Item No.23
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.59 OF 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The appellant/Association is aggrieved by the order dated
08.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.18640 of 2020 filed by it praying inter alia for declaring the
action of the respondent No.1/Hyderabad Growth Corridor Limited
and the respondent No.2/Telangana State Transmission Corporation Limited in proceeding further with erection of monopole towers and stinging of HT overhead power lines within its property, to be contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.470 dated 09.07.2008, reiterated vide G.O.Ms. No. 440 dated 26.10.2013. Further, the appellant/Association has prayed that the permission granted to the respondents to carry out the aforesaid activity of erection of monopole towers etc., on 26.07.2019, having expired on 25.01.2020, the same be deemed to be cancelled.
2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Association that there cannot be any construction or raising of any structure for laying down overhead transmission lines, by observing that the said submission runs contrary to the assertion of the appellant/Association itself that the land belongs to it. Pointing out that in one breath, the appellant/Association has canvassed that the land on either side of the ORR belongs to the W.A.No.59 of 2021 Page 1 of 4 respondents and in the other breath, it has contended that no construction activity can take place in the RoW or the buffer zone, the Court has declined to get entangled in the aspect of ownership of the property through which the transmission lines are being laid or where the poles are being erected while leaving it open to the appellant/Association to establish ownership of the land before an appropriate forum.
3. Coming next to the plea taken on behalf of the appellant/Association that laying of the transmission lines was being undertaken by the respondents in an improper manner and that the transmission lines ought to have been laid through underground cables in the area under the occupation of the appellant/Association, the learned Single Judge has held that there has been no violation of any law/rule/guideline and that the respondents has taken all the relevant factors into consideration while laying the transmission lines. It was also observed that the respondents have taken sufficient care to ensure that the side effects are minimized not only by raising the height of the monopoles, but also by maintaining more than the required distance between the lines and the apartments of the appellant/Association. It has thus been held that the erection of the towers for carrying the transmission lines was being done for the benefit of the public at large as it would help in energizing the target area and public interest should override the private interest. W.A.No.59 of 2021 Page 2 of 4
4. It is also pertinent to note that by now, the entire stretch of the corridor in question has been completed and out of about 189 poles, only 10 poles are left for being erected by the respondents. Thus, there is no scope of changing the alignment of the lines, as urged on behalf of the appellant/Association.
5. After addressing arguments at some length to assail the impugned order, Mr. Prasad Rao Vemulapally, learned counsel for the appellant/Association states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of the appellant/Association to file a fresh writ petition being aggrieved by the subsequent developments, which as per him are that the respondents are blasting rocks within the prohibited area thereby, endangering the structures raised on the land belonging to the appellant/Association.
6. The aforesaid submission is vehemently disputed by learned Additional Advocate General, who denies that any damage is being caused or will be caused to the structures raised on the land belonging to the appellant/Association. He also supports the impugned judgment and states that there is no error therein for interference.
7. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/Association that he does not wish to press the present appeal, the same is disposed of as not pressed along with the pending applications. If a fresh cause of action has arisen in favour of the appellant/Association as stated above, it is open for it to seek appropriate legal recourse. On doing so, the respondents shall be W.A.No.59 of 2021 Page 3 of 4 entitled to take all the pleas in opposition thereto, both on facts and in law.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 24.02.2021 Lur/vs W.A.No.59 of 2021 Page 4 of 4