Supreme Court Sets Aside Transmission Line Compensation Order, Calls for Legal Reforms
In a landmark judgment that highlights significant gaps in India’s legal framework for infrastructure projects, the Supreme Court has set aside compensation orders for landowners affected by transmission line projects in Haryana while calling for comprehensive legal reforms. The case involving Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd and numerous landowners brings to light the complex challenges in compensating farmers and landowners when their land is used for national infrastructure projects without full acquisition.
The legal battle originated from a massive power transmission project titled “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1” initiated by Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL). The project involved erecting transmission towers and drawing high-tension power lines across 100 kilometers passing through four districts – Bhiwani, Jhajjar, Rohtak, and Sonepat. While the ownership of the land remained with the farmers, the project authorities acquired rights to use portions of their land for tower bases and transmission corridors.
The legal arguments presented before the Supreme Court revealed fundamental disagreements about how compensation should be calculated for such infrastructure projects. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Contractor, challenged the judgment of the High Court, arguing that “there was no basis for assessment of huge compensation on account of use of the land for erection of towers and drawing of the power lines. The area beneath the transmission lines could be utilized by the landowners, however, subject to certain restrictions. The ownership of the land is not transferred.”
The contractor’s counsel emphasized that “Section 10 of the 1885 Act authorizes the authority concerned to erect towers and draw power lines, for which only right to use is acquired, warranting compensation to that extent only. The assessment of compensation by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which was further enhanced by the High Court, was totally on erroneous grounds and without any basis.”
He particularly objected to the methodology used, pointing out that “the towers were erected and the power lines were drawn, running into about 100 kms falling in Jhajjar, Sonipat and other districts. In the case in hand, the value of land was equivalized for the stretch of the land passing under the transmission lines falling in different districts, regardless of the fact whether the towers and lines were situated close to some National Highway or State Highways or running through agricultural areas having no road connectivity as such. Thus, the assessment of compensation at uniform rate for the entire land cannot be legally justified.”
On the other side, learned counsel for the landowners defended the compensation awarded, arguing that “there is no error in the assessment of compensation by the High Court on account of damages suffered by them. Hence, the appeals filed by the contractor deserve to be dismissed. As far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned, the compensation awarded by the High Court, deserves to be enhanced further. For the land beneath the legs of the towers, the landowners are entitled to 100% compensation and not @ 85% of the value of the land since such area is rendered completely non-utilizable. Further, even for the land areas falling under the overhead power lines (Right of Way Corridor), lot of restrictions are imposed on the use of land, hence, compensation on that account also deserves to be enhanced.”
The Supreme Court, in its detailed analysis, identified multiple legal and procedural errors in the High Court’s approach. The Court noted that “the first error committed by the High Court, which is apparent on the face of it is that cases pertaining to areas falling in two different districts have been decided by a common judgment while referring to the material with reference to district Sonepat only.”
The Court further observed that “another error committed by the High Court in the impugned judgment is that the matter was dealt with as if it was a writ petition filed on the original side dealing with an issue raised for the first time. Rather, challenge before the High Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 and some petitions filed under Article 227 was to the judgments of the Trial Court, which were delivered on appreciation of evidence. The High Court, merely on the basis of pleadings in the High Court stating that the same has not been denied, has recorded findings.”
The Supreme Court particularly criticized the uniform compensation approach adopted by the High Court, stating that “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.”
The Court referenced its earlier decision in Kerala SEB v. Livisha, noting that “although there cannot be any hard and fast rule to determine compensation in cases of telegraph lines and electrical lines, certain factors should be looked into. The observations of the court in the aforesaid case are extracted hereinbelow: ‘Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.'”
In what could become a significant legal reform initiative, the Supreme Court identified critical gaps in the existing legal framework. The Court noted that “as evident from the provisions of the 1885 Act, there is no amendment in Sections 10 and 16, ever since the same was enacted. It may be noted that when the 1885 Act was enacted, there was limited development and there may have been few cases requiring determination of compensation under the aforementioned Act. The value of the land was also in peanuts. However, with the rapid pace of development in the electrical and power sector, the volume of litigation has increased significantly, necessitating assessment of compensation under the 1885 Act.”
The Court highlighted several specific deficiencies: “A reading of the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of 1885 Act reveals that in addition to no remedy of appeal being provided against the order passed by the District Judge, no timelines have been provided regarding payment of compensation to the affected parties after the right under Section 10(d) is exercised by the competent authority; the time during which any party can raise grievance about sufficiency of compensation so assessed. The provisions are also silent about the time during which a landowner can file an application before the District Judge in case sufficiency of compensation is disputed. The Act also does not provide the rate at which interest is to be paid to the landowners in case there is any delay in payment of compensation.”
The Supreme Court made a significant observation about the need for appellate remedies: “Needless to add here that, in the process of determination of compensation, evidence will have to be led by the parties. Unless statutory remedy of appeal is provided where all issues of law and facts can be re-examined, any other remedy may be illusionary. As is noticed in the facts of the present case, the remedies availed by different parties were different. In some of the cases, writ petitions were filed by the landowners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the judgment and decree of the civil court and in some of the cases, the contractor as well as the landowners filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reappreciation of evidence in those proceedings may be an issue. Remedy may not be effective and can become illusionary.”
The Court also noted inconsistencies in how different districts handle such cases: “Section 16(3) of 1885 Act, provides that an application can be filed before the District Judge in case of a dispute related to compensation. In district Sonepat, such an application was registered and numbered as a Civil Suit where a judgment and decree has been passed. Whereas in district Jhajjar, the same was registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Application and only judgment has been passed. There is need to bring uniformity in the nomenclature to be assigned to these kinds of proceedings.”
In its final directions, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matters back for fresh consideration. More significantly, the Court directed that “the Registry of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to examine the issue and take appropriate steps” regarding the legal reforms needed.
This judgment represents a crucial intervention in infrastructure development law, balancing the needs of national development with the rights of individual landowners. By identifying systemic gaps in the 138-year-old Telegraph Act that continues to govern modern power transmission projects, the Supreme Court has initiated what could become significant legal reforms ensuring fair compensation procedures for landowners while facilitating essential infrastructure development.
The case demonstrates the evolving nature of property rights in the context of national development needs and highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legal frameworks keep pace with changing realities. As India continues its massive infrastructure push, this judgment provides important guidance on how to balance public interest projects with individual property rights.
Petitioner Name: Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd.Respondent Name: Vinod And Ors. etc..Judgment By: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Rajesh Bindal.Place Of Incident: Haryana (Jhajjar, Rohtak, Bhiwani, Sonepat districts).Judgment Date: 19-08-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: kalpataru-power-tran-vs-vinod-and-ors.-etc.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-08-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by M.M. Sundresh
See all petitions in Judgment by Rajesh Bindal
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
