Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 May, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:22776
NAFR
AVINASH
SHARMA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.05.20
WPC No. 2448 of 2026
15:30:39 +0530
1 - Pramod Gupta S/o Late Shri J.P. Gupta Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Chicholi-Khaira, Tahsil Nandghad, P.S. Nandghat District
Bemetara (C.G.), At Present- Sheela Parisar Phase-2, Bharati Nagar,
Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Collector District Bemetara (C.G.)
3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl)
Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Executive Engineer Cspdcl, District Bemetara (C.G.)
5 - Junior Engineer Cspdcl, Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi,
Advocate.
For State/respondent : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL.
For respective respondent : Shri K Rohan, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
14/05/2026
1. The Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra
No.183/1, 186/1, 187/1, 19/2 and 20 in Village Khaira and
Chicholi, Tehsil Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.), on which
respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (CSPDCL) have illegally erected
electrically charge pole without prior notice, consent, or
compliance with the mandatory conditions issued by the State
Government. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the
2
following reliefs : –
10.1 Issue a writ, order, or direction in
the nature of Mandamus declaring that
the action of Respondent No. 5 in
erecting the electric pole on the
Petitioner’s private land is ultra vires to
the mandates of the Electricity Act,
2003, and the Works of Licensees
Rules, 2006, having been performed
without the authority of law and in total
disregard of statutory procedures.
10.2 Issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to
immediately remove the electric pole
and associated high-tension wires from
the Petitioner’s land as described in
Annexure P-1 and P-2, and restore the
land to its original cultivable state.
10.3 Direct the respondent authorities
adequate compensation to grant/pay to
the petitioner in accordance with law
and procedure.
10.4 Direct Respondent No. 2 to decide
the representation of the Petitioner
dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) within
a specific time-bound period, keeping in
view the statutory violations committed
by the subordinate authorities.
10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case be also
granted to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the absolute
owner and cultivator of agricultural lands situated at villages
Khaira and Chicholi, bearing Khasra Nos. 183/1, 186/1, 187/1,
19/2 & 20, PC No.20, R.I. Circle & Tehsil Nandghat, District
Bemetara (C.G.). Without issuing any notice, obtaining prior
3
consent, or following due process of law, Respondent No.5 –
Junior Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company
Limited (CSPDCL) illegally entered the Petitioner’s private
agricultural land and erected high-tension electricity poles in the
middle of the fields. The said act amounts to blatant trespass and
unauthorized interference with the Petitioner’s property.
Photographs evidencing the illegal installation are annexed as
Annexure P-3. The installation has been carried out in complete
violation of the statutory mandate contained in Rule 3(1) of the
Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which requires prior consent of
the owner or occupier before carrying out any works on private
land. The erection of the electrically charged pole in the center of
the agricultural field has caused serious obstruction in agricultural
operations, particularly in the use of mechanized farming
equipment. The presence of the live pole also poses a constant
threat to the life and safety of the Petitioner and his agricultural
laborers. Aggrieved by the illegal action, the Petitioner submitted a
representation dated 28.01.2026 before Respondent No.5
(Annexure P-4), seeking immediate removal of the pole. However,
no action was taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted a further
representation dated 07.04.2026 before the Collector, District
Bemetara (Annexure P-5), requesting appropriate intervention.
Despite the same, the Respondents failed to conduct any
technical feasibility survey or prepare a panchnama in the
presence of the Petitioner, as is the standard procedure before
4
installation of infrastructure on private agricultural land. It is
submitted that sufficient government land and alternative
alignments are available nearby where the pole could have been
installed without encroaching upon the Petitioner’s productive
agricultural land. The arbitrary decision to install the pole in the
center of the Petitioner’s field demonstrates non-application of
mind and abuse of statutory powers. The Petitioner is a small-
scale farmer whose sole source of livelihood depends upon the
said land. Due to the illegal encroachment, a substantial portion of
the field has been rendered unfit for effective cultivation and future
agricultural development. Despite repeated representations and
the lapse of considerable time, the Respondents have failed to
discharge their statutory obligations, compelling the Petitioner to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction
activity being undertaken by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (CSPDCL) for
installing transmission towers on the agricultural land of petitioner
is patently illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of both Central
and State Government mandates designed to protect rights of
landowners. The respondents entered the land of petitioner
without any notice, survey, or consent and began erecting
electricity poles in the agricultural land of the petitioner.
5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that because
the Respondents have acted in clear contravention of Rule 3(4) of
the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, which mandates that where
the owner or occupier does not grant consent, the licensee must
apply to the District Magistrate or any other officer authorized by
the State Government for appropriate permission. In the present
case, no such application was ever made by Respondent
authorities, prior to forcibly installing the electricity pole on the
Petitioner’s land. The entire action is therefore procedurally illegal
and void ab initio. The installation of the pole in the middle of the
Petitioner’s cultivated agricultural field is arbitrary, unreasonable,
and reflects complete non-application of mind. The Respondents
deliberately chose a location causing maximum inconvenience
and hardship to the Petitioner, despite availability of alternative
alignments and nearby government land. The failure of
Respondent No.2 – Collector, District Bemetara, to act upon the
Petitioner’s representation amounts to abdication of statutory and
administrative duty. The grievance raised involves serious issues
of public safety, property rights, and violation of statutory
safeguards. The continued inaction is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the
Respondents is in violation of Section 10(d) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, which clearly mandates that the authority
shall cause as little damage as possible and shall pay full
compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained
6
by exercise of such powers. By installing the pole in the center of
a productive agricultural field and rendering a substantial portion
of land unfit for mechanized cultivation, the Respondents have
failed to minimize damage and have not paid any compensation
whatsoever. It is well settled by various High Courts and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to lay transmission lines or
erect poles does not confer any ownership rights over the land
upon the licensee. Such statutory power must be exercised
reasonably, fairly, and without arbitrariness. The Respondents
have exercised their powers in an oppressive and high-handed
manner. He submits that Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 provides that in case of resistance or obstruction, the
District Magistrate may, in his discretion, pass appropriate orders
permitting the telegraph authority to exercise its powers. In the
present case, there was no prior resistance nor any adjudication
by the District Magistrate. The Respondents completely bypassed
this statutory safeguard and unilaterally proceeded with
installation, rendering the action illegal and unsustainable in law.
The impugned action of the Respondents violates the Petitioner’s
constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, as deprivation or interference with property
can only be in accordance with procedure established by law,
which has admittedly not been followed in the present case.
Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the argument
7
raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding the
necessity of his consent before the commencement of work on his
land is legally untenable. According to the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885,
prior consent from the landowner is not a requisite for the erection
of transmission lines. The work at hand pertains to a power
transmission project of national importance, and as such, no prior
notice or consent is necessary for erecting poles or constructing
towers. This is well-established by various case laws, which are
set out below. The present case is squarely covered by the order
passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 1538/2025 in the
matter of Manikant Agrawal and Ors. v. State of CG and Ors.,
wherein this Court, by its final order dated 02/04/2025, granted
liberty to the landowners to raise their grievances before
appropriate forums. This case, involving similar circumstances
and the same project, has already been decided, and the present
petition should therefore be dismissed in light of the earlier order.
The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
construction is illegal and unauthorized is also contrary to law. The
State Government, by its Notification dated 13/12/2006, has
issued general authorization in favor of the officers of the
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (now CSPDCL, CSPTCL,
etc.), under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This
authorizes the officers to act as the Telegraph Authority and carry
out the work of laying electricity transmission lines. Therefore, the
8
contention of learned counsel for petitioner regarding
unauthorized entry and construction is unfounded. The private
interest of petitioner cannot outweigh the larger public interest in
the successful implementation of such a vital national
infrastructure project. This principle is supported by decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Power Grid Corpn. of India
Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., reported in (2017) 5
SCC 143, in case of Century Rayon Limited v. IVP Limited,
reported in (2021) 20 SCC 758 and the decision of Division Bench
of this Court in case of Reshma Gulabani v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in W.A. No. 395/2013. The
argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that the
construction work cannot proceed until compensation is received
is legally incorrect. According to the ruling of Supreme Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129, the offer or tendering of compensation is
deemed equivalent to the actual payment. Therefore, the
objection raised by the petitioner lacks merit and should not be
entertained.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost
circumspection.
7. Upon reviewing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective parties, it is apparent that while the respondent
9
authorities are required to inform the petitioner prior to entering
upon his land for the erection of the electrical tower, it is pertinent
to note that, as per the applicable regulations, specifically under
the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 10 of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, the prior consent of the landowner is not
required for the erection of transmission lines. Power transmission
is a project of national importance, and thus, no notice or
permission is mandated before the erection of poles or the
construction of any tower. Furthermore, the State Government
issued a notification dated 13.12.2006, which grants a general
authorization in favor of CSPTCL. Pursuant to Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, officers of CSPTCL are empowered to
exercise the authority of the Telegraph Authority in undertaking the
installation of electricity lines. The contention of the petitioner that
his land should not be utilized for the installation of transmission
towers cannot be upheld, given the national significance of
establishing towers for the supply of electricity to the entire nation.
It is noteworthy that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and
both the generation and supply of electricity from this state are of
paramount importance. It is crucial to emphasize that CSPDCL
will not claim ownership of any part of the land where the electrical
tower is situated, as the ownership remains with the petitioner,
who retains title over the land. Only the portion of the land utilized
for the installation of the electricity tower will be used by CSPDCL,
without any further encumbrances.
10
8. In this context, it is instructive to refer to the ruling of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
(Supra), wherein the following was held:
“30. The appellant in this case also
raised the issue of obtaining prior
consent from the landowner before
laying electricity transmission lines.
This argument has been rejected [as
discussed in paras 1 to 28, above] by
us, while addressing the appeal of
Century Textiles & Industries Limited.
Consequently, this appeal is also
dismissed.”
9. Furthermore, in the case of Century Rayon Limited (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“11. The decision in Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd. case
underscores the necessity and urgency
of unobstructed access for laying
electricity transmission lines in the
larger public interest, as these lines are
vital for the country’s growth, economic
development, and the well-being of its
citizens.”
10. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Reshma Gulabani (supra) stated as follows :
“14. The transmission of electricity
is a national necessity, and the
laying down of transmission lines
serves the public interest. In this
instance, the transmission line is
passing over the crushing unit.
The appellant is entitled to
11compensation, but no injunction
can be granted.
15. The writ appeal lacks merit
and is therefore dismissed.”
11. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as
well as the legal precedents set forth by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is abundantly clear that prior consent from the landowner
is not a requisite for the installation of electricity transmission
lines. The laying down of such lines serves a broader public
interest, fulfilling essential requirements for the growth and
development of the nation. The landowner is entitled solely to
compensation and not to an injunction. The authorities cannot be
hindered in their efforts to construct transmission towers for the
transmission of electricity. Therefore, the respondents are
directed to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner,
following a hearing with the petitioner, and the petitioner is hereby
directed not to undertake any actions that would impede the
construction of the electricity transmission towers. The reliefs, as
sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted.
12. With this observation/direction, this writ petition stands disposed
of. The petitioner is at liberty to file suitable application before the
competent authority for grant of compensation.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
