A Lancashire dairy farmer has joined forces with Greenpeace to launch a challenge to fracking in England, urging landowners to assert what the charity claims is a legal right to veto drilling underneath their properties.

The campaign group said it expected thousands of people to join the "legal block", so that a series of no-go areas will be set up across England, effectively driving fracking firms out of the country.

Andrew Pemberton, who supplies milk to 3,000 households in Lytham on the Lancashire coast, said he had joined the campaign because he would lose his livelihood if the local water became contaminated.

The divisive technology of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has been associated with air and water pollution, radioactive waste and the despoliation of vast tracts of land, as well as methane emissions, in the US, where it was pioneered. Evidence of environmental damage is disputed by many scientists, as well as the fracking industry.

The government immediately dismissed Greenpeace's position, insisting: "This is not a block to shale gas development in the UK."

Greenpeace's case is based on fracking companies' plans to drill horizontally under people's homes; something the group says would be unlawful without permission.

The environmental charity said a decision from the UK's highest court in 2010 enshrined in common law the right of landowners to veto drilling on their land.

Back then the supreme court ruled that a firm called Energy UK should have asked the multimillionaire Egyptian businessman Mohamed al-Fayed before laying pipes underneath his Surrey estate in Oxted. By not doing so, they had committed the crime of trespass, said the judges, awarding £1,000 compensation to Fayed.

The former Harrods owner had also tried to lay claim to the gas and petroleum underneath his property, but the court ruled it belonged to the Crown and its licensees.

Launching the Greenpeace campaign in Preston on Monday, senior campaigner Anna Jones said: "To avoid being liable for trespass, drillers would need landowners' permission. And this case is about people explicitly declaring they do not give that permission. This will make it extremely difficult for companies to move ahead with any horizontal drilling plans."

The UK onshore operators group (UKOOG), which represents oil and gas companies, insisted energy firms already abide by common law, which obliges them to inform landowners if they are planning to drill under their property.

It accused Greenpeace of misleading members of the public with the campaign. UKOOG does not agree that landowners have a legally binding veto on underground drilling on their properties, a spokesman confirmed on Monday.

He said: "Our position is that we are obliged to provide notification and provide compensation when people have been inconvenienced. But we think we have the right if we have the planning permission because it is covered by compulsory purchase legislation."

In other words, if a landowner refuses permission, an energy company can go to court and ask a judge for an order to purchase the so-called ancillary rights to frack.

According to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, no energy company has yet taken this step, preferring to settle disputes out of court with landowners.

A source at Cuadrilla, which is currently the UK's only company engaged in fracking, noted that the supreme court judgment ruled the trespass on Fayed's property was "purely technical", because it did not interfere with his use or enjoyment of his land "one iota".

Asked whether the firm would ignore the wishes of a landowner, the source said: "That would have to be tested, wouldn't it?"

Francis Egan, Cuadrilla CEO, said in a statement: "This country pioneered subsurface infrastructure. All of our existing subsurface underground rail, water, gas, telecommunications and electric development has historically succeeded in legal coexistence with surface property rights.

"Newer technology such as geothermal energy and carbon capture and storage will also have to negotiate this. We are confident that new subsurface shale development that safely offers energy security, skilled jobs and community benefits will in due course be no different."

Greenpeace wants landowners who fear energy companies may want to frack under their property to make clear that they do not give their permission.

It has created a website - www.wrongmove.org - allowing members of the public to check if their property is in the 64% of the country currently being considered for possible drilling, which includes fracking.

Karen Ditchfield is a company director and resident near the Singleton site in Lancashire, where Cuadrilla is looking at using hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas and oil. She said: "My husband and I are joining the legal block because we're worried and frustrated about what's going on. No one has asked us if they can drill under our home and land.

"But this is not just about my life, it is my children's lives, and what we're leaving for people for years to come. More effort should be put into safer and longer-term energy sources."

Dairy farmer Pemberton said he wasn't necessarily against fracking full stop but was not yet convinced it was safe. He said: "I'm supplying milk to 3,000 households, and if for any reason my water became contaminated, my business would be ruined and my livelihood destroyed, as well as the livelihoods of the 16 families who work for me."

He added: "The focus should be on developing renewable energies such as solar power."

A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: "This is not a block to shale gas development in the UK. There is flexibility about where to locate a drilling rig to access any oil or gas resources.

"Like any other industrial activity, oil and gas operations will normally require the agreement of the landowners whose land is used. Oil or gas developers will negotiate with landowners as necessary and agree terms for the access they require."

Conservative MP Eric Ollerenshaw, who represents Lancaster and the Fleetwood, where Cuadrilla has five drill sites, said Greenpeace were "overegging things" by suggesting landowners could stop any underground drilling beneath their homes.

Complaining that both sides of the debate had a tendency to overstate their position, he said: "The majority of my constituents just want to be given balanced, rational information about the benefits and the dangers, rather than one side warning of environmental mayhem and the other side dismissing environmental concerns and promising thousands of jobs."