IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1178 OF 2025 Between: Occ Myla Jagadeeswari, , W/o. Myla Kasaiah, Age 68 years Cultivation, R/o. Anamanamuru Village, Korisapadu Mandal Bapatia District (formerly Prakasam District). ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office at Beside Polytechnic College, ITI Road, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District (Formerly Krishna District). 3. Superintending Engineer (Operation), Andhra Pradesh Central Power- Distribution Company Limited Bapatia, Prakasam District. 4. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), Andhra Pradesh Central Power- Distribution Company Limited, Bapatia Town, Bapatia District (formerly Prakasam District). 5. Assistant Engineer (Operations), Andhra Pradesh Central Power- Distribution Company Limited Anamanamuru Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatala District (formerly Prakasam District). ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly 5th respondent in trying to form electricity line along with poles through petitioner s land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.19 cents covered by S.No.66/1 and 66/2 situated in Anamanamuru Revenue Village of Korisapadu Mandal in Bapatia District, by destroying 168 teak wood trees, without there being any authority or sanction of law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions The Electricity Act,2003 and rules and Regulations framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to form electrical line along with poles through the said lands of petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to form electrical line along with poles through the lands of petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.19 cents covered by S.No. 66/1 and 66/2 situated in Anamanamuru Revenue Village of Korisapadu Mandal in Bapatia District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI V V SATISH, SC FOR APCPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010022072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ‘■•v; [3329] xr. FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1178/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Myla Jagadeeswari AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution India, to declare the action of the respondents, particularly, respondent in trying to form electricity line with poles through petitioner’s land admeasuring an extent of Ac.4-19 cents covered by S.No.66/1 and 66/2 situated in Anamanamuru Revenue Village of Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District destroying 168 teak wood trees, as illegal and arbitrary, consequently direct the respondents not to form electrical line along with poles through the said lands of the petitioner. 1. of by 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land of an extent of Ac.4-19 cents covered by S.No.66/1 and 66/2 situated in Anamanamuru Revenue Village of Korisapadu Mandal, Bapatia District, having purchased the same from various lawful vendors. Since the date of possession, the petitioner is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. Pattadar passbooks were issued in favour of the petitioner and her was also mutated in the revenue records. Learned counsel submits that, on 03.01.2025, the 5*^ respondent/Assistant Engineer and his henchmen trespassed into the petitioner’s property and attempted to destroy 168 teakwood trees for the purpose of forming electrical lane and erecting 3. name poles. He submits that, the respondent does not have any right or authority to erect electrical lines in the land of the petitioner. Moreover,the respondent neither issued any prior notice nor communicated order to that effect and sought the relief as prayed in the writ petition. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL 4. furnished written instructions submitted by Assistant Engineer, Operation Medarametla, Korisipadu Mandal dated - Nil -, wherein it is stated as follows: “In this regard, it is submitted that the land of the petitioner in Survey Nos.66/1 and 66/2 is situated adjacent to R&B Road and there is road margin site belonginSg to R&B Department. In the said road margin site of R&B Department only the proposed electrical line is going to be laid. There is no proposal to destroy the teak wood trees of the petitioner as alleged. In case, if any of those Teak wood trees are grown and touching the electricity line, by cutting and removing the branches of such extra grown trees, the electricity line will be formed. So, there is no such proposal to destroy or remove the entire teak wood trees as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner only with anticipation that her teak wood trees will be destroyed or removed, and with a view to stall installation of new electrical line adjacent to her land, came forward with this writ petition. Since the proposed electrical line is meant for public purpose that too for the benefit of ryots to give uninterrupted electricity supply to ryots, there is no need or necessity to stop the proposed laying of new electrical lines along with poles in Anamanamuru road.” Learned Standing Counsel also assures this Court that, there is no 5. proposal to destroy the teakwood trees of the petitioner and requested this Court to pass appropriate orders. \ \ r 6. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the past several years. It appears that, the respondents, more particularly, respondent proceeding for laying electricity line through the petitioner R&B land/road margin, the respondents are not touching the land of the petitioner. If the respondents propose to lay separate electricity line through R&B road margin for public purpose through the land of the petitioner, if any piece of land of petitioner is required, the petitioner shall be put on notice before erecting electric poles and follow due procedure. I r i ( In view of the categorical admission made by the learned Standing Counsel, the respondents shall neither enter into the land of the petioner nor destroy the teakwood trees of the petitioner. If the respondents propose to lay electricity line other than R&B road margin strictly adhere to the due procedure contemplated under law. In the process of erecting poles, the respondents shall ensure that no damage is caused to the teakwood trees of the petitioner. 7. they shall At this stage, learned Standing Counsel emphasises the necessity for trimming the branches of the trees, in case the teakwood trees are grown and covering the R&B Road Margin to lay electricity line, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection for trimming the branches of the trees, without causing any damage to the trees. 8. '^4 Hence, the respondents are directed to trim the branches of the trees, in case the trees electricity lines, after putting the petitioner 9. are touching the R&B Road Margin to lay on notice. With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions Petition shall stand closed. 11. if any, pending in this Writ //TRUE COPY// SDI- N.NAGAMMA ASSISTANT! REGl^RAR "OFFICER To. SEC Velagapudi, Amaravat?GuntL/r^rasTrtet! Andhra Pradesh®"*' Conege, ,Ti Road, D“n'‘^o^nfpa®'rL!;niSX°l Powll!"DisSSn Co"SSS^ Centrai (formerly Prakasam Distr%.^ Bapatia District '■ SfslS*on"crm®pa,ly ESA'naman'*" Mandai, Bapataia District (formerly Prakram □Ist^ct)'^""®"''"'*” One CC to Sri. Nimmagadda Revathi Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP For Energy .High Court OfAndhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri V V Satish, SC for APCPDCL [OPUC]. AL 9. Three CD Copies 1 r? -P \ * V A '*S' \, \ i. v< ■;. HIGH COURT yj DATED;1 0/01/2025 ORDER AND«^ WP.No.1178 of 2025 1 ,,g 2 3 JAN 2025 ^ Current Section <>!«s£^spatcv\^^«^ — CO DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS