Telangana High Court
Kudire Shankaraiah vs The State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.31586 of 2021
AND
WRIT PETITION No.15 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.31586 of 2021 is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in erecting the 4 number Double Electrical Poles in the petitioners agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.2.28 guntas in Survey No.259 and 260 of AkenapalliShivar, Old Bellampalli village, Bellampallimandal, Mancherial District, without following due process of law, and consequently direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for causing damage to the existing crop of petitioner lands by considering the representations dated 06.11.2021, 19.07.2021, 18.02.2020, 10.04.2018 and 08.01.2016 in the interest of justice.
2. Writ Petition No.15 of 2023 is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Reference No.MMR/EST/H-43/2022/80 dated 15.03.2022 dated 15.03.2022 informing the petitioner that the "HT electricity lines are almost permanent in nature, the lines cannot be removed or shifted as and when wanted, it takes time to shift the same, in view of the above, we request you to allow the Company to heighten the lines upto a height of 2 19 meters to prevent damage to trees in your land" without considering the order dated 01.12.2021 passed in IA No.1/2021 in WP No.31586 of 2021 issued the impugned letter dated 15.03.2022, as illegal, and arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to set aside the impugned letter dated 15.03.2022 issued by 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to pay the compensation amoutns to the petitioner for causing damage of existing crop of petitioner by considering the representations dated 06.11.2021, 19.07.2021 and 08.01.2016 in the interest of justice.
3. As both the writ petitions are connected, they are analogously heard and are being disposed of by the Common Order.
4. Heard Sri SooramSandhya Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries.
5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments contained in the writ affidavit, is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2-28 guntas in Survey Nos.259 and 260 of AkenepalliShivar, Old Bellampalli Village, Bellampallimandal, Mancherial District. He raised Red Sandal Wood plants in the land by obtaining permission from the forest department. 3 Through the land of the petitioner, the respondents have erected electric wires of 33 KV 1st Feeder, 7th feeder, and 8th feeder, and they are touching the trees causing huge loss to the petitioner. On 14.06.2021, the 7th feeder overhead line fell down damaging 35 plants causing damage to 13 years old trees thereby causing loss of around Rs.35,00,000/-. The petitioner made a representation on 17.09.2021 before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is retired and cultivating the land and eking out his living, and has been approaching the respondents for compensating for the loss occurred due to the damage caused by the electric wires. Originally the wires were erected in the year 2016 without petitioner's permission, and erected High Tension Double Electrical Poles due to which trees are getting damaged. The petitioner has been approaching the respondents to remove the wires or pay compensation, but nothing has been done till date. The petitioner made representations on 10.04.2018 and 18.02.2020 and also on 19.07.2021 but for the last five years the respondents have not paid any amount to the petitioner nor removed the high tension power lines going through the land. The petitioner made another application dated 06.11.2021 by narrating all the facts and requested to pay compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- due to the damage of 13 years age of Red Sandal Wood Plants but no compensation was paid. Further, the 3rd respondent has issued proceedings dated 15.03.2022 informing that the electric lines are 4 permanent in nature and cannot be removed or shifted and requested the petitioner to allow the respondents to raise the height of electric lines upto 19 meters to prevent damage to the trees in petitioner's land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the electric lines have caused damage to petitioner's trees incurring financial loss and therefore made representations dated 06.11.2021, 19.07.2021 and 08.01.2016 before the respondent authorities to remove the electric lines or pay compensation, but nothing has been done yet.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are apathetic towards petitioner's representations requesting to remove the electrical lines or pay compensation to the damage being caused to the trees in petitioner's land; and further the impugned letter dated 15.03.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the electric lines are of permanent in nature and cannot be removed or shifted is nothing but violating the right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution and therefore prayed the Court to set aside the impugned letter and direct the respondents to remove the electric lines from petitioner's land. He relied on the judgment of the Punjab-Haryana High Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Punjab 1.
1 CWP-436-2018 (OGM) 5
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3-General Manager on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. The sum and substance of the counter is that the petitioner is retired from the respondent Company, and that at the time of laying of OHT lines, the petitioner himself accepted for laying the same but is now raising dispute to claim compensation from the respondent-Company, and that there is a regular practice of trimming the tree branches every three months in a year since 2010 so as to avoid contact of trees with OHT lines as such there is no possibility of damage or loss to trees as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner is aware of the same, and that the petitioner objected for trimming of trees by respondent Company after he was retired from service in the year 2020 and creating objections to enter into his land. It is also stated that as per Rule 82 of Electricity Rules, 1956, the petitioner had to give intimation to the owner of existing lines (Feeder 1 and 7) in writing before plantation of the said red sandal wood trees but the petitioner had not intimated to the respondent Company about plantation of the trees. It is also stated that as a permanent solution to the problem, the respondent Company had proposed heightening of all the three feeders (F1, F7 and F8) to a height of 19 meters so that there should not be any contact of live conductors with the red sandal trees and the same proposal was accepted by the petitioner, but later on while taking up the work the petitioner intentionally stopped the work. It is 6 also stated that considering the orders passed by this Court in IA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.31586 of 2021, the respondent Company considered the representation of the petitioner and issued speaking order dated 15.03.2022. It is also stated that there is no balance of convenience in favour of petitioner and the writ petition is not maintainable to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned Standing Counsel while referring to the averments of the counter affidavit and supporting the impugned letter dated 15.03.2022 proposing to raise the height of electrical lines to 19 meters, relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Ramakrishna Poultry Private Limited v. R. Chellappan 2. Learned Standing Counsel draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 40 of the judgment which reads as under:
"40. In view of the objections on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation that the deviation in the transmission lines, as suggested on behalf of the appellant Company, could not be practically achieved, we are left with the next best solution i.e., to increase the clearance between the lowest point of the sag of the transmission cable and the topmost portion of the appellant's poultry sheds. It should not also be forgotten that from the point of the sag on both sides the cable moves upwards and the clearance becomes even greater on both sides of the lowest spot. During the hearing we had asked Mr. Tripathi to confirm with the engineers of the Power Grid Corporation to explore the possibility of raising the height of the towers even further to lessen the 2 (2009) 16 SCC 743 7 damage, if any, that may be caused to the egg-laying capacity of the layers in the appellant's poultry farm."
9. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner. The sum and substance of the reply affidavit is that the respondent Company has erected the four poles due to which existing red sandal wood trees are being damaged and the petitioner made representations dated 08.01.2016, 10.04.2018, 18.02.2020, 06.11.2021, and 19.07.2021, but they were not considered, and the petitioner filed WP No.31586 of 2021 in which this Court passed interim order dated 01.12.2021 directing to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders and that the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2022. It is also stated that the respondents have misrepresented by mentioning the Electricity Act, instead of following the procedure under Sections 4,5,6,7,8, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that the electric lines are causing damage to the trees causing huge loss of Rs.35,00,000/- and no compensation was paid for the loss incurred by the petitioner.
10. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the material on record, and also the judgments relied on by the respective counsel, it is pertinent to note that admittedly the electrical wires are passing through petitioner's lands, and that the petitioner has raised red sandal wood trees in his land and his grievance is that the electrical lines 8 are touching his trees and causing huge monetary loss and he made representations to the respondents to remove the lines, and to pay compensation. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.03.2022 would show that short-circuit had occurred due to non-pruning of minimum tree branches of the trees which are touching the electric conductors due to which the conductor/wire got snapped and that the loss calculated at Rs.35,00,000/- is hugely exaggerated and that the personnel of SCCL carefully removed the conductor/wires and the trees are very much safe. It may be noted that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Pawan Kumar (1 supra) relates to a case where the respondent-State therein were dispossessing the petitioner therein from the land on the ground of adverse possession, and the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It may be noted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Ramakrishna Poultry Private Limited (2 supra) relates to the damage being caused by the electricity lines to the poultry sheds, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Power Grid Corporation to increase the clearance between the lowest point of the sag of the transmission cable and the topmost portion of the appellant's poultry sheds. It may further be noted that except stating in the writ affidavit that representation has been made to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the alleged loss incurred on account 9 of touching of electric wires to some trees, nothing is placed on record with regard to how that loss was quantified, more so when it is the specific contention of the respondents that there was short-circuit due to non-pruning of minimum tree branches of the trees touching the electric wires and that SCCL personnel carefully removed the conductor/wires and that the trees are safe. It may be noted that as per the impugned order dated 15.03.2022, the respondents have considered the representations of the petitioner stating that the electrical lines are of permanent in nature and proposed to raise the height of the electrical lines to 19 meters so that contact with trees can be avoided and requested the petitioner to allow them to raise the height of electrical lines to 19 meters to avoid contact with the trees. Further, this Court cannot decide the quantum of loss sustained by the petitioner in a writ jurisdiction.
11. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of by making it clear that in case of any damages, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority to decide the same in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka 05th July, 2024 ksm