Individual Landowners Cannot Claim Compensation From State For Overhead Lines: J&K&L High Court

A Division Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma, while observing that “aerial right of way for transmission lines continues to vest with the State and the individual land owners cannot assert any right for the same,” held that “the appellant having received compensation of 05 Marlais of land by private negotiation, the issue with regard to payment of compensation stands settled.”

The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment passed by a Single Bench whereby the writ petition seeking compensation for land over which transmission towers were erected and overhead transmission lines were laid was dismissed.

The respondents initiated the process for laying transmission lines for 220 KV D/C Zainakote-Amargarh line. The appellant was one of the land owners whose land was acquired for construction of a tower structure. Payment for 05 marlas of land was made to the appellant on negotiated rates fixed during a private negotiation committee in 2008 under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, but the appellant sought compensation for the entire land.

The appellant made an application for shifting of the tower foundation, but the same was not considered due to technical feasibility as the transmission route stood approved through the Central Electricity Authority, Government of India. The appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed a consideration order rejecting the claim as not tenable under the rules.

Thereafter, the appellant filed another writ challenging the consideration order and seeking a direction for payment of compensation for the land over which transmission towers were erected as well as for the land over which overhead transmission lines were laid, including compensation for fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that a land owner cannot assert any legal, fundamental or constitutional right qua transmission line and the aerial right of way in respect of the transmission line continues to vest with the State. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Court's Observations:

The High Court noted the appellant's contention that the high transmission line of 220 KV passing through the middle of his land rendered the entire land useless, and though the tower was constructed only on 05 marlas, the high voltage transmission lines affected his entire land, for which compensation should have been paid.

The respondents contended that there exists no provision for grant of compensation for land falling under overhead transmission lines, and that compensation for trees cut for providing a clear corridor had already been assessed and paid.

The Court observed that the only issue for consideration was whether aerial right of way can be asserted by an individual. It held,

“.... aerial right of way for transmission lines continues to vest with the State and the individual land owners cannot assert any right for the same.”

Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Ranvijay Chand and others v. State of J&K and others, reported as 2005 (1) JKJ 236, the Court quoted,

“it cannot be interfered notwithstanding that the transmission lines are being spread over the field of the individuals, subject to their right to claim damages, if approved. However, with regard to the aerial right of way, it continues to be with the State and the individual owners cannot claim compensation in respect thereof.”

The Court further observed from the same judgment,

“... The transmission lines are being laid as per the original alignment approved in the project report in pursuance of the sanctioned scheme and its feasibility cleared by the Techno-Economic Committee. The towers are being erected on which the transmission lines are to be laid across the land of the appellants/petitioners, in the manner provided in the project report and in such event, the appellants/petitioners cannot assert any right legal, fundamental or constitutional right qua transmission line.”

The Court held,

“In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement that aerial right of way of transmission lines remains with the State and individual land owners cannot assert any right over the same unless there is any loss or damage resulting therefrom, the appellant having received compensation of 05 Marlais of land by private negotiation, the issue with regard to payment of compensation stands settled. The contention of the appellant regarding payment of compensation for the land coming under the transmission corridor is not admissible in view of the judgment of this Court in Ranvijay Chand (supra).”

The Court also noted that compensation for trees which were cut for providing corridor to the transmission lines was being assessed and lying in the office of the Collector, for which the appellant could approach the said office.

Finding no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned that warranted interference, the appeal, being without any merit, was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Ghulam Mohi Uddin Sheikh v. Union Territory of J&K and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment