ગુજરાતી
English
Dispute Over GETCO’s 132 kV Transmission Line in Mota Dahinsara: Route Changes, Company Objections and Farmer Compensation Allegations Surface
Morbi, June 11, 2026: A long-running controversy surrounding a 132 kV transmission line and substation developed by GETCO in Mota Dahinsara village of Morbi district has resurfaced, raising questions over route changes, land acquisition, compensation and procedural transparency.
According to official documents, GETCO planned a new transmission line under the Loop In Loop Out (LILO) arrangement of the Wankaner–Varsamedi double-circuit transmission line to provide power supply to the proposed Mota Dahinsara substation. Following the original route survey, a revised alignment was approved, resulting in an increase of approximately 79 metres in line length and the addition of three new tower locations. Four 220 kV angle towers were also proposed as part of the revised design.
Project records indicate that the route modification was undertaken to maintain mandatory safety clearances at crossings involving roads, railways, water bodies and other infrastructure. The documents also refer to the need for approvals from the Forest Department, Railways and highway authorities.
A significant aspect of the dispute relates to objections raised by DMCC Oil Terminals (Navlakhi) Ltd., a company associated with Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. In 2018, the company reportedly wrote to the Managing Director of GETCO stating that it had acquired land in Mota Dahinsara for LPG storage and related infrastructure linked to its proposed multi-purpose jetty project at Navlakhi.
The company objected to the proposal to route the 132 kV high-tension line through its land and requested consideration of an alternative alignment. Documents referring to a “DMCC issue” suggest that the route was subsequently modified. Under the original alignment, five towers were proposed towards the Wankaner side, while the revised Varsamedi-side route increased the number of towers to seven. Several tower locations proposed within Survey Nos. 979, 980 and 983 of DMCC were also reportedly altered.
Meanwhile, a local landowner has levelled serious allegations regarding the installation of Tower No. AP-04. According to the landowner, the tower was not shown on the original 2016 alignment map but was later erected on his land. He alleges that incorrect signatures and ownership records were used during the compensation process and claims that compensation was paid to another individual.
The landowner further alleges that he was initially informed that only transmission wires would pass over his property. However, upon visiting the site with his mother, he discovered that a transmission tower had already been installed. He claims that the issue had attracted media attention at the time.
Local residents have also alleged that grazing land (gauchar land) was used for the construction of the substation and that the project was primarily intended to provide power infrastructure for industrial development. These claims, however, have not been independently verified.
The controversy surrounding the Mota Dahinsara transmission project has evolved beyond a technical dispute over route alignment. It now raises broader questions regarding land rights, compensation mechanisms, transparency in public infrastructure projects and the treatment of affected landowners. Residents are demanding an independent review of documents and a detailed inquiry into the project approval and compensation process.
