# Antram Goyal v. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1497
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12360 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/antram-goyal-v-power-grid-neemrana-bareilly-transmission-ltd-ors-53509
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
- Sections 10 & 16 - Under Section 10, the
Telegraph Authority is empowered to place and
maintain telegraph lines and posts on private
land subject to payment of compensation for
damage; and under Section 16(1), if such
exercise is resisted or obstructed, the District
Magistrate may, in his discretion, permit the
authority to proceed notwithstanding such
resistance. Held : the District Magistrate is not
required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of
the Act in every case where a person, on whose
property the transmission line is being laid,
raises an objection or files a representation
before
the
District
Magistrate.

District
Magistrate is only required to pass an order
under Section
16(1) when
the
Telegraph
Authority refers a particular matter to the
District Magistrate for passing an order therein.
Petitioner objected to the laying down of
transmission lines over his property. Court
granted liberty to the Telegraph Authority to
refer the matter to the District Magistrate under
Section 16(1) of the Act for dealing with the
said
obstruction/resistance/
representation
made by the petitioner. (Para 9, 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

5 All. Antram Goel Vs. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors.
1497
defined in Section 2(5) of the Act,
1961, which is required to be a summary
enquiry. However, in that enquiry, the
Collector has proceeded to record a finding
on the basis of rebuttal affidavits with
regard to signatures in the written notice
that were denied. Thus the demarcated and
prohibited
realm
of
disputed
factual
questions like forgery, fraud, coercion and /
or duress has been encroached upon in the
enquiry.

31. For the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 20.03.2025 cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed. Since
the signatures on the written notice are
disputed in some of the rebuttal affidavits,
the Collector is directed to satisfy himself,
prima facie, after looking into the records
of
the
Kshettra
Panchayat.
On
his
satisfaction, he shall proceed to convene a
meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat in terms
of Section 15 (3) of the Act, 1961. This
writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1497
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 12360 of 2025

Antram Goyal ....Petitioner
Versus
Power
Grid
Neemrana
Bareilly
Transmission Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Shreya Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Pratik J. Nagar

Civil Law - The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
- Sections 10 & 16 - Under Section 10, the
Telegraph Authority is empowered to place and
maintain telegraph lines and posts on private
land subject to payment of compensation for
damage; and under Section 16(1), if such
exercise is resisted or obstructed, the District
Magistrate may, in his discretion, permit the
authority to proceed notwithstanding such
resistance. Held : the District Magistrate is not
required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of
the Act in every case where a person, on whose
property the transmission line is being laid,
raises an objection or files a representation
before
the
District
Magistrate.

District
Magistrate is only required to pass an order
under Section
16(1) when
the
Telegraph
Authority refers a particular matter to the
District Magistrate for passing an order therein.
Petitioner objected to the laying down of
transmission lines over his property. Court
granted liberty to the Telegraph Authority to
refer the matter to the District Magistrate under
Section 16(1) of the Act for dealing with the
said
obstruction/resistance/
representation
made by the petitioner. (Para 9, 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the
action of the Power Grid Neemrana
Bareilly Transmission Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Power Grid Company'),
has prayed for the following substantial
reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
District Magistrate, Aligarh (respondent
no.3) to decide the representation of the
petitioner
dated
28.3.2025
(Annexure
No.6), after providing him with an
opportunity of hearing, most expeditiously
1498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or within such time period as this Hon'ble
Court may direct;

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents
not
to
interfere
in
the
possession of the petitioner and not to erect
any tower for installation of High Tension
wires in the land of the petitioner in Khasra
no.61/1, area .9446 hectare situated in
Village Narayanpur, pargana Chandaus,
Tehsil-Khair
District
Aligarh,
until
disposal of the representation of the
petitioner dated 28.3.2025, by means of a
reasoned and speaking order."

2.
Ms.
Shreya
Gupta,
counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that upon a reading of Section 10
read with Section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act'), the District Magistrate is
required to pass an order under Section
16(1) of the Act. It is her submission that
this provision mandatorily requires the
Power
Grid
Company,
that
is,
the
Telegraph Authority to grant hearing to the
petitioner, and thereafter, pass a reasoned
order
with
regard
to
the
resistance/obstruction
made
by
the
petitioner. To buttress her argument, she
has relied upon paragraph 23 of the Full
Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court
in Bharat Plywood and Timber Products
Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board
Trivandrum and Others reported in AIR
1972 Kerala 47 (V 59 C 10). The relevant
extract of the said paragraph is delineated
below:

"23. ... We have, therefore,
necessarily to understand the statute as
enabling an owner or occupier or a person
having control over the property over
which a line is sought to be placed as
having the right to resist or obstruct. When
the Telegraph Authority is so resisted or
obstructed, the District Magistrate can be
approached. If he is approached, the
District Magistrate would decide whether
the authority should be permitted to
exercise the powers. When the District
Magistrate decides that he should be so
permitted resistance thereafter is made an
offence. And there is an obligation cast
upon the owner or occupier to render all
facilities for the exercise of that power. The
sections (Sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 16) can only be understood in this
manner. In short Sections 10 and 16 have
to be read together, and when there is
resistance or obstruction, the power under
Section 10 can be exercised only when the
District Magistrate passes an order under
Section 16(1) that he shall be permitted to
exercise them."

3. She further relies on the judgment
of the coordinate Bench of this Court in
Jagir Lal and Another v. State of U.P.
and Others; Netural Citation No.-
2011:AHC:120828-DB.
The
relevant
paragraph of the said judgment reads as
under :

"From the provisions of Sections
10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act and the
provisions of U.P.Electricity Act,2003, it is
clear that there is no requirement of
obtaining any permission from the owner of
the
property
for
laying
down
the
transmission line. The only protection
which has been given to the owner is one as
contemplated under Section 16 sub-section
(1) where the District Magistrate has been
conferred with the power to take a decision
in his discretion as to whether telegraph
line be permitted to lay down or not. The
District Magistrate can exercise that power
either suo moto or on a request made by
5 All. Antram Goel Vs. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors.
1499
either the Telegraph Authority or by the
owner of the land. There is no dispute that
whenever telegraph line is laid down on a
property of a person, he is entitled to claim
compensation from the authority and in the
event he is not satisfied with the amount of
compensation, he is entitled to make an
application to the District Judge as per
Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act."

4. She further relies on the recent
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this
Court passed in Arun Kumar v. State of
U.P. and Others (Writ-C No.1024 of 2023
decided on February 10, 2023). The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment
are provided below:

"14. In Jagir Lal (supra) the
Division Bench considered all judgements
rendered earlier by Coordinate Division
Benches of this Court and came to a
conclusion that the landowner on whose
land electric line is drawn, is entitled to
compensation and there was no specific
discussion of Section 16 sub-Section (1),
nor any proposition had been laid down in
them that even though laying down of line
is obstructed, no permission of the District
Magistrate is required. The Court was of
the opinion that power conferred upon the
District Magistrate under Section 16 is to
exercise discretion in cases where laying of
Transmission Line is obstructed. Such
power is to be exercised for a purpose and
an object. The object is that whenever a
dispute arises between the Telegraph
Authority and owner of the property, on
whose land Transmission Line is to be laid
down, the District Magistrate is to consider
the facts of the particular case and then in
his discretion, decide as to whether laying
of the line should be permitted or not. In
the above, it is implicit that in a given case
the District Magistrate may permit laying
of the line or may refuse to permit the
same. The power that has been conferred is
with an object that the District Authority
may adjudicate and decide any such issue
raised on such obstruction or resistance.
However, from the provisions of Section 10
and 16 of the Telegraph Act and the
provisions of the U.P. Electricity Act 2003,
it is clear that there is no requirement of
obtaining any permission from the owner of
the
property
for
laying
down
the
Transmission Lines. The only protection
which has been given to the owner is one as
contemplated under sub-Section (1) of
Section 16, where the District Magistrate
has been conferred with the power to take a
decision in his discretion as to whether
Telegraph Line be permitted to be laid
down or not. The District Magistrate can
exercise such power either Suo Moto, or on
the request made by either the Telegraph
Authority or by the owner of the land.
There
is
no
dispute
that
whenever
Telegraph Line is laid down on a property
of a person, he is entitled to claim
compensation from the authority and in the
event he is not satisfied with the amount of
compensation, he is entitled to make an
application to the District Judge as per
Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act.

15. This Court has carefully gone
through the judgment rendered by the
Supreme Court in Century Textiles (Supra)
and cited by the learned counsel for the
respondent and finds that there is a specific
reference to Section 16 of the Act of 1885
by the Supreme Court in its para 18 and the
Supreme Court has also observed that if
any dispute arises concerning sufficiency of
compensation to be paid under Section 10
clause (d) an application for the said
purpose can be moved by either of the
disputing parties to the District Judge
within whose jurisdiction the property is
1500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
situated and the court of District Judge
shall direct the Telegraph Authority to
deposit in the court of District Judge such
amount as it deems sufficient in case there
is a dispute regarding apportionment also.

***

17. This Court has also gone
through Section 16 of the Act of 1885
which has been referred to by the learned
counsel during the course of his argument.
Under Section 16 of the Act of 1885, it is
provided that while exercising powers
conferred by Section 10 or on raising of
dispute as to compensation, in case of
property other than of the local authority,
such exercise is resisted or obstructed, the
District Magistrate shall in his discretion,
order that the Telegraph Authority be
permitted to exercise such powers. If after
making of such order by the District
Magistrate, under Sub Section (1), any
person still resists the exercise of such
power, or having control over the
property, does not give all facilities for
them to be exercised, he shall be deemed
to have committed an offence under
Section 188 I.P.C. If any dispute arises
concerning
the
sufficiency
of
the
compensation given under Section 10(d),
the District Judge shall decide such
dispute including that of apportionment
of such compensation."

5. She submits that the recent
judgment in Arun Kumar (supra) relies
upon the judgment in Jagir Lal (supra)
quoted above and tenor of the said
judgment makes it clear that the District
Magistrate can exercise the power under
Section 16(1) of the Act either suo moto
or on a request made by either Telegraph
Authority or by the owner of the land.

6. Per contra, Sri Pratik J. Nagar,
counsel appearing on behalf of the Power
Grid Company relies upon the Supreme
Court
judgment
in
Power
Grid
Corporation of India Limited v. Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and
others reported in AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 1141 to submit that the power
exercisable under Section 10 read with
Section 16 of the Act is a power with the
District Magistrate to exercise only on the
request of the Telegraph Authority, which
in the present case is the Power Grid
Company. He relies on paragraphs 19 and
20 of the said judgment to support his
argument. Paragraph 19 and the relevant
extract of paragraph 20 are delineated
below:

"19) In the instant case, the
aforesaid Rule is not applicable in view of
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003,
which reads as under:

"164. Exercise of powers of
Telegraph Authority in certain cases.-The
Appropriate Government may, by order in
writing, for the placing of electric lines or
electrical plant for the transmission of
electricity or for the purpose of telephonic
or telegraphic communications necessary
for the proper co-ordination of works,
confer upon any public officer, licensee or
any other person engaged in the business of
supplying electricity under this Act, subject
to such conditions and restrictions, if any,
as the Appropriate Government may think
fit to impose and to the provisions of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885),
any of the powers which the Telegraph
Authority possesses under that Act with
respect to the placing of telegraph lines
and posts for the purposes of a telegraph
established
or
maintained,
by
the
5 All. Antram Goel Vs. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors.
1501
Government or to be so established or
maintained."

20) ...This coupled with the fact
that Power Grid is treated as Authority
under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it
acquires all such powers which are vested
in a Telegraph Authority under the
provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 including power to eliminate any
obstruction in the laying down of power
transmission lines. As per the provisions of
the
Indian
Telegraph
Act,
1885 ,
unobstructed access to lay down telegraph
and/or electricity transmission lines is an
imperative in the larger public interest.
......The legislature has not permitted any
kind
of
impediment/
obstruction
in
achieving this objective and through the
scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 empowering the licensee to lay
telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is,
for laying down the electricity transmission
lines. Powers of the Telegraph Authority
conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, stand vested in
and are enjoyed by the Power Grid."

7. From a reading of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited (supra), it
is crystal clear that provisions of the Act
provide for unobstructed access to lay
down
telegraph
and/or
electricity
transmission
lines
to
the
Telegraph
Authority and the Supreme Court clarifies
that this access has to be unobstructed in
the larger public interest. Supreme Court
has further laid down the ratio that the
Legislature has not permitted any kind of
impediment/obstruction in achieving this
objective through the scheme of the Act
conferring
powers
on
the
Telegraph
Authority under Sections 10, 15 and 16 of
the Act.

8. In our view, the facts and
circumstances in the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in Bharat Plywood and
Timber Products Ltd. (supra) are distinct
from the present facts and the law laid
down therein. Though having a persuasive
value, it is required to be seen that this
judgment was passed in the year 1972,
much
prior
to
the
Supreme
Court
judgement that has been passed in the year
2017. Similarly, the judgment in Jagir Lal
(supra) of the coordinate Bench of this
Court is a judgement of 2011 and the ratio
laid down therein has been impliedly
overruled by the Supreme Court in Power
Grid Corporation of India Limited
(supra). With reference to coordinate
Bench judgment of this Court in Arun
Kumar (supra), upon a perusal of the
entire judgement, we do not find any
specific ratio that has been laid down
therein that the District Magistrate is
required to hear every representation that is
in the nature of obstruction/ resistance/
objection to the laying down of the lines. In
light of the same, the judgement in Arun
Kumar (supra) does not come to the
rescue
of
the
petitioner.
We
are,
accordingly, of the view that the Supreme
Court
judgement
in
Power
Grid
Corporation of India Limited (supra)
holds the field. Accordingly, ratio laid
down therein is required to be followed.

9. In light of the same, we hold that
the District Magistrate is not required to
pass an order under Section 16(1) of the
Act in every case where a person, on whose
property the transmission line is being laid,
raises an objection or files a representation
before the District Magistrate. We are of
the view that the District Magistrate is only
required to pass an order under Section
16(1) when the Telegraph Authority refers
1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a
particular
matter
to
the
District
Magistrate for passing an order therein.

10. Under the present circumstances, it
is seen that a representation has been filed
by the petitioner in the month of March
2025 and he is objecting to the laying down
of transmission lines over his property. In
effect, one may say that there is a kind of
resistance being offered by the petitioner.
This particular situation has to be left to the
wisdom of the Telegraph Authority being
the respondent No.1 herein.

11. We grant liberty to the Telegraph
Authority to act in accordance with law
including their right to refer the matter to
the District Magistrate under Section 16(1)
of the Act for dealing with the said
obstruction/resistance/ representation made
by the petitioner.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1502
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 13012 of 2025

Anil Kumar Jaiswal ....Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipul Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anil Kumar Bajpai, Ashish Agarwal
A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-SARFAESI
ACT-Rule
9(5)-
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002-The petitioner filed a writ seeking a
refund of Rs 17.49 lakhs, which was 25%
of the bid amount deposited by him an eauction conducted by the respondent
Bank on 29.12.2023-This amount was
forfeited by the Bank when he failed to
pay
the
remaining
75%
within
the
stipulated time, as per Rules 9(5) of the
Rule 9(5) of the Rules,2002-the petitioner
argued that the forfeiture was unjust
since
the
Bank
later
withdrew
the
SARFAESI proceedings and re-initiated
them, which he claimed invalidated the
original forfeiture and demanded refund
on equitable grounds-The court held that
forfeiture under Rule 9(5) is a statutory
consequence not subject to equitable
considerations-The petitioner failed to
demonstrate
any
exceptional
or
extraneous circumstances that justified
his failure to deposit the remaining
amount-The withdrawal and re-initiation
of SARFAESI proceedings by the Bank did
not invalidate the prior forfeiture.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India Vs
Shanmugavelu (2024) 6 SCC 641

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing along with learned
counsel, Sri Vipul Pandey, in support of
this petition and Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Bank.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, wherein
the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction