Can Landowners Object to High-Tension Electricity Lines Drawn Over Their Land? Calcutta High Court Reaffirms Limited Right and Compensation Principles under the Electricity Act, 2003

The Calcutta High Court clarifies that landowners cannot raise valid objections to the mere drawing of high-tension electricity lines over their land under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, they retain the right to compensation only if actual damage is caused to their property. This judgment affirms existing Supreme Court precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name WPA/22427/2025 of SUBHANDU SOREN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
CNR WBCHCA0444602025
Date of Registration 16-09-2025
Decision Date 27-10-2025
Disposal Nature DISPOSED
Judgment Author HON’BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA
Court Calcutta High Court
Bench Single Judge (HON’BLE JUSTICE KAUSIK CHANDA)
Precedent Value Binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal
Overrules / Affirms Affirms existing precedent, specifically Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles (2017)
Type of Law Electricity Law / Administrative Law
Questions of Law
  • Whether a landowner can validly object to drawing of high-tension electricity lines over their land
  • Entitlement to compensation in such scenarios under Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003
Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that no valid objection can be raised to the drawing of high-tension lines over one’s land if no land is acquired or utilized. The licensee company, operating under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, possesses the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Compensation is only available if the drawing of lines causes actual damage to property; mere drawing of lines does not itself entitle a landowner to compensation. The petitioner may seek compensation from the appropriate authority if they allege damage.

Judgments Relied Upon Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited, (2017) 5 SCC 143
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court Interpretation of Section 164, Electricity Act, 2003 and application of Supreme Court precedent in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Facts as Summarised by the Court The petitioner sought compensation for drawing high-tension lines over his land, which were installed for the benefit of respondent steel plant owners. A prior writ had directed administrative assistance for tower installation, affirming no right to object unless damage was caused. The cables are being laid, and if the petitioner suffers damage, he may claim compensation before the appropriate authority.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts in West Bengal
Persuasive For Other High Courts, especially when interpreting Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003; authorities under the Act
Overrules None
Distinguishes None
Follows Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited, (2017) 5 SCC 143

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Reaffirms that landowners cannot validly object to the mere drawing of high-tension lines over their land under powers conferred by Section 164, Electricity Act, 2003.
  • Compensation is only available if actual, demonstrable damage to property occurs due to the installation or drawing of the high-tension lines.
  • Any claim for compensation must be pursued before the appropriate authority as per law.
  • The precedent is binding and can be cited to counter objections to high-tension line construction in similar factual scenarios.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited (2017) 5 SCC 143 to clarify the legal position regarding drawing of high-tension electricity lines.
  • Interpreted Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which vests the licensee with the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, including the power to draw lines over private land.
  • Affirmed that no valid objection may be made against the mere drawing of electricity lines unless the land is acquired or utilized or actual property damage is caused.
  • Stated that if installation causes property damage, the affected person retains the right to seek compensation from the appropriate authority.
  • Directed that administrative and police assistance be provided for installation and drawal of lines, with costs borne by the project petitioners.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Sought compensation for the installation of high-tension electric lines over his land.

Respondent (State and Respondent Nos. 10 & 11)

  • Submitted that installation was in accordance with legal and judicial direction.
  • Noted that the necessary towers have been installed and process of laying cables is ongoing.

Factual Background

The petitioner filed a writ seeking compensation for high-tension electrical lines drawn over his land, the installation of which was necessitated for the steel plant owned by Respondent Nos. 10 and 11. Previously, the court had directed local administration to assist in the installation, citing the petitioner’s lack of valid objection unless actual damage occurred. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for compensation if he suffered damage due to the lines.

Statutory Analysis

  • The judgment interprets Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, confirming that this provision grants the licensee company the same powers as the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, permitting construction of towers and drawing of lines over private land.
  • The Court clarified that compensation may be claimed only if there is proof of damage causally connected to the installation or drawing of lines.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies binding Supreme Court precedent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.