1 APHC010705332012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 36784 OF 2012 Between: 1.ALLADA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O RANGAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2.ALLADA NOOKARAJU,, S/O RANGAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3.KODOORI LAXMI PARVATHI,, W/O BUTCHAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 4.ALLADA VENKATA RAO,, S/O RANGAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5.ALLADA YESUBABU,, S/O SRI RANGAIAH, OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL R/O PANASAPADU VILLAGE, SAMARLAKOTA MANDAL, EAST'GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.A P TRANSCO, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER. 2.THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, A.P. TRANSCO, A.V.APPARAO ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, A.P. TRANSCO, NEAR RTC COMPLEX, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 5.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKINADA DIVISION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6.KODURI SOMANNA DORA, S/O VEERRAJU, AGED: 55 YEARS, R/O PANASAPADU VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7.KODURI NANDESWARA RAO, S/O VEERRAJU, AGED 41 YEARS,R/O PANASAPADU VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI 2.METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR RAO 3.T V S PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Srinivas Challa, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri T. Sridhar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V.Satish, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri P. Sai Avinash, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not laying new line and removing the towers from our land in Sy.Nos.48/1, 48/2 72/2 and 149/5 of total admeasuring about 5 acres situated at Timmapuram Village, East Godavari District as agreed before the RDO Kakinada as per the plan submitted by 3rd respondent as illegal 3 arbitrary discriminatory, against law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to lay a new line and also remove the towers as per the plan provided by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders that are deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land in Survey No.48/1, 48/2, 72/2 and 149/5 of Timmapuram Village, East Godavari District. The total land that belong to the Writ Petitioners is about Ac.5.00 cents. The said land is used by the Writ Petitioners for agricultural activities. The Official Respondents herein have laid high tension electrical wires by erecting towers in the land belonging to the Writ Petitioners. Since the demand for electricity had increased it became inevitable to the Official Respondents to lay a second line of 132 KV from Kakinada to Ramachandra Puram. When the Official Respondents have erected towers for the second line and had undertaken the stringing activity, the Writ Petitioners have objected to the same. 4. The Official Respondents have filed Counter-Affidavit. The said Counter-Affidavit would indicate that the Writ Petitioners have never objected to the laying of first line while the said line was laid 10 years back. The Revenue Divisional Officer along with the farmers had conducted a joint inspection and he has requested the Official Respondents to explore the possibilities of laying a new tower in the nearby panchayat land duly removing the towers at LOC No.6 and Gantry. A proposal was also submitted to shift the tower which is at LOC No.6. However, at that stage, some of the farmers have objected for shifting of the tower on the ground that they would be affected by shifting. Therefore, the proposal submitted by the Asst. Executive Engineer, TLC SS Division, A.P. Transco was considered by the higher officials and due to the financial constraint for shifting of lines, the same was not approved. 4 5. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Official Respondents have not paid any compensation to the Writ Petitioners, while admittedly, the Official Respondents have laid the second electricity line in the land belonging to the Writ Petitioners. He would therefore, submit that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for compensation. 6. Having regard to the facts of this case and since this Writ Petition is of the year 2012 and also having regard to the fact that the high tension lines have been laid long time ago, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. However, the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for compensation is required to be considered in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to consider the case of the Writ Petitioners for payment of compensation, if the law so permits. 8. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 22.07.2025 Mnr 5 88 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.36784 OF 2012 Dt: 22.07.2025 Mnr