1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the notice dated 06.05.2026 issued by respondent No.5, whereby he has been informed that his land is proposed to be utilized for the purpose stated therein on the basis of a communication issued in the year 2011 and that compensation in respect of the said land has already been determined, notwithstanding the fact that no proceedings for acquisition of the land are stated to have been undertaken in accordance with law. The petitioner has further been directed to receive the compensation from the Land Acquisition Department, District Janjgir-Champa. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice was served upon him on 08.05.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

          "10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner particularly the documents leading to the passing of the impugned notice from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

          10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 06/05/2026 Annexure P-1 issued by the Respondent No.5, in the interest of justice.

          10.3 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner against the respondents under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aman Tamboli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ravikar Patel, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Union of India, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 to 6/State, Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 and 8 and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is one of the co-owners of land bearing Khasra No.2011/1/क situated at Village Banari, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa. It is submitted that a memo dated 22.04.2026 was served upon the petitioner on 24.04.2026 informing him that an electricity transmission tower line and poles are proposed to be erected over the subject land. By the said memo, the petitioner was called upon to submit his objection/consent within seven days. He would further submit that immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.04.2026 requesting the respondents to furnish the relevant documents and proceedings on the basis of which the respondents proposed to utilize the subject land so as to enable him to effectively raise his objections. However, despite such request, no documents were supplied to the petitioner. It is contended that without affording any opportunity of hearing and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, respondent No.5 proceeded to issue the impugned notice dated 06.05.2026 informing the petitioner that compensation had already been determined and directing him to receive the same from the competent authority. It is further submitted that the subject property is jointly held by several co- owners and yet neither the co-owners were associated with the proceedings nor was any meaningful opportunity afforded to them. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the impugned notice records that all concerned persons were present on 06.05.2026 and that a panchnama was prepared in their presence. However, according to the petitioner, such recital is factually incorrect as he was not available on the said date and was travelling outside the station. It is submitted that the petitioner is not opposing the public project as such but is aggrieved by the denial of an opportunity to know the basis of the proposed action and to raise his objections before the competent authority.

4. Per contra, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 to 6, submits that the proposed transmission line is a public utility project undertaken in larger public interest. It is submitted that the erection of transmission towers and transmission lines is governed by the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the applicable statutory framework, under which prior consent of the landholder is not a condition precedent. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot obstruct the execution of the project merely on the ground that he has not consented to the same.

5. Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 and 8, and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.9, adopt the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and submit that the project is of substantial public importance. However, they fairly submit that if the petitioner desires to place his objections before the competent authority, the respondents have no objection if an opportunity of hearing is afforded to him and the other co-owners before proceeding further.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From the pleadings and submissions advanced, it appears that the principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite seeking relevant documents by representation dated 30.04.2026, no documents were supplied to him and no effective opportunity of hearing was granted before issuance of the impugned notice dated 06.05.2026. The petitioner also contends that several co- owners of the land have not been associated with the proceedings.

8. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the project in question concerns erection of an electricity transmission tower line, which is a public utility project. Prima facie, the statutory scheme governing such projects does not require prior consent of the landholder before erection of transmission towers. Nevertheless, principles of fairness require that the affected landholder be apprised of the nature of the proceedings and be afforded an opportunity to place such objections as may be available to him in law.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority to hear the petitioner as well as the other co-owners/interested persons before taking any further decision pursuant to the impugned notice.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner, other co-owners/interested persons and respondents No.7 to 9 shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir, on 01.07.2026. Upon their appearance, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Janjgir shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, provide such relevant documents as may be permissible in law and thereafter consider the objections and submissions raised by them before passing an appropriate reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

11. The competent authority shall also apprise the petitioner and the other co-owners regarding the nature of the project, the proposed erection of the transmission tower line, the statutory provisions governing the same and the basis for determination of compensation, if any.

12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all questions are left open for consideration by the competent authority.

13. The learned Deputy Advocate General shall ensure compliance of this order and shall submit before the Registry a compliance report along with a copy of the order passed by the competent authority.

14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.