Uttarakhand High Court
Indian City Properties Limited & Others vs The District Magistrate on 25 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1887 of 2025
Indian City Properties Limited & Others
... Petitioners
Versus
The District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal & Others
... Respondents
Mr. Raghav Sharma and Ms. Neeti Rana, Counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy AG, for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and 4.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Venkatesh, Ms. Gurbani Singh, Mr.
Susael Buttan and Mr. Nikunj Bhatnagar, Counsel for the
respondent no. 2.
Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Counsel for the respondent no. 5.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioner no. 2 to 11 reportedly own about
110 acres of land situate in Tehsil Narendra Nagar,
District Tehri, which allegedly was purchased by them
by means of separate registered sale deeds executed
between 2010 to 2012. Respondent no. 2 is proposing
to lay 400 KV Direct Current HTLS Line with sub-
station infrastructure, for evacuating power from
various hydro power projects situate in Garhwal
Division of State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners contend
that they are going to make investment of about
rupees one thousand crores for setting up wellness
centre and other facilities over the land purchased by
them, for which they have also entered into a
memorandum of understanding with Uttarakhand
1
2025:UHC:7515
Government and in-principle approval has also been
granted by the State Government to petitioners for
developing infrastructure in hospitality sector, and the
transmission line, if permitted to traverse through the
land comprised in Khasra No. 644, will jeopardize the
whole project which petitioners propose to bring to
State of Uttarakhand. By means of this writ petition,
petitioners have sought the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 2 to
produce before this Hon’ble Court all original records,
maps, surveys, technical feasibility reports, meeting
minutes, notes, and internal communications that led
to the selection and finalization of the impugned
alignment route of the power transmission line passing
through Petitioners’ land.
(ii) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing Respondents No. 2 and
3 to forthwith decide and dispose of Petitioners’ all
pending objections and representations by means of a
reasoned order in accordance with law in a time-bound
manner after providing them proper opportunity of
hearing;
(iii) Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 & 3
to immediately consider the feasibility of an alternative
route alignment by conducting a fresh and
comprehensive joint feasibility inspection, involving
the Petitioners and other stakeholders, to identify a
viable and minimally intrusive alternative route for the
proposed 400 kV HTLS power transmission line so as2
2025:UHC:7515
not adversely impact or frustrate Petitioners integrated
development project;
(iv) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or
Direction restraining Respondent No. 2 from
undertaking any further construction, markings, site-
preparation activities, or other implementation steps
qua the subject transmission line and related
infrastructure along the impugned alignment through
Petitioners’ land until such time as all requisite
statutory procedures, feasibility assessments, and
objections raised by the Petitioners are conclusively
determined in accordance with law;
(v) Direct Respondents No. 2 & 3 not to
enter upon Petitioners’ land in connection with laying
down of the subject transmission line without seeking
Respondent No. 1’s written permission under Section
16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885;
(vi) Direct Respondent No. 1 not to grant
Respondents No. 2 & 3 any permission under Section
16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 without
considering Petitioners’ objections and without
providing the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing;
(vii) Direct Respondents No. 1 to 4 to ensure
that route alignment of the subject transmission line
adheres strictly to the statutory mandate without
causing damage to Petitioners’ property and disruption
of Petitioners’ project of substantial public interest;”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed
reliance upon Section 10, 16 and 17 of The Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 and submitted that District
Magistrate be directed to consider petitioners’3
2025:UHC:7515
representation for changing alignment of the
transmission line.
3. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, submits
that on 10.2.2017, a public notice was published not
only in the official gazette of Central Government but
also in two local newspapers, however neither
petitioners nor any other person, having interest in the
matter filed objection and since no-one objected to the
proposed alignment, therefore, the Central Electricity
Authority and the Central Government granted
necessary approval to the proposed alignment. He
further submits that approval under Section 164 of
The Electricity Act was granted to respondent no. 2 on
1.11.2017 and respondent no. 2 deposited a sum of
₹31.5 crores for getting forest clearance from Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of India. He further submits that now it is
too late in the day to request for change in alignment
as approvals from different statutory bodies have
already been obtained and laying of transmission line
is at the final stage and any alteration in the alignment
at this stage will not only delay the project but it will
also result in cost overrun of the project.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners,
however, submits that the writ petition was filed in the
month of June, 2025 and after filing of the writ
petition, respondent no. 2 has erected tower no. 54
over Khasra No. 644.
5. This Court is not inclined to go into the rival
contentions raised on behalf of the parties as disputed4
2025:UHC:7515
questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition.
While exercising power of judicial review, this Court
will not sit in judgment over decision taken by experts
regarding alignment of electricity transmission line.
Section 16(1) of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
permits the District Magistrate to intervene in case of
resistance or obstruction in laying of
telegraph/transmission line. However, the said
provision is silent regarding hearing to the land owner.
Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, it is
provided that respondent no. 2, if approaches the
District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of The Indian
Telegraph Act, then District Magistrate shall provide
opportunity of hearing to petitioners before passing
any order. Section 17 of The Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 provides certain safeguards/rights to the land
owners, therefore petitioners shall be at liberty to seek
enforcement of those rights by approaching the
competent authority.
6. With the observations as above, writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
25.8.2025Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.08.25 19:02:12 +05’30’5