APHC010130732026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7189/2026 Between: 1. BOJJA HARINATH REDDY, S/O BOJJA VENKAT REDDY, AGED ABOUT56 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE H.NO.25-684-26, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. NALLALA VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. NALLALA MUNISESHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.1-23, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. PYREDDY SHOBA RANI, W/O PYREDDY MAHESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/OH.NO.1-42, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. PYREDDY UMESWHWAR REDDY, S/O.PYREDDY SEETHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.1-62, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. PYREDDY MAHANANDI REDDY, S/O. PYREDDY PEDDA BUGGA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.1-110A, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. PERLA GOVARDHAN REDDY, S/O.PERLA NARAYAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.2-65, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 7. VADRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO, S/O. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.28-1708-2, NOONEPALLE, NANDYAL DISTRICT.. 8. PYREDDY RAMESHWAR REDDY, S/O. PYREDDY PARHURAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HINDU, OCC- AGRICULTURE, 2 R/OH.NO.1-38, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.. 9. BYREDDY RUKMANGADA REDDY, S/O.BYREDDY SIVA SANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/OH.NO.1-103, KOWLURU, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.. 10. BYREDDY JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O.BYREDDY SIVA SANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HINDU, OCC RTD. EMPLOYEE CUM AGRICULTURE, FLAT NO.305G, BLOCK GIRIDHARI EXECUTIVE PARK, PEERAM CHERUV, HYDERABAD-500091. 11. NALLALA NAGI REDDY, S/O. NALLALA SWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.4-114, BAHARAPET, KOSGI VILLAGE, KOSGI MANDAL, MAHABOOB NAGAR DISTRICT. 12. VAJRALA NAGIREDDY, S/O VAJRALA VENKATASUBBAREDDY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.87-6310-L-16,LAKSHMI TOWNSHIP, KURNOOL. 13. YEDDULA SUDHARSHAN REDDY, S/O YEDDULA NAGESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.9-3, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 14. BOINA NARAYANA, S/O BOINA CHINNA SANJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.55 BC COLONY BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 15. PALURU MANIKANTA, S/O PALURU SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.2-428- 139, A-46, BALAJI COMPLEX, NANDYAL. 16. DEREDDY AMRUTHANATHA REDDY, S/O PATTABHI RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.3-73, OC COLONY BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 17. KARUKULA THARUN KUMAR REDDY, S/O KARUKULA YELLA MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.3-10, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 18. SHAIK JILANI, S/O SHAIK MABUSHAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MUSLIM, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O.H.NO.2-103/A, BALAPANUR 3 VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 19. Y.MAHESWAR REDDY, S/O Y.SURYAPRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.3-1, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 20. Y.BHASKAR REDDY, S/O Y.CHINNAP REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/0.H.N0.3-77A, KOTA STREET, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 21. JAYANTHI REDDY, W/O VIJAY KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HINDU,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE CUM AGRICULTURE,R/O FLAT NO.173, ROAD NO.75, FILM NAGAR, JUBLIHILLS, HYDERABAD-500096. 22. SIDDI REDDY VENKATA NAGESWAR REDDY, S/O SIDDI REDDY PAKKI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O.H.NO.3-115, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 23. DEREDDY VIJAY KUMAR REDDY, S/O DEREDDY PARAMESWARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, HINDU, OCC AGRICULTURE,R/O.H.NO.2-105, BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, EP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL.- 518001 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL.- 518001 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL-518501 5. THE TAHSILDAR, PANYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.-518501 6. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A P, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, GUNADALA, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.-521230 4 7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS CIRCLE, A.P. TRANSCO, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.-518001 8. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NANDYAL CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, VILLA NO. 103, NANDI PARADISE, KRANTI NAGAR, NANDYAL(V) AND (M) AND DISTRICT, A.P-518501. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in taking steps to enhance the corridor amount of 30 percent as per the actual land value furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Panyam, inspite of the written representation dt. 27-12-2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the-5- Constitution of India and contra to the procedure contemplated U/Sec. 67, 68 Electricity Act, 2003 and its Works of Licensees Rules 2006 and consequently direct the respondent authorities to enhance the corridor amount of 30 percent as per the Guidelines issued by the Central Government in F.No.3/4/2016-Trans- Part(4), Government of India, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi-110001, dt.14.06.2024, and to grant IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the erection of the towers through the lands of the petitioners situated at Nandipadu Village, Kolimigundia Mandal, Nandyal District as mentioned in annexure pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 7189/2026 The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer: “…..to declare the inaction of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to enhance the corridor compensation @ 30% in accordance with the actual land value furnished by the Sub-Registrar, Panyam, despite the written representation dated 27.12.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the corridor compensation @ 30% in terms of the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, vide F.No.3/4/2016-Trans-Part(4) dated 14.06.2024.…..” 2. The sum and substance of the case is that the petitioners are agriculturists owning small extents of land situated in Kowluru, Balapanur, Nerawada and Chilakala Villages of Panyam Mandal, Nandyal District. The respondent authorities are undertaking construction of a 765 D/C transmission line passing through the petitioners’ lands. It is the grievance of the petitioners that compensation was awarded by the District Collector without properly considering the Right of Way (RoW) aspect and without adhering to the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 14.06.2024. 3. Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are agriculturists and they are depending upon the 6 income derived from agriculture lands situated in Kowluru, Balapanur, Nerawada and Chilakala Villages of Panyam Mandal, Nandyal District. He further submits that the petitioners lands are situated very adjacent to the highway, as such, they fetche high market value. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, vide, Rc.G1/618/2023 dated 22.07.2024, where under he issued the proceedings by finalizing the land value at Rs.85,000/- per cent and learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court relating to the relevant para in Ex.P6 dated 22.07.2024, where under the District Collector, Kurnool and the Joint Collector, Kurnool has finalized the land value @ Rs.85,000/- per cent and in respect of issuance of compensation to the petitioners on the following aspects. 1) Taking the proposals into consideration, the compensation/land value is hereby fixed for the area covered by each tower @ Rs.85,000/- per cent. 2) In addition, if the towers are located within the peripheral of National Highway i.e., within 500 Mtrs, from the shoulders of NH, will have enhanced Market Value and will be paid additional 150% to the above fixed land rates. 3) The compensation towards diminution of land value for transmission corridor/width of right of way (RoW) has to be paid @ 30% of the land value (basic value). 4) The value of damage of standing crops/Horticulture crops, trees and non-fruit bearing trees during the establishment of transmission includes tower foundation, erection of structure and stringing of conductor etc., shall be 7 assessed by the Agriculture/Horticulture and Forest officers and amount will be paid in addition to the compensation. 5) In case of structures the value shall be calculated by R&B department and amount will be paid in addition to the compensation. 6) In case of bore wells and pipe lines are affected, the value shall be calculated by the RWS department and amount will be paid in addition to the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while compensation under the first two components has been paid, the principal grievance pertains to non-payment of compensation towards RoW (third component). He contends that the authorities are bound to follow the specific guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, dated 14.06.2024, particularly Clause (5), which has not been adhered to. The petitioners have also submitted a representation dated 27.12.2025 to the concerned authorities. 5. Initially the matter was listed on 17.03.2026 and on 24.03.2026 so as to get instructions from the respondent authorities. 6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issuance of the guidelines dated 14.06.2024 is not disputed, and that the competent authority is bound to follow the prescribed procedure while determining compensation. It is further submitted that upon consideration of the representation, appropriate action will be taken in accordance with law. 8 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to dispose of the writ petition dated 27.12.2025, for which, the respondent counsel have not disputed and also submitted that the respondent authorities will act as per the due process and law only. 8. Apparently, all the petitioners are agriculturists, and in support of their claims, they have placed on record pattadar passbooks, title deeds, and adangals, which prima facie establish their ownership over the subject lands. It is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities have paid certain amounts towards compensation; however, the same is not in consonance with the Guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 14.06.2024. Further, having regard to the fact that the petitioners’ lands are situated adjacent to the National Highway, undoubtedly, the petitioners are entitled to the protection of their constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 9. In Kolkatha Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Shah 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court reaffirmed that deprivation of property must be strictly in accordance with a just fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 300A and held that the mere existence of law is not enough; proper procedural safeguards are mandatory to validate such action and further emphasized that such procedure must withstand the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and must also be consistent with the guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21, any action resulting in dispossession of demolition, if 1 (2024) 10 SCC 533 9 undertaken without notice, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned order, would be unconstitutional. Thus, the Apex Court underscored that deprivation of property cannot be effected in a mechanical manner, but must be supported by fairness, transparency, and adherence to the principles of natural justice, thereby harmonizing Articles 14, 21, and 300 A of the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the following manner: (i) The petitioners are hereby directed to submit a fresh representation by stating all the facts and circumstances by annexing pattadhar pass books, title deeds and adangals and the relevant material to substantiate their assertion to the 3rd respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ii) On such event, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same in the light of the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, vide F.No.3/4/2016-Trans-Part(4) dated 14.06.2024, particularly Clause (5), and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter. (iii) The 3rd respondent is hereby also directed to communicate the said order copy to the petitioners by speed post with acknowledgment due. 10 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 31.03.2026 ARB 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.7189 of 2026 Date: 31.03.2026 ARB