Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that landowner consent is not required once the powers of the Telegraph Authority are conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (“MP HC”), in its recent judgment in Daulat Ram Engineering Services Limited and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors.[1] (“Judgment”) has held that the prior consent of a landowner under Rule 3(1)(a)[2] of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (“2006 Rules”) is not required once the licensee is conferred the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 164[3] of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Electricity Act”). In a significant clarification for the power sector, the MP HC has confined a landowner’s remedy to compensation under Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3)[4] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (“Telegraph Act”), and not writ proceedings seeking a change in the alignment of the transmission line. Further, the MP HC has clarified that Section 164 of the Electricity Act can be invoked for a line laid for supply to one industrial consumer, so long as the transmission line is owned and maintained by the licensee and can be tapped in by other consumers.
Brief facts
- Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Co. Ltd. (“MPPTCL”) issued a notification on June 10, 2024 (“Notification”) sanctioning the second circuit stringing of the 132 (one hundred and thirty-two) kilovolt DCSS Mandideep–Nahar transmission line.
- The Collector, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh issued an order dated July 30, 2025 (“Order”) under Section 10[5] of the Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act permitting the laying of transmission line, for supply of electricity to a new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd.
- The Petitioners’ own industrial land at Village Simrai, Mandideep and were affected by towers 7 and 8 which were standing on their land. MPPTCL examined and rejected an earlier alignment which would have placed towers 8 and 9 away from the petitioner’s land. This was because the tower in that alignment would have stood 3.5 (three point five) metres from an existing gas pipeline, contrary to Regulation 63(1)[6] of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023 (“2023 Regulations”). The Petitioners’ subsequent proposal dated November 20, 2025 for an alternate route was also declined.
- Aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions (“Petitions”) challenging the Notification and the Order. They contended that the construction, without notice or prior consent, violated Rule 3(a) of the 2006 Rules and Regulation 63(1) of the 2023 Regulations. The petitioners further argued that Section 164 of the Electricity Act could not have been invoked for a line dedicated to a private consumer.
Issues
- Whether prior landowner consent under Rule 3(a) of the 2006 Rules is required subsequent to the conferment of powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act?
- Whether Section 164 of the Electricity Act can be invoked for a line laid for supply to a single private consumer?
- Whether the choice of alignment and the disputed factual assertions about structures beneath it can be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Findings and analysis
The MP HC dismissed the Petitions and held as follows:
- Rule 3(4) of the 2006 Rules provides that nothing in Rule 3 will affect the powers conferred on a licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. On a plain reading, the consent requirement in Rule 3(a) of the 2006 Rules does not survive once Section 164 of the Electricity Act stands invoked, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited[7] (“PGCIL Judgment”);
- once Section 164 of the Electricity Act dispenses with the landowners’ consent, a landowner cannot insist on an alignment that merely avoids his own land. The remedy that survives is compensation under Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, which the Petitioners had not claimed;
- the MP HC rejected the submission that Section 164 of the Electricity Act is available only for works benefiting the public at large, relying on Century Rayon Limited vs. IVP Limited[8]. It held that a line augmenting supply to a single industrial consumer does not lose its statutory and public character as the licensee, MPPTCL, owns and maintains the line which remains available for other consumers to tap;
- conflicting claims about the existence, height and date of erection of physical structures raise disputed questions of fact, which the MP HC cannot resolve in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The MP HC left such questions open for the civil court or for a compensation claim under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act; and
- the alignment of high-tension lines and the erection of transmission towers turn on technical evaluation, safety parameters and engineering judgment exercised by the competent statutory authorities and domain experts. The MP HC declined to substitute its own assessment for that of the specialised authorities in matters of technical expertise.
Conclusion
The Judgment applies the PGCIL Judgment and settles that the requirement for prior consent under the 2006 Rules must give way once Section 164 of the Electricity Act is invoked. Effectively, a landowner aggrieved by the alignment of a transmission line can only claim compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. Further, the Judgment clarifies that Section 164 of the Electricity Act can be invoked for a line laid for supply to one industrial consumer, so long as the transmission line is owned and maintained by the licensee and can be tapped in by other consumers.
The Judgment is significant for transmission licensees, tariff based competitive bidding project special purpose vehicles and engineering, procurement and construction contractors since it confirms that right of way objections cannot stall construction once Section 164 powers stand conferred. For an industrial consumer taking supply through a dedicated line, the Judgment is relevant as it clarifies that the consumer bearing the cost of construction does not affect the ownership or public character of the line. The ownership remains vested in the licensee, regardless of who bears the cost.
This Prism has been prepared by:
|
Akshat Jain |
Sayan Ghosh |
|
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.
[1]Writ Petition No. 49694 of 2025 with Writ Petition No. 32213 of 2025
[2]Rule 3(1)(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 allows a licensee to carry out works or place electric supply lines on or through private property with the prior consent of the owner or occupier.
[3] Section 164 of the Electricity Act empowers the appropriate Government to confer the powers of a ‘Telegraph Authority’ under the Telegraph Act on specified persons for placing electric lines and electrical plants for transmission of electricity, subject to the conditions which may be imposed by the Appropriate Government and the provisions of the Telegraph Act.
[4] Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act provides for payment of compensation for damage sustained by the owner or occupier of property due to the exercise of telegraph powers; Section 16(3) empowers the District Judge to determine the sufficiency of such compensation where a dispute arises regarding the amount payable.
[5] Section 10 of the Telegraph Act empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts over or upon immovable property, subject to the statutory conditions. It also provides for payment of compensation for damage caused to the property in the exercise of such powers.
[6] Regulation 63(1) of the 2023 Regulations mandates that an overhead electrical line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible, and no building shall be constructed under an existing overhead line
[7] [(2017) 5 SCC 143]
[8] [(2021) 20 SCC 758]
