Right Of Way | Electricity Transmission Projects Do Not Require Prior Consent Of Landowner; Prior Intimation And Statutory Compensation Suffice: Telangana High Court

"The petitioner, except claiming compensation as per law, cannot hinder or obstruct the work of transmission lines, in light of the settled law as per Kalpataru." Telangana High Court, in a ruling, held that a landowner cannot obstruct the execution of a public infrastructure project for electrical transmission lines, provided the authorities adhere to statutory safeguards and provide adequate compensation for damages.

A single bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that the right of user for laying transmission lines is a statutory power and that the owner's prior consent is not a mandatory condition precedent for the commencement of work.

Dispute Over Transmission Line Construction

The petitioner, a landowner in Vikarabad District, challenged the actions of the Power Grid Corporation, alleging that his land was entered and excavated for a 765 KV transmission line without prior notice. He further contended that uncontrolled blasting activities were conducted on his property, violating his constitutional rights and provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The respondent corporation maintained that the project is a government-approved infrastructure initiative and that the petitioner had suppressed facts regarding existing title disputes over the subject property.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the lack of individual prior notice to the petitioner rendered the transmission project illegal and whether the petitioner could seek a writ of mandamus to stop the construction. It also examined the interplay between the statutory rights of the Power Grid Corporation to enter land under the Electricity Act, 2003, and the landowner’s right to compensation and procedural fairness under the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Power Grid's Right Of User Under Statute

The court noted that the respondents are empowered under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to enter upon land and erect towers for public utility projects. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod, the bench clarified that the project’s public purpose overrides the individual’s right to stall critical infrastructure. The court emphasized that the landowner’s remedy lies in seeking adequate compensation rather than obstructing the execution of the project.

No Absolute Right To Prior Individual Notice

The court further observed that the respondent, being a public corporation, is not required to adjudicate title disputes before initiating transmission works. Since the respondents agreed to deposit the due compensation before the competent authority for eventual disbursal to the rightful titleholder, the court found no procedural infirmity. The bench held that the petitioner could not invoke general principles of natural justice to hinder the larger public interest involved in the 113.28 km transmission project.

"This Court is inclined to observe that respondent being a Corporation cannot be expected to delve into and deliberate upon the aspect as to whether the recorded owner is the actual owner."

Statutory Compensation For Actual Damages

The court reiterated that the Power Grid Corporation is bound to pay compensation for the actual damage caused to crops, trees, or structures, in accordance with the 2015 Government Guidelines. By directing that the compensation be deposited with the competent authority to be paid to the lawful owner once the title dispute is resolved, the court ensured the petitioner’s pecuniary interests remained protected. Finding no evidence of mala fides or illegality, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the essential grievances stood addressed.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026