Serene County Owners Welfare ... vs Hyderabad Growth Corridor Ltd. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 549 Tel

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

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.

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

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