram Prakash and another vs.
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., and another reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 593 that proposition
does not hold good any longer. The order of the Division Bench reported in [(2011)8 MLJ 593] will
apply to the present scheme for evacuation of power by laying transmission lines in terms of Section
164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
69. In The Chairman, TANTRANSCO v. The District Collector, Thiruvallur [W.P.No.23442 of 2012,
dated 22.11.2012], the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Collector, giving directions
to the petitioner-Corporation to erect the Tower and realign the power transmission lines along the
approved alignment. It was the contention of the learned Advocate General appearing for the
petitioner-Corporation that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to order re-alignment of
transmission lines, as he is not technically competent to order realignment. He has relied on the
order of this Court made in W.P.Nos.2305 and 2917 of 2012 dated 24.4.2012, wherein, it has been
held that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to decide about the route of the transmission line.
He has further submitted that the abovesaid order made in W.P.Nos.2305 and 2917 of 2012, dated
24.04.2012, of the learned single Judge, has been affirmed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.1049, 1050 and 1051 of 2012, by judgment, dated 16.11.2012 and that therefore, the issue
involved in W.P.No.23442 of 2012, filed by the Chairman, TANTRANSCO, is covered by the said
Hon'ble Bench decision. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that except three towers,
the remaining towers have been already erected and if the order of the District Collector, first
respondent therein, is allowed to stand, the State will have to face power crisis and hence, in public
interest, the impugned order therein, is liable to be set aside. After considering the decision of this
Court in W.A.No.1049, 1050 and 1051 of 2012, dated 16.11.2012 and the Apex Court in Ramakrishna
Poultry v. R.Challappan reported in 2009 (16) SCC 743, this Court held as follows:
š1. Thus, from the facts which was the subject matter of the said decision, it is evidently clear that
the same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Further, in
the instant case there was no direction to the District Collector to examine as to whether which route
was more feasible. In fact it has been pointed out that initially the District Collector after holding
discussions was of the firm view that the original route planned by the Board was more feasible as it
passes along the existing Panchayat Road. Therefore, in our view the alternate route if adopted
would be against public interest. Further, the order passed by the District Collector dated
18.07.2011, does not assign any reasons as to why the transmission line should not pass through the
original route. Though the Collector has narrated the contention of the land owners and the view of
the Electricity Board, in the penultimate portion of the order has altered the route. No reasons have
been assigned as to why the original route should not be adopted. Thus the order of the District
Collector apart from being without jurisdiction is also vitiated for not assigning reasons which would
offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

70. In Shri Vivek Brajendra Singh vs State, Government Of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No.256 of
2012, dated 22.03.2012], the Bombay High Court, held as follows:
š1. The provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 contained in Part III of the Act and the
provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 contained in Part VIII of the Act and all incidental provisions
must be treated as immune from challenge on the grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 19 by a
virtue of Article 31A of the Constitution of India."
While adverting to the contention of the petitioners therein that the action of the respondents, in
placing the electrical lines, over the lands, is violative of Section 12 of the Act, the Bombay High
Court, at Paragraphs 26 and 28, further held that,
26. This contention is misplaced in view of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. This Act was
enacted for consolidating the laws relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading and use
of electricity and generally for taking measures conducive to development of electricity industry. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons specifically referred to the need of harmonising and rationalising
the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the necessity to enact new legislation for
regulating the electricity supply industry in the country which would replace the existing laws.
Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003 repealed the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 containing Section
12 relied upon by the petitioners.
28. According to the petitioners since Rules have not been made under Sections 67 to 69 of the new
Act of 2003, the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 18 continue to have effect as provided by
Clause (b) above and, therefore, the respondents were bound to obtain the consent of the owners
and occupiers of the land under Section 12. This submission is based on an erroneous assumption
that the act of placing an electric line is being performed by the Transmission Company under
Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is temporarily saved as a transitory provision till the
enactments of rules. On the other hand, the State of Maharashtra has issued a notification under
Section 164 of the new Act of 2003 conferring powers with respect to the placing of telegraph lines
and posts, which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for the
purpose of placing of electric line for transmission of electricity on the Transmission Company.
When such a notification is issued under the Electricity Act, 2003 in terms, the person authorized
exercises powers of a Telegraph Authority under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
and not powers under Sections 12 to 18 of the old Act, 1910 which are temporarily saved. It is
obvious that after such authorization under Section 164 of the new Act 2003, the Transmission
Company is bound to exercise the powers of a Telegraph Authority with respect of placing of
telegraph lines and posts for the purpose of placing of an electric line for the transmission of
electricity. These powers are found in Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 vide Sections 10 to
16. None of these provisions provide for obtaining consent of an owner or occupier of the land. The
legislative scheme in regard to the electric lines is that after the repeal of the Indian Electricity Act,
1910, the work of placing of electrical lines must be done under Sections 12 to 18 of the old Act 1910
till rules are framed under Sections 67 and 68 of the new Electricity Act, 2003. If there is any such
notification under Section 164 of the new Act 2003, conferring powers of the Telegraph Authority
for the purpose of placing electric lines, during the transitory period when rules are not framed

under Sections 67 and 68 of the new Act 2003, the did not and cannot act under Sections 12 to 18 of
the old Act, 1910. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is, therefore, rejected.
71. Part III of the Telegraph Act, 1885, deals with Power to Place Telegraph Lines and Posts" and
there are other provisions in the said Act, applicable to all the properties. As seen from the plethora
of cases, powers conferred on the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and
towers, are traceable to Sections 10, 11 and 14 of the abovesaid Act and by virtue of Section 164 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, it is conferred on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged
in the business of supplying electricity.
72. As per Clause (c) to Section 10, the authority can exercise its powers in respect of the property of
a local authority only, by obtaining permission of that authority, whereas, no such permission is
required in relation to the property of others. Section 10 does not contemplate notice to an owner or
occupier of land to show cause against laying of a line and it authorizes the telegraph authority, to
place a telegraph line under, over, along or across any immovable property. Proviso makes it clear
that the licencee or any other authorised person does not acquire any right, other than that of user of
the property. The right conferred on the land owner is only to seek for payment of compensation for
any damage sustained by him, by reason of exercise of the powers.
73. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, confers a legal sanction to a telegraph authority to
enter into any private property, subject to the condition that, while entering into the property and
during the course of execution of any work, the telegraph authority is under an obligation to cause
as little damage, as possible, and shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any
damage sustained by them, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Act.
74. When power of the telegraph authority to enter into any private property, is subject to the
conditions to cause as little damage as possible, and when there is a provision for payment of
compensation, the question as to whether, the said authority should seek for consent from the
owner of the property, or provide him an opportunity of hearing before entering into the property,
does not arise. However, the land owner may be informed of the work tobe executed.
75. Since the powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, can be exercised without
acquiring the land in question, once an order is passed by the appropriate government under
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in
the business of supplying electricity shall be entitled to proceed with the works of placing the electric
lines without acquiring the land in question. Usage of the land by the licencee or the authorised
person, does not amount to acquisition.
76. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, empowers the State Government to confer, by an order
in writing, powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,
with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts, on any public officer, licensee or any other
person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under that Act, for placing of electrical plants
and electric lines, in terms of Section 2(20), which defines "electric line", as any line which is used
for carrying electricity for any purpose and includes--

(a) any support for any such line, that is to say, any structure, tower, pole or other thing in, on, by or
from which any such line is, or may be, supported, carried or suspended; and
(b) any apparatus connected to any such line for the purpose of carrying electricity;
77. The power conferred on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business
of supplying electricity under the Electricity Act, for the abovesaid purpose, may be subject to such
conditions, if any, the Government deems it fit to impose and also subject to the provisions of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
78. The authorisation, in terms of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 10 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, authorising the public officer or licencee or any other person
engaged in supplying electricity, all the powers of the Telegraph Authority, which includes power to
enter into any private property, subject to the condition that while entering into the property and
the public officer or licensee or any other person, authorised under the Act, is under an obligation to
cause as little damage as possible, with a guarantee for payment of compensation for the owner of
the land or the persons interested.
79. Sections 16 and 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, do not limit the absolute powers of the
telegraph authority to enter into any property for the purpose of enforcement of Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, by which, the public
officer or licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this
Act, is empowered to exercise all the powers, for the purpose of placing electrical plant, line, erection
of towers, conductors, poles, etc.
80. The intention of the Legislature, is to provide electricity, in terms of Section 43 of the Electricity
Act, 2003. When the purpose of the Act, is to provide basic amenity of electricity to the public at
large, and if every objection/resistance has to be entertained under Section 16(1) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, then it would render Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section
164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, meaningless, thereby, power conferred on the telegraph authority to
enter into any property, subject to causing, as little damage as possible, with an assurance of
payment of compensation to the damage, if any, would be redundant.
81. If Section 16(1) of the Act, has to be construed, conferring a right on the landowner to seek for an
opportunity of prior notice or consent, then the very purpose of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, would be defeated.
82. Vis-a-vis Section 185 (2) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 12 (2) of the repealed Indian
Electricity Act, 1910, under which the consent of the owner or occupier is essential and on the issue,
as to the enforceability of Section 12 of the Act, until the Rules are made under Section 67 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, consent of the owner or occupier is necessary, only in the absence of any
order, passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

83. Having taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and
Electricity Act, 2003 and analysis of Section 67 and section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the legal
position is that, whenever an order is passed by the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers
under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for placing of electric lines for the transmission of
electricity, conferring upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business
of supplying electricity any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, with respect to the placing of telegraphic lines and posts for the purposes of a
telegraph established by the Government, such public officer, licensee or any other person engaged
in the business of supplying electricity, exercises all the powers, as that of the telegraph authority,
under the Indian Telegraph act, 1885.
84. However, in the absence of such an order under Section 164 of the Electricity act, 2003, if a
licensee i.e., a person who has been granted a licence to transmit electricity or to distribute
electricity under the Act, proposes to place electric lines, electric plant or other works necessary for
transmission or supply of electricity, Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 comes into operation
and consequently, prior consent of the concerned owner or occupier, may be required, under
Section 12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
85. The provisions of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) of the
Electricity Act, 2003 are in pari materia to Section 12 of the repealed Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
The Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are applicable, only in a case, where the works have been taken
up by the licensee, under Section 67 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. But Section 67 (1) of the
Electricity Act, 2003, as well as the rules made under Section 67 (2) would govern the field, only in
the absence of an order, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
86. Section 16 states that if there is any resistance or obstruction, the District Magistrate may in his
discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise all the powers. Further,
after such an order, a person offering any further resistance deemed to have committed offence
under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Once the technical feasibility of the project, has been
approved by the appropriate Government, by issuing an order under Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, no land owner or person interested can seek for shifting or re-aligning of the route, on
the premise that the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, has powers to do so. He has no
powers to alter any route or alignment, except to remove the difficulties faced by the licencee or the
person authorised, pursuant to the orders issued under Section 164 of the Act.
87. If the intention of the Legislature was to seek for consent or permission from every owner and if
the right of such owner has to be recognised, in terms of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, due to
resistance/obstruction, then the execution of any work or project, would be stopped at every stage.
Needless to state that execution of works, involving erection of towers and connection of overhead
lines, is done, only after a detailed field study, by identifying a feasible route of the proposed
transmission line, and while selecting suitable corridors, residential areas to be avoided, span
length, the angle of deviation, extent of damage, likely to be caused, while erecting towers,
maintenance cost of electric lines and towers and other factors, have to be considered. Public
interest, in providing electricity to a large section of people and industrial establishments, etc., has

to be given weightage over private interest.
88. If the authorities have to recognize the right of obstruction or resistance, in terms of Section
16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, then the moment, any notification is published, all the
landowners or interested persons, who have the knowledge of the commencement of any
development work, would immediately resist or obstruct the work, and may even seek for
re-location or if the towers, posts had already been erected, may seek for re-alignment or removal of
towers and plants, erected by the public officer or licensee or any other person, engaged in the
business of supplying electricity, authorised to carry out the works, in terms of an order passed by
the appropriate Government, under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
89. When a project involves huge expenditure, erection of many towers at various places and when
such project involves, greater public interest, then even a single owner, under the pretext of making
objections/resistance, would attempt to stall the process of execution of the project. When entry into
amu property is legally authorised, with payment of compensation to the land owner, no prior
consent is required.
90. The Apex Court and other Courts in India, have categorically held that the action of the licencee
or the competent authority, in erecting poles or posts, in the property or drawing lines over the
property, does not amount to acquisition of lands and it amounts to only user of the property to the
extent indicated and therefore, there is no requirement to intiate any land acquisition proceedings,
giving opportunity to the land owners, when execution of the work, is ordered under Section 164 of
the Act and accordingly, carried out by the licencee or any other competent authority.
91. Even if any Court gives any directions to consider the representation of any land owner or person
interested, such directions are required to be considered only to the limited extent of payment of
compensation, to be given by the licencee or the competent authority and the directions issued, if
any, would not empower the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, to pass any order, contrary
to the orders, passed under Section 164 of the Act.
92. When the appropriate Government passes an order under Section 164 of the Act, the Collector is
bound by the said order, and he is not superior to the Government, to hold that the Government has
erred in passing an order, under Section 164 of the Act, authorising the licencee or the competent
authority to carry out the work, in the route, which involves Techno-Economic Consideration.
93. The Act confers powers to the Telegraph Authority to determine the property over which the
lines are to pass or posts to be erected. The powers of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, does not extent to any adjudication, as to from where and how, the
line has to be drawn over any specific item of the property or where posts have to be erected or not,
in any specific item of the property.
94. The Power of the District Magistrate is confined only to the extent of exercising his discretion in
granting permission to the Telegraph Act, to execute the work, when an application is made by the
licencee or the competent authority.

95. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act gives legal sanction to the licencing authority to enter into
any property, to lay poles or posts or draw electric lines. But while doing so, the damage of the
property should be less. If there is any resistance, the licencee or the authorised person may
approach the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, to grant permission.
96. Once the power is conferred on the licencee or any other competent authority, there can be no
objection to the implementation of the scheme, on the principles of natural justice or on the ground
of unauthorised use of the land.
97. Legislature has conferred powers on the appropriate Government to authorize a public officer or
a licencee, etc., under the Electricity Act to exercise the specific powers of an authority under the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The authorisation may be general in favour of a transmission company
or in a given case, special. The route is decided by the transmission company. The decision to mark a
route for laying an electric line is a highly specialized and technical. At that time, it is unrelated to
any specific land owner. The route may be for over hundreds of kilometers passing over Government
lands, lands of local authorities and private lands and it may not be practicable to hear the land
owners along the entire route.
98. Having regard to the specialized and technical nature of the task, and the fact that the lines are
laid for distribution of electricity, it is the view of this Court that, the Legislature has not provided
for any notice or hearing to the public at large, or to the land owners. Therefore, when the
appropriate Government authorises a person or any body under the Electricity Act, to exercise the
powers of the Telegraph Authority, all the powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, are meant
to be exercised.
99. Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment, with a specific purpose of providing electricity
to a large number of people, across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development
in all walks of life. Right of a land owner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a
Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right has to yield to
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals,
enshrined in the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
100. In the case on hand, when the appropriate Government considers the Techno-Economic
feasibility of execution of a project, in terms of Section 43 of the Act, which in the humble opinion of
this Court, is in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a land owner has no
right to object to the process involved in achieving the Constitutional Goals.
101. Telegraph Act authorises entry into any land, for the purpose of erection of poles or posts and
drawing transmission lines over the property. While erecting posts or posts, in the land or drawing
lines over the property, one may have to suffer damages, but in the larger interest of the public and
considering the mandate to provide electricity, right to use the property, in the manner, as desired
by the owner of the property, stands eclipsed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, read
with the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Electricity Acts. The owner can only seek
for compensation to the extent of damage caused.

102. User of the land by the licencee or the competent authority does not amount to acquisition of
land and therefore, the land owner is entitled to compensation, only to the extent of usage by the
licencee or competent authority, for erecting poles or posts or drawing lines over the land.
103. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, a notification has been issued invoking Section 164
of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, Section 67 (1) of the said Act or the Works of Licensees Rules,
2006 made under Section 67 (2) are not attracted and as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondents can proceed with the
placing of electric supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of the electricity in or over any
land, without acquiring the same, and there is no need to obtain the consent of the land owner.
104. In the instant case, the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate has passed the orders, after
considering the objections of the petitioner in proper perspective, in consonance with the legal
position. The contentions of the petitioner that due to objections raised by the adjacent land owners,
alignment has been changed, is not substantiated. While considering the right of the land owner or
any person interested to claim compensation, in the light of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885
and the orders passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, reduction in time, utility of the
land and diminution in the value, can be raised, as a ground, while making a claim on the adequacy
of compensation and the District Collector would consider the same, subject of course to the
entitlement of such land owner.
105. In the light of the decisions and discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest
illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. The impugned order is sustained. In the
result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
also closed.
29.11.2013 Index: Yes Internet: Yes skm To
1. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Erode District. Erode.
2. The Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., K.R.Thoppu, Konakkapadi
(PO), Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam (Via), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem.
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
Skm
3. The Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
765 KV DC Line, 17/4, Vivekanandar Street, Ghandi Nagar, Naciyanoor Road, Erode.
Writ Petition No.18548 of 2013 29.11.2013

T.bhuvaneswari Vs The District Collector Cum ... On 29 November, 2013

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T.bhuvaneswari Vs The District Collector Cum ... On 29 November, 2013

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T.Bhuvaneswari vs The District Collector Cum ...

Madras High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

2. The Deputy General Manager,

3. The Chief Engineer,

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gandhi, Sr. Counsel

For Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B Dolia

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 1

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 2

documents enclosed in the typed set of papers.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 3

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 4

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 5

Transmission of Electricity or for the purpose of Telephonic or Telegraphic communication,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 6

<nuhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspd; bray;Kiwfs;.

<nuhL tl;lk; ? bfhLko cs;tl;lk; ?

brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; ? g[y vz;/275-4. 278-3. 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs;

bra;jJ ? khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;

tprhuiz bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jy;

? bjhlu;ghf ghu;it: 1/brd;id cau;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz kD vz;/28337-2012 jPu;g;g[iu ehs;

18/10/2012/ 2/jp-s;/ gtu; fphpl; fhu;g;gnuc&d; Mg;

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 7

,e;jpah ypl;/. foj ehs; 08/01/2013 3/khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu;

g[yj;jzpf;if ehs; 01/03/2013 4/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytu; mtu;fspd;

tprhuiz ehs; 11/03/2013 ?????

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 8

-cz;ik efy; - cj;jut[g;go-

khtl;l Ml;rpaUf;fhf Translated version of the above contents are as follows:

Proceedings of the District Collector, Erode District Present: Dr.V.K.Shanmugam, I.A.S.

R.C.354/2013/K4 Dated: 13.06.2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 9

3. Spot Inspection, of the District Collector on 01.03.2013.

4. Enquiry of the District Collector on 11.03.2013.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 10

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 11

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 12

(2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply--

(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 13

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 14

"185. Repeal and saving.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 15

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 16

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 17

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 18

necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 19

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 20

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 21

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 22

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 23

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 24

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 25

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 26

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 27

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 28

43. In K.Maruthamuthu v. The District Magistrate [W.P.(MD)No.4388 of 2007, dated 24.05.2007],

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 29

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 30

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 31

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/42929300/ 32