The Gujarat High Court in PARTH KRISHNKANT PATEL v/s MANAGING DIRECTOR/ GENERAL MANAGER (LEGAL CELL) observed that "The Electricity Act, 2003, is a progressive enactment, with a specific purpose of providing electricity to a large number of people, across the country, to promote industrial and sustainable development in all walks of life. Right of a landowner to possess and enjoy the property, though recognised as a Constitutional Right, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right has to yield to Articles 14 and 21 respectively of the Constitution of India, which strive to achieve the Constitutional Goals, enshrined in the basic structure of the Constitution of India."
The brief facts of the case are that due to the overhead KV electric line which passes from the private land of the petitioner, the value of the land has deteriorated and the same
is laid without any consent from the petitioner.
The Division Bench relied upon Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel Vs. Chief Engineer (Projects) Gujarat Energy Transmission and others in which it was held:
“52. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 on any ground whatsoever. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the respondent Company to proceed with laying high tension electric lines or electric polls for the transmission of electricity on or over the lands belonging to the appellant herein subject to the right of the appellant to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of laying such high tension electric lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the appellant. Hence, no mandamus can be issued restraining the respondent Company from proceeding with the erection of polls and transmission lines through the land of the appellant. However, this shall not preclude the appellant to claim compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law in case any damage is sustained to his property.”
Further, the Court referred to a recent decision of the Division Bench in the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.823 of 2021 in which it was held thus:
“9. In the background of the said stand taken by the second respondent, the owners/ occupiers of the land would have no choice about what should be the route of the transmission line and where it should be placed, since such a decision must always yield to the opinion of technical experts, technical experts would have examined the mode, manner and method in which the transmission line is to be drawn by taking into consideration the viability aspect also. In a given situation, where for the public cause, a transmission line is drawn and in the process, several towers are erected over the private lands in the ownership of individuals are allowed to have a say and object either to the route or to the alignment, in such circumstances, no transmission line can be laid or erected. In other words, the individual grievances even if any, in public projects, will have to necessarily kneel before the public cause.”
Thus, in light of the above observations, the appeal of the petitioner was summarily rejected by the Court.