1. The case of the petitioner, according to the writ affidavit, is that he and his family members are lawful owners and possessors of agricultural lands in Survey No. 110 (Ac.5-02 guntas) and Survey No. 131 (Ac.14-27 guntas) at Rompally Village, Vikarabad District. It is stated that his ownership and possession are supported by e-Passbooks, Rythu Bandhu/ Rythu Bima benefits, and agricultural loans availed by him on subject lands. Though certain averments are made in the writ petition alleging illegal deletion of Survey No.110, and altering of Survey No. 131 in favour of another person, the present writ petition essentially concerns a cause of action pertaining to laying of electrical transmission lines from the subject lands, and the blasting activity undertaken by the respondent, allegedly without issuing notice to the petitioner.
1.1. It is stated that on 16.04.2026, the officials of Power Grid Corporation of India allegedly entered the petitioners’ land with a JCB, dug four pits for a 765 KV transmission line without prior notice or acquisition proceedings, and stated that blasting would be undertaken because of the rocky soil. The petitioner immediately issued a notice to the Power Grid authorities demanding that the work be stopped and relevant documents and information be furnished, however, the petitioner has not received any response to that notice.
1.2. The petitioner alleges that despite issuance of notice, the respondent authorities have neither gave a reply nor furnished the information requested through the notice; and instead carried out blasting activity during the intervening night of 21/22.05.2026 in the pits already dug. The petitioner contends that the respondents’ actions violate principles of natural justice, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and Sections 10(d) and 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, particularly the statutory obligations to cause minimum damage, provide requisite intimation, obtain the District Magistrate’s intervention where resistance is raised, and pay full compensation for damage caused.
1.3. Petitioner relies on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation v. Century Textiles ((2017) 5 SCC 143), Century Rayon v. IVP Ltd. ((2021) 20 SCC 758), Krishna Mohan Medical College v. Union of India ((2017) 15 SCC 719), Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ((1985) 3 SCC 545), K. Purushotham Reddy v. Union of India ((2025) 9 SCC 722), Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan ((2025) 2 SCC 1), and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi ((1981) 1 SCC 722).
1.4. It is contended that even though prior consent of a landowner is not necessarily required for laying transmission lines, prior intimation to the landowner and compliance with statutory safeguards and fair procedure are mandatory.
1.5. The petitioner therefore seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents’ failure to issue the required Intimation of Transmission Line Construction, and carrying out blasting activities in the subject lands, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and accordingly seeks a direction to the Power Grid Corporation to issue the requisite notice, furnish the District Magistrate’s order under Section 16(1), and pay full statutory compensation to him and his family members.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No. 3 to 5, i.e., the Power Grid Corporation and its transmission company, contending that Power Grid and the concerned transmission company are duly empowered under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to enter upon land, excavate, erect towers and lay transmission lines, and that the present 765 KV Kurnool-IV–Bidar Double Circuit Transmission Line is a Government-approved public infrastructure project of approximately 113.28 km involving 292 towers, with substantial work already completed and scheduled for total completion by 12.04.2027.
2.1. According to the respondents, the route was finalized after detailed technical, environmental and geo-mapping surveys, considering minimum impact on habitation, crops, religious places, water bodies and other structures, and the project alignment was publicly notified through newspapers on 06.06.2025.
2.2. The respondents deny that the petitioner has established clear ownership over Sy. No. 110, and they point to the pending revenue and title disputes. and stating that e-Pattadar Passbooks, Rythu Bandhu/Rythu Bima benefits and agricultural loans do not conclusively establish title. It is stated that the Power Grid authorities acted based on the information in the revenue records and issued notice dated 13.04.2026 to the person whose name was recorded as owner in the revenue records. It is stated that notice was issued to the recorded owner / representative in connection with the construction works, and they deny that the petitioner’s alleged oral interaction with field staff establishes any legal right.
2.3. It is contended that excavation was undertaken at Tower Location 48/4 and that hard rock was encountered and controlled blasting became necessary; and that the Power Grid authorities informed the District Collectors and Superintendents of Police by letters dated 05.06.2026 and assert that any blasting was to be conducted by licensed personnel in accordance with safety and statutory requirements.
2.4. It is contended that no land was acquired and that Power Grid has only a Statutory right of user, while ownership and possession remain with the landowners; and that compensation is payable for actual damage to crops, trees or structures in accordance with the Electricity Act, Telegraph Act and the Guidelines issued by the Government in 2015, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCentury Textiles (supra).
2.5. The respondents deny the allegation that the respondents refused to pay compensation. It is stated that compensation can be assessed after completion of the work. It is further stated that because of the disputed title, the compensation may be deposited before the competent authority for payment to the person ultimately found entitled to receive the compensation. The respondents further argue that Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act is attracted only when the exercise of powers of Power Grid under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, is actually resisted or obstructed, and that merely issuing a legal notice does not constitute obstruction or resistance requiring a District Magistrate’s order; and it is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot insist upon such an order as a precondition to the works. The respondents also contest the petitioner’s reliance on audi alteram partem and legitimate expectation, asserting that no statutory provision requires a personal hearing or individual prior notice to every claimant before transmission works and that the petitioner cannot invoke general principles of natural justice or legitimate expectation to restrict statutory powers exercised for a public-purpose project.
2.6. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts regarding the disputed revenue entries and related litigation, and that the petitioner approached the Court without clean hands, and the petitioner cannot seek adjudication of disputed title under Article 226.
2.7. It is contended that Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution have not been violated, because the statutory scheme lawfully permits limited use of the land with compensation for actual damage. 2.8. It is finally contended that there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents, and that they are ready and willing to issue the requisite intimation, and process the payment of compensation once lawful title is established. It is contended that adequate statutory remedies exist with regard to compensation and damage, and that the balance of convenience and larger public interest require uninterrupted execution of the transmission project, and therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, substantially reiterating the writ affidavit, however, the petitioner alleges that Annexure 9 is a false/fabricated notice concerning Sy. No. 110, pointing to the absence of a Khata number, alleged forged signatures, incorrect telephone particulars and the alleged non-existence of the “son of Rajaram Rao”. It is contended that Annexure 11 relates to Sy. No. 131 and not Sy. No. 110, and therefore cannot establish any valid revenue position or justify the works carried out in Sy. No. 110.
3.1. It is contended that the revenue entries relied upon by the respondents were made in violation of subsisting status quo orders, and that Sy. No. 110 remained deleted/unsigned in the revenue records, and that the respondents suppressed the District Collector’s order dated 13.12.2023 and other material proceedings. It is stated that Mr. Raghavender Rao died on 29.10.2024, yet the respondents allegedly referred to him as a living claimant and filed a Caveat in 2026 in his name.
3.2. The reply affidavit provides the details of digging on 16.04.2026, the petitioner’s legal notice on the same date, the blasting on the intervening night of 21/22.05.2026, and the respondents’ subsequent communication dated 05.06.2026. It is contended that the later communication would not retrospectively validate the earlier works or substitute for prior permission under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. Further, it directly answers the respondents’ interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Act by relying on Eswari v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 2233 of 2025, dated 17.03.2025 (Madras High Court)) and asserts that the petitioner’s protest itself attracts and warrants the respondent authorities to comply with statutory procedure.
4. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, an Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5. Perused the record.
5. Considering the rival contentions, at the outset, the petitioner claims to be the owner of subject lands, and that therefore he is entitled to notice before taking up any electrical transmission line work by respondent-Power Grid Corporation as the respondents are statutorily bound under the Telegraph Act, and Electricity Act to issue prior notice.
5.1. Per contra,it is the stand of Power Grid that there is a title dispute with regard to the subject land, and that the Power Grid has issued notice dated 13.04.2026 to the person who is recorded as owner of the land in the relevant revenue records; and that when they took up excavation of the land, they found rocky material which required controlled blasting.
6. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731), and batch, held at paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment, as follows:
“16. No doubt, the landowners whose land is utilized for right of way by the contractor for drawing the high-tension lines and for erection of towers are entitled to be compensated adequately, but how that compensation is to be assessed is the moot question, which the Trial Court as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate. The basic issue which lost sight of was that it was not a chunk of land located at one place for which compensation could be assessed by considering the value of the land in the vicinity. It was a belt of land running into 100 kms. While referring to the facts of one case that the suit land forms part of the National Capital Region and is located at a distance of 6 acres/killas from G.T. Road, compensation for the land question, which is located in two different districts, was assessed at the same rate. However, this locational advantage cannot be uniformly applied to the entire transmission corridor, as the transmission line is running through 100 kms in different districts and villages with vastly different characteristics. Some portion of land may be close to a National Highway or State Highway or some other roads; some may be close to Abadi, whereas some portion of land may be falling within rural areas where the land is used only for agricultural purpose and with no connectivity by roads as such. Applying a uniform rate for the entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology for assessing fair compensation to which the landowners are entitled to… ”
7. Be that as it may, the grievance of the writ petitioner ultimately boils down to compensation for the land that has gone under the 765 KV Kurnool IV – Bidar transmission lines, and the actual damage that occurred in laying the transmission lines. 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 (supra).
8. Therefore, as per Kalpataru (supra), the affected landowner has a remedy by way of claiming compensation for the portion of land over which the electrical poles have been erected. The nature and location of the land would be relevant factors in assessing the compensation payable. It is also relevant to note that the Ministry of Power has issued guidelines for payment of compensation in respect of the Right of Way of transmission lines, including the Supplementary Guidelines dated 21.03.2025.
9. 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, and whether any other party is claiming title, and if so whether to give notices to all such parties, etc.In the instant case, it is the contention of the respondents that they came to know about the title dispute concerning the subject property, and that the authorities would deposit the compensation with the competent authority, and the competent authority would ultimately disburse the compensation to the lawful title holder of the property.
9.1. Further, in light of the specific stand of the respondent- Power Gridthat compensation would be payable for actual damage, to crops, trees or structures in accordance with the Electricity Act, Telegraph Act and the Guidelines issued by the Government in 2015, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inCentury Textiles (supra), and further the compensationwould be deposited before the competent authority for disbursal to the lawful title holder keeping in view the title dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion, the essential grievance in the writ petition stands addressed, and there are no mala fides or illegality to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
