Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J Anjaneyulu At Ramanjaneyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
APHC010446612024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22771/2024
Between:
J Anjaneyulu @ Ramanjaneyulu ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NARAHARI BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENERGY
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:-
"...pleased to issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
declaring questioning the action of the respondents in proposing to erect
High Tension Towers and Electrical Lines through the land of the petitioner
in an extent of Ac.3.46 cents in Sy No.5276 situated at Mandli Village,
Somandepalli Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District erstwhile Anantapur District
without following due process of law and without paying compensation as
illegal arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and violative of
Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and violative of Electricity Act
2003 consequently direct the respondents to not to proceed with the
erection of High Tension Towers and Electrical Lines in the above subject
property and pass..."
2. The petitioner purchased the subject land of an extent of Ac.3.46 cents
in Sy.No.527-6 situated at Mandli Village, Somandepalli Mandal, Sri Satya Sai
District (erstwhile Anantapur District), through registered sale deed dated
24.06.1983 for a valid sale consideration vide document No.1174/83. Since
the date of purchase, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the said land by raising season crops. While the matter being
so, on 22.09.2024, the respondent authorities have visited the petitioner's
agricultural land and informed him that they want to erect High Tension
Towers and Electrical Lines through his land which was seriously objected by
the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents are
intending to erect High Tension Towers and Electric Lines across the
petitioner's agriculture land even without issuing any notice and paying
compensation to the petitioner as per the guidelines of the GORt.No.83 dated
20.06.2017. Challenging the said action of the respondents, requesting the
authorities to change the alignment by safeguarding a small extent of
agricultural land, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. Today when the matter is taken up for admission, learned Standing
Counsel for the Respondents, Ms.Jyotirathna Anumolu has brought to the
notice of this Court the order passed in W.P.No.10844 of 2019, wherein,
under the similar circumstances, the action of the respondents was
challenged declaring the notice issued by the respondents in erecting High
tension Towers and Electric Wires through the petitioner's land, the Hon'ble
Court duly relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Devisetty Ramaswamy V. Chief Engineer, 400 KV Line, A.P. TRANSCO
(APSPDCL), Hyderabad 1 and The Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited V. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others2 held that
no prior notice or opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier
2013 (4) ALD 88
2017 (5) SCC 143
of the premises affected by laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no
question of owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity
of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. The provision of Section 17
postulates that the right would arise only after laying of lines and posts and
upon the failure of authority concerned to act upon a requisition to remove or
relocate such lines of post etc. and further held that non-payment of
compensation would not be a ground to stall the grounding of transmission
lines. It is further stated that the effected persons are entitled for
compensation only after laying of the lines. By relying on the two Judgments,
this Court dismissed the said writ petition.
4. However in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that
they have already laid High Tension Wires in agriculture land, it is the case of
the petitioner that respondents have visited the petitioner's land and in view of
the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment reported in relying in The Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited case referred supra this Court is not inclined to
interfere at this stage, but however the petitioner is at liberty to make an
application to the respondents claiming compensation for the loss incurred by
the petitioner if at all respondents lay the high tension wires across the
petitioner's land and the same may be considered by the respondents in
accordance with law.
5. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Date: 04.10.2024
RSD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22771/2024
Date: 04.10.2024
RSD
