Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Department of Industries Energy and Labour and Ors.

¶1

910_WP383_26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2026

¶4

Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra thr. Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vivek Vijay Salunke for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. A. I. Patel, Additional GP a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, Ms. Kavisha Shah, Ms. Divya Nankani i/b. Ms. Kavisha Shah.

¶9

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : MARCH 18, 2026

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the action on the part of the respondents in seeking to carry out certain activities for erection of towers for high tension transmission lines. When this petition came up for consideration on 09.01.2026, this Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) thereby restraining the respondents from carrying out any such activity in the subject land of the petitioner in relation to the proposed project of laying down the high tension transmission lines.

¶13

The respondents were served and they are represented by counsel. Respondent No.3 is the power transmission company that is laying down the high tension transmission lines at the behest of the respondent State authorities. A reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.3 is filed on

¶14

1/4

¶15

910_WP383_26.doc

¶16

record. Today, the learned AGP has tendered a reply affidavit along with documents on behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune. The said reply affidavit is taken on record.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made before this Court, which led to the order dated 09.01.2026 granting ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioners. It was submitted that the survey number in which the land of the petitioner is located i.e. Survey No.1524 was never included in the tabular chart annexed to the minutes of meeting dated 29.02.2024, which specified the location of the proposed towers and the survey numbers of lands on which such towers were to be erected. He submitted that survey No.1524 of Village Talegaon, Dhamdhere-3, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune was not included in the said chart and therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary.

¶18

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that reliance placed on the aforesaid minutes of the meeting of the year 2024 and the chart annexed thereto can be of no avail to the petitioners, simply for the reason that establishment of such towers for laying down high tension transmission lines is a highly technical matter and the alignment is undertaken as per safety concerns and engineering feasibility. It was submitted that at the point in time when the towers are being erected, as per the alignment of the high tension transmission lines, the lands required for erecting such towers have been properly identified. In this context, reliance is placed on map at exhibit-D, which shows the details of the said high tension transmission lines passing through various survey numbers including Survey No.1524 in which the land of the petitioner is located. Reliance is also placed on exhibit-E annexed to the reply affidavit.

¶19

The learned AGP submits that although Survey No.1524 is not specifically mentioned in the aforesaid minutes of the meeting and the

¶20

2/4

¶21

910_WP383_26.doc

¶22

chart upon which the petitioner places reliance, appropriate compensation would be paid to the petitioner if the land of the petitioner located in Survey No.1524 is required for erecting the tower.

¶23

We have considered the rival submissions. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent No.3 that the minutes of the meeting upon which the petitioner relies pertain to the year 2024, while the high tension transmission lines and erection of towers is taking place now in the year 2026. There can be no doubt about the fact that erecting such towers for the purpose of laying down the high tension transmission lines is a highly-technical activity, which would require alignments to be decided on the basis of the safety concerns and engineering feasibility and in that context, it would be difficult for this Court in writ jurisdiction to question the wisdom of locating tower No.145/4 in Survey No.1524. The chart annexed to the minutes of meeting upon which the petitioner heavily relies also shows that Survey Nos.1525 and 1526 have been indeed shown in the said chart. When we juxtaposed the said information with the map at exhibit-D placed on record by the respondent No.3, we find that the alignment of the transmission lines is such that it inevitably goes through Survey No.1524 wherein the land of the petitioner is located. The respondent No.3 has also placed on record at Exhibit-E, a chart showing the current longitude / latitude route of the transmission line. In the face of such material, it would be inappropriate for us to question the technical wisdom of the concerned party in erecting towers on specific locations after taking into consideration all parameters, including safety concerns and engineering feasibility.

¶24

Therefore, we are of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. It would be inappropriate to continue the interim order as it interferes with the work

¶25

3/4

¶26

910_WP383_26.doc

¶27

of laying down the said high tension transmission lines when the laying down of such transmission lines is obviously for public good.

¶28

Nonetheless, the entitlement of the petitioner for being appropriately compensated cannot be denied. A perusal of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shows that the said Statute contains a proper scheme for determination of compensation to individuals to the extent that they are deprived of user of parts of their lands when such towers and transmission lines are erected through their lands. As a matter of fact, Section 16 of the aforesaid Act provides a mechanism for resolving disputes that may be raised with regard to the quantum of compensation proposed by the concerned authority. We are also informed that the respondent State has issued Government Resolutions dated 02.11.2022 and 01.12.2022 providing a further scheme for determination of compensation in such cases. The respondent State authorities assure this Court that appropriate compensation shall be determined and disbursed to the petitioner in consonance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act as well as the said Government Resolutions. In that light, we keep the right of the petitioner open to seek enhancement of compensation in accordance with law.

¶29

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The interim order dated 09.01.2026 is vacated.

¶30

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶32

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶33

Minal Parab

¶34

4/4

Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Department of Industries Energy and Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Yogesh Dhamdhere v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Department of Industries Energy and Labour and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Bharati G Patel and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Sarubai Sahadu Wadghule vs the Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Pune and Ors.

Anirudha Manohar Khopade and Ors. vs the Union of India Throu. Sec. Compent Authority and Land Acquitision and Ors.

Dilip Kisanrao Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra through G.P. and Ors.