Palem Ram Suresh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5156 AP

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                 WRIT PETITION No.10953 of 2021

   Palem Ram Suresh, S/o late P.Ramalingaiah
   Naidu, aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o
   Kuchivaripali, Rajampet Revenue Village,
   Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District and
   another.
                                                      ... Petitioners.
                 Versus

   The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
   Principal Secretary, Energy Department,
   Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and
   six others.
                                             ... Respondents.

Counsel for the petitioners           : Ms.P.Lakshmi Priya

Counsel for respondents 1 to 4        : Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi


                                 ORDER

Challenging the notice dated 22.05.2021 issued by 4th

respondent under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003

r/w Telegraph Act,1885 and CEA (Safety and Electricity

Supply) Guidelines, 2010, the above writ petition was filed.

2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the

petitioners owned land in S.No.393 apart from other

properties of Rajampet village. Banana, Mango, Lemon etc.

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

crops are being cultivated. Abutting the petitioners' land, 132

KV sub-station was constructed in the year 1990. The land of

the petitioners is fit for house sites. The 4th respondent issued

notices impugned in the writ petition. A perusal of the notice

would disclose that A.P TRANSCO is executing 132 KV

D.C/S.C. line from 200 KV sub-station, Rajampet to 132 KV

sub-station C.Orampadu under a system improvement

scheme for improving the reliability of power supply; that the

transmission lines are passing through the lands of the

petitioners; that compensation for the land in which the

tower laid will be arranged, for tower base area as a part of

land diminution and as per the land rates fixed by the

District Collector etc.,

b) Petitioners came to know that the respondents 2 to 4

got the administrative approval on 03.04.2013 for

construction of 132/22 KV sub-station at C.Orampadu and

the A.P. TRANSCO published notification in newspapers on

29.10.2014. The notifications were issued for the statewide

projects without particulars. As per the land identified by the

revenue authorities S.Nos.392 or 393 belonged to the

petitioners was not included. Thus, the petitioners did not

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

submit any objections. If the respondents lay lines directly

from the sub-station, Rajampet, it will reduce one or two

poles and shorten the line. The Tower/Lines in between 6-4

shown by the respondents are not in straight. Respondents

changed the Detail Project Report (DPR) to benefit some

persons only after 18.03.2020 and after filing of counter

affidavit dated 06.11.2020 in W.P.No.18511 of 2020. The

respondent authorities have to erect 99 Towers as per DPR,

but now it has been changed to 96 with deviations and

hence, they issued notices to the petitioners. The Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the

Act") is not applicable to the Acts specified in Schedule-IV,

wherein the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is at Serial No.12.

Section 105 (3) of the Act contemplates that the payment of

compensation is as per Schedule-I and rehabilitation and

resettlement specified in Schedules II and III of the Act.

Notification was issued in S.O.No.2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015.

Petitioners are entitled to compensation as per Schedule-I of

the Act and as per G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. With

these averments, the above writ petition is filed.

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

3. a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th

respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the A.P.

TRANSCO in exercise of powers conferred under

G.O.Ms.No.115 Energy Department dated 07.10.2003 gave

administrative approval vide TOO (CE-Construction-1)

Ms.No.3 dated 03.04.2013 for construction of 132/33 KV

sub-station at Chinna Orampadu and 132 KV DC/SC Line

from 220/132 KV SS Rajampet to proposed 132/22 KV SS

Chinna Orampadu. After the scheme was approved, the A.P.

TRANSCO published notification in Telugu and English

dailies on 29.10.2014 and objections are called for. However,

the petitioners did not raise objections at any point in time.

Notices were issued to all the concerned landowners. Notices

dated 22.05.2021 were issued to the petitioner by registered

post.

b) As per Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 r/w

Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the A.P. TRANSCO

got absolute authority to proceed with laying of electricity

supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of electricity

on or over the private lands subject to right of the

owner/occupier to claim compensation, if any damage is

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

sustained by reason of placing of such electric supply lines.

The acquisition of land is not necessary. The approved tower

profile and tower schedule were prepared by conducting

detailed survey in March, 2016. As per the approved tower

schedule, A.P. TRANSCO has in fact completed the work in

respect of 91 towers, out of the original proposed 99 towers

including line work and sub-station works.

c) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(for short "the Act") is not applicable to the electricity

erection towers as per Section 164 of Electricity Act. A.P.

TRANSCO is paying compensation amounts to the farmers as

per slab rate fixed by the District Collector vide proceedings

Ref.E6/1976/2018, dated 07.06.2019 duly considering the

G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. The information furnished

under RTI dated 18.03.2020 is for the towers which were

already executed. There is no procedure for collecting land

survey numbers while doing the line survey. While taking up

the actual line execution, it will address the revenue

authorities to identify the actual land holder and survey

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

number of the land where the tower is proposed to be laid for

paying land diminution/crop compensation.

d) A detailed survey was conducted, and the tower

schedule was approved on 19.03.2016. During that time,

there is no 132/33 KV features 220 KV sub-station,

Rajampet. The work for erection of 132/33 KV features in

220 KV sub-station, Rajampet was awarded on 30.05.2017.

During the execution of that work, the orientation of

proposed 132 KV C.Orampadu feeder bay at 220 KV SS

Rajampet and the revised tower schedule was approved on

08.03.2019. The revision of the tower schedule is completely

based on technical aspects but not to benefit some other

people. The contention of the petitioners to lay towers just

adjacent to the compound wall of 220 KV sub-station

Rajampet is not technically feasible and such changes in

alignment of line would impact other landowners and further

lead to multiple litigation. There is no provision under the

Electricity Act, 2003 to obtain prior consent from the owners

of private property for laying electrical lines.

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

e) A.P. TRANSCO conducted a check survey with

revenue authorities and obtained the details of survey

numbers and landowners for location No.04 & 05.

Accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioners for laying

of towers. An amount of Rs.65,21,538/- was deposited by

A.P. TRANSCO to the Sub Collector, Rajampet vide cheque

No.0755234 dated 17.03.2021 towards compensation for

land acquisition of 220 KV SS Rajampet. The 132 KV sub-

station at Chinna Orampadu is almost completed in all

respects and the A.P. TRANSCO spent approximately 20

crores. The work envisaged on public interest and the same

is meant for agriculture supply and eventually prayed to

dismiss the writ petition.

4. The Tahsildar filed a separate counter affidavit on its

behalf and on behalf of 5th respondent, almost reiterating the

averments in the counter filed by 4th respondent.

5. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners contending

that respondents issued notices without considering

G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. Guidelines were framed

under G.O.Rt.No.83 for payment of compensation towards

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

damages with regard to right to way for transmission lines.

The respondents have not conducted any survey for laying

towers and thus, prayed to set aside the impugned notices.

6. Heard Sri P.Sreeramulu Naidu, learned senior counsel

representing Ms.P.Lakshmi Priya, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for

respondents 5 & 6, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned

Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.

7. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners

would submit that original DPR is changed and the change in

DPR is not on straight line. He would submit that while fixing

compensation, notice under Section 67 of Electricity Act,

2003 has to be issued and the respondents failed to take into

consideration S.O.No.2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015, while fixing

the compensation. He would also submit that LOC 4& 5 were

not shown earlier and from LOC 6 to sub-station, if a line is

drawn, lying of tower in the petitioners' land can be avoided.

He also would contend that prior consent of the petitioners

was not taken.

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

8. Per contra, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent

would submit that no DPR is required, and the compensation

is being determined by the District Collector as per the

guidelines. He would also submit that Exhibit P3 filed along

with writ petition is not speaking about final plan and in fact,

original plan was slightly changed to benefit the petitioners.

As per the original plan, towers are to be laid in the centre of

petitioners' land and to avoid loss to the petitioners, the

authorities considered feasibility and are now laying towers

slightly moving to an end. He would submit that in fact

efforts were taken by the respondents to mitigate the loss

caused to the petitioners to the extent possible. He would

also submit that the guidelines relied upon by the petitioners

for fixing compensation under G.O.Rt.No.83 dated

20.06.2017 do not apply to the facts of the case.

9. The points for consideration are:

1) Whether the notices impugned are liable to be set aside?

2) Whether the respondent authorities are following the procedures while fixing the damages?

3) Whether the consent of land owner is necessary for laying electricity lines or towers?

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

10. The main contention of learned senior counsel for the

petitioner is that without consent of the petitioners

respondent authorities are erecting towers in their land.

Regarding obtaining permission qua erecting towers or

transmission line, no permission of landlord is necessary.

11. In K.Subrahmanyam and Ors. Vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors1, learned single Judge of this court

observed as follows:

6. The Indian Electricity Act was repealed and in its place, new statute i.e.. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted and there is no provision to obtain prior consent even from the owners of the private property for laying electricity lines. In fact, this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in 2013(4) ALD-88, held that the APTRANSCO would not be required to either initiate proceedings for acquisition of land or to obtain consent from the owner for erecting tower or laying the lines and the entitlement of Land Owners to compensation would arise only at a later date and it cannot be a ground to hinder the implementation of the scheme. The Apex Court in a decision reported in 2007(6) SCC 792 and 2008(11) SCC 476 held that both telegraphic lines and electric lines are required to be drawn over the agriculture lands or other property belonging to the private parties and in drawing such lines the entire land cannot be acquired, but the effect thereof could be diminution of value of the property, over which, such lines are drawn and the Telegraphic Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed. The latest Judgment of the Apex Court in 2017(5) SCC 143

MANU/AP/0565/2021

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

also supports the power of the electricity companies to erect towers and lines without prior consent of the owners. The law in this regard is already settled by this Court in several cases in favour of the power utilities and the issue is no longer 'res integra'. In fact, the petitioners have no manner of right to oppose the laying of lines and erection of towers in Government land. Based on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

Against the order of the learned single Judge, intra

Court appeal was filed W.A.No.303 of 2021. Writ appeal

was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.09.2021.

12. The similar issue came up before the Apex Court in the

case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Chinamma

Antony2, wherein it was made it clear that the owner of the

land would be entitled to claim compensation on the basis of

various factors. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed

as under:

"9. Both Telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/ or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor.

2008 (11) SCC 476

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used."

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited

and others [(2017) 5 SCC 143], considered the aspect of

lying of lines and the permission from the land owner and

also Sec 164 of the Electricity Act 2003 and Rule 3 of Works

of Licensees Rules 2006. Eventually, concluded that no prior

permission is required. Thus, in view of the expressions

referred to supra, the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that without getting permission the authorities

are proceeding with work falls to ground.

14. The other contention of the learned senior counsel is

that compensation is not fixing properly and in fact

compensation has to pay as per provisions of Act 30 of 2013.

Learned senior counsel relied upon the report of committee

for payment of compensation in regard to Right of Way for

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

transmission lines. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued

G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. The said G.O. deals with

guidelines for payment of compensation towards damages in

regard to Right of Way for transmission lines. District

Collector, in fact, keeping in view the G.O., fixed the

damages. The damage for Right of Way is 10% of value as per

the rate fixed by Sub-Registrar. In view of the same, the

contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

that damages need to fixed as per the provisions of Act 30 of

2013 falls to ground.

15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend

that DPR was changed. In fact, in the counter affidavit it was

specifically contended that detailed survey was conducted

and the tower schedule was approved on 19.03.2016. Initially

there are no 132/33 KV features in 220 KV substation

Rajampet. The work for erection of 132/33 KV features in

220 KV substation, Rajampet was awarded on 30.05.2017.

Revised detailed survey was carried out and tower schedule

was approved on 08.03.2019. Copy of the revised tower

schedule is also filed along with counter affidavit.

SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021

16. The alignment, normally finalized taking into

consideration various technical aspects. Thus, change of

alignment, may not technically feasible. As seen from the

record the authorities had taken maximum precaution,

technically, to mitigate the damage to the land of petitioner.

APTRANSCO spent nearly 20 crores on the project and the

project is envisaged in the interest of public meant for

agriculture supply.

17. In view of the discussion supra, this court does not find

any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to

be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 20th October, 2023

PVD