Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court

"Even when there is material to show that the laying of cables is proposed through the private land, the licensee cannot be restrained from laying the cables in accordance with the rules, and subject to the liability to pay the compensation wherever provided." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 23, 2026, has held that the statutory authority to lay electricity cables for public utility projects cannot be thwarted by private property claims, as the remedy for landowners lies in seeking compensation rather than causing obstruction.

A single-judge bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar observed that once the necessity of an electricity project is established and the majority of the work is complete, courts must balance the equities to ensure large-scale infrastructure does not become nugatory due to localized resistance.

The petitioner, Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, was in the process of laying a 14-km underground High Tension (HT) cable from a sub-station to its manufacturing plant after obtaining requisite permissions from MSEDCL and local authorities. While 13.8 km of the work was completed, the final 200-meter stretch was obstructed by residents of Induri village who claimed the land was their private property. Both the Civil Judge and the District Judge at Vadgaon Maval had refused to grant a temporary injunction to the company, leading to the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for an injunction to complete the remaining 200 meters of a 14-km project. The court was also called upon to determine whether the statutory powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Electricity Act, 2003, allow for the laying of lines through disputed land subject to compensation, and whether interim relief amounting to final relief could be granted in such exceptional circumstances.

Court Criticizes Lower Courts For Ignoring Project Scale

The High Court noted that the trial court and the District Court had committed a "gross error in law" by failing to weigh the consequences of refusing an injunction. The bench observed that the petitioner had already completed 99% of the work, and halting the final 200 meters rendered the entire 13.8-km stretch useless. Justice Jamadar remarked that the courts below were "swayed by totally irrelevant considerations" and failed to appreciate that the project was sanctioned by MSEDCL for a dedicated distribution facility.

Right To Compensation Over Right To Obstruction

Addressing the dispute over whether the land was a public road or private property, the court held that even if the land were assumed to be private, the law does not permit absolute obstruction. Relying on the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the court emphasized that Section 10 empowers authorities to place lines under or across any immovable property. The bench noted that the only right a landowner possesses in such a scenario is to claim full compensation for any damage sustained, as mandated under Clause (d) of Section 10.

Statutory Empowerment Under Indian Telegraph Act

The Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles And Industries Limited, which highlights the imperative need for unobstructed access to lay electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest. The bench observed that the legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment in achieving the objective of electrification and infrastructure growth.

High Court Clarifies Scope Of Licensee Rights

Justice Jamadar rejected the respondents' argument that the company was not a "licensee" but merely a consumer. The court held that since the work was being carried out pursuant to a sanction by MSEDCL (the licensee) to provide a dedicated distribution facility, the statutory rights under the Telegraph Act remained applicable. A constricted view of the matter would denude the authorities of their power to carry out essential infrastructure work.

HDD Method Ensures Minimal Surface Disruption

The court took particular note of the Petitioner's undertaking to use the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method. The bench observed that this specialized trenchless technology allows drilling entirely beneath the surface, ensuring that agricultural use and adjoining land parcels are not adversely impacted. This factor significantly tilted the balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner, as any potential damage would be minimal and could be adequately compensated in terms of money.

Exceptional Circumstances For Granting Final Relief At Interim Stage

While acknowledging that courts should ordinarily refrain from granting interim relief that amounts to final relief, the High Court held that this is not an "immutable rule of law." Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Deoraj vs. State of Maharashtra, the bench stated that in rare cases where a very strong prima facie case is made out and the refusal of relief would result in injustice, such orders are justified. The court found that withholding the injunction would "prick the conscience of the Court" and lead to extreme hardship.

The High Court quashed the orders of the trial court and the District Court, allowing the application for a temporary injunction. The court permitted the petitioner to complete the remaining 200-meter stretch using the HDD method. To balance the equities, the court directed Mondelez to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 as security before the trial court to ensure that if the suit eventually fails, the respondents can be adequately compensated for the use of the land.

Date of Decision: 23 June 2026