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
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.
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
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.
CWP-436-2018 (OGM)
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
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
(2009) 16 SCC 743
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
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
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
