The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a landowner's prior consent is not required for laying an electricity transmission line where the electrical company has been vested with the powers of the Telegraph Authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 366]

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal clarified that once such powers are conferred, the company can exercise the powers available to the Telegraph Authority under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (ITA). 

The court further clarified that the requirement of obtaining the landowner's consent under Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 does not apply once the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act have been validly conferred. 

"sanction under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has been upheld above, and is subject to the same statutory scheme. Once these powers stand validly conferred and invoked, neither prior consent nor a pre decisional hearing is a precondition to the exercise of the power to survey and align the line". 

The court made these observations while dismissing two writ petitions challenging the laying of a 132 kVV transmission line in the Mandideep area.

The petitions arose out of a project of second-circuit stringing of the 132kV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line. MP Power Transmission Co. Ltd. (MPPTC) had issued a notification on June 10, 2024, sanctioning the project. Subsequently, the Raisen Collector passed an order on July 30, 2025, permitting the transmission line to be laid for supplying electricity to a new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd. 

One of the petitions was filed by Daulat Ram Engineering Services Company (petitioner no 1), operating a railway-component manufacturing unit since 2003 and Nasa Corporation (petitioner no 2), which has been manufacturing heat-exchange equipment since 2013. Out of 13 towers, the petitioners were aggrieved by the location of Towers 7 and 8. Tower 8 was proposed to be erected on Nasa Corporation's land, while no tower was proposed on the frontage of petitioner no1's property. 

The petitioners had suggested an alternative alignment, which was rejected by the technical expert team after the spot inspection revealed that the alternative route would place Tower 8 only 3.5 meters from the existing gas pipeline, contrary to safety clearance requirements under Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023.

When work on the transmission line was obstructed, respondent no. 4 (Nahar Spinning Mills) first filed a civil suit, which was dismissed. It thereafter approached the High Court in December 2025, which passed an interim protection order against interference with construction. 

The petitioners argued that construction of the transmission line over their property without consent or prior notice violated Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 and Regulation 63(1) of the CEA Regulations, 2023. 

It was argued that Section 164 of the Electricity Act could not be used for a transmission line intended to supply a single private consumer. According to them, the proposed alignment was arbitrary, and the rejection of the alternative route was not properly reasoned. 

The court examined the provision dealing with works of electricity licensees, noting that Rule 3(a) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 generally requires licensees to obtain the prior consent of the owner or occupier before carrying out works on private property. 

However, the court pointed out that Rule 3(4) expressly creates an exception, providing that noting in Rule 3 affects the powers conferred upon a licensee under Section 164 of the Electricity Act. 

According to the court, this means that the consent requirement under Rule 3(a) ceases to apply once the powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act have been validly conferred and exercised. The court explained that Section 164 enables the Appropriate Government to confer upon an electricity licensee the powers that are available to the Telegraph Authority under the ITA. 

The bench held that a landowner cannot insist that a transmission line must be routed around his property merely because he does not consent to the use of his land. The statutory remedy available to the affected landowner is compensation under Section 10(d) with Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. 

The court also noted that the alternative route suggested by the petitioners had not been rejected as an afterthought during the litigation. The technical team had rejected it on November 22, 2024, almost a year before the petitioners subsequently proposed the same route. Importantly, the court found that the alternative route itself would violate the safety clearance required between the high-tension transmission line and the existing gas pipeline. 

The bench emphasized that safety regulations concerning high-voltage transmission lines and gas pipelines cannot be treated as mere technical formalities. The court found that the petitioners' suggested alternative would affect other landowners. 

The court further rejected the argument that Section 164 of the Electricity Act cannot be invoked for a private consumer, reiterating that the transmission line initially supplying electricity to one industrial consumer does not, by itself, deprive the line of its statutory character. 

Further, the court declined to decide disputed factual issues, including a staff building, mess, national flag mast, floodlights, and cargo dispatch area. The court further faulted the petitioners for not disclosing earlier proceedings concerning the same transmission corridor. 

The court also noted that the petitioners approached the High Court after a substantial delay. The court noted that the present petitions were filed more than 17 months after initial notification and 9 months after 13 towers were already erected.

Thus, the court held that the absence of the petitioner's consent did not violate the exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act and under Sections 10 and 16 of the ITA. Dismissing the petitions, the court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on each petitioner to be paid to Nahar Poly Films Ltd. 

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ajay Gupta with Advocate Rajeev Mishra

For INT: Advocate Qasim Ali 

For Respondent: Advocate Navtej Singh Ruprah

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Satya Prakash Mishra

For State: Government Advocate Anubhav Jain