APHC010361052023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. BETWEEN: 1. YEDDULLA VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/o. YEDDULA VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/o.3 VEEDI, NEAR RTPP, CHINNADANDLURU VILLAGE, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAUDAMINI, PLOT NO.2, SECTOR 29, GURGAON, HARYANA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT KADAPA. 5. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18548/2023 YEDDULLA VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/o. YEDDULA VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/o.3-45,YEDDULA VEEDI, NEAR RTPP, CHINNADANDLURU VILLAGE, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,NEW THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, DISTRICT-522001. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAUDAMINI, PLOT NO.2, SECTOR 29, GURGAON, HARYANA. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT THE JOINT COLLECTOR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO YEDDULLA VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/o. YEDDULA VENKATA 45,YEDDULA VEEDI, NEAR RTPP, CHINNADANDLURU VILLAGE, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,NEW THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAUDAMINI, PLOT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT (KADAPA) DISTRICT AT THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMADUGU, 2 7. THE TAHSILDAR, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT. 8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE KADAPA, YSR (KADAPA) DISTRICT ...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 writ or order direction one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for laying and erection of 800 KV HVDC Raigarh-Pugalur Transmission Line and polls through the petitioner land in Survey No.131 an extent of Ac.1.35 cents, 132 an extent of Ac.1.20 cents, 134 an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, 136/1 an extent of Ac.2.15 cents,129/3 an extent of Ac.0.95 cents and 129/4 an extent of Ac.0.92 cents of Sirigepalli Village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in violation of the Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the lay and erection of 800 KV HVDC Raigarh-Pugalur Transmission Line and polls through the petitioner land and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKAT CHALLA 2. GP FOR ENERGY 3. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "……to issue writ or order direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation to the petitioner for laying and erection of 800 KV HVDC Raigarh-Pugalur Transmission Line and polls through the petitioner land in Survey No.131 an extent of Ac.1.35 cents, 132 an extent of Ac.1.20 cents, 134 an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, 136/1 and extent of Ac.2.15 cents, 129/3 an extent of Ac.0.95 cents and 129/4 an extent of Ac.0.92 cents of Sirigepalli Village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR (Kadapa) District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in violation of the Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the lay and erection of 800 KV HVDC Raigarh-Pugalur Transmission Line and polls through the petitioner land and pass such other or further orders ……" 2. The petitioner asserts that the 3rd respondent-Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, has laid and erected the 800 KV HVDC Raigarh-Pugalur Transmission Line and associated poles across the petitioner’s land in Survey Nos. 131, 132, 134, 136/1, 129/3, and 129/4 of Sirigepalli village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. As a result of this erection of electric wire, 40 mango trees owned by the petitioner and his brother were damaged. The affidavit supporting the writ petition states that the contractor has promised and assured 4 that he will pay a reasonable amount as per the norms of the guidelines given for valuation of orchards. 3. It is further claimed that the respondents are under legal obligation to compensate the petitioner for the aforementioned erection of transmission lines and poles. As there is no proper response from the respondents, the petitioner is constrained to issue legal notice on 30.09.2019 to the District Collector, Kadapa, and others, claiming an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- for erection of transmission lines and claiming compensation for the loss of yield. Despite, there is no such response to the legal notice 30.09.2019, the petitioner herein constrained to file the present Writ Petition seeking a directive to the respondents, particularly the 3rd respondent, for compensation to the property and yield. 4. The 3rd respondent-Power Grid Corporation of India Limited filed counter affidavit and stated that they paid the compensation with regard to the corridor usage or ROW an amount of Rs.22,494/- vide NEFT UT No.SBIN121049166215, dated 18.02.2021 to the brother of the petitioner herein i.e. Yeddula Raghavendra Reddy and Rs.22,494/- was paid to the petitioner on 18.02.2021 and further stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any yield compensation. 5 5. The petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner has a right to ‘yield compensation’ as outlined in G.O.Ms.No.357, Revenue (LA) Department, dated 22.03.2006, which establishes a procedure for valuing fruit-bearing orchards, to be calculated by the Horticulture Department. According to Sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if any dispute arises regarding the adequacy of compensation under Section 10 clause (3), it should be resolved by the District Judge with jurisdiction over the property, upon application by either disputing party. Hence, urged this Court to permit the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under the above provision of the Act. 6. As this Court is unable to resolve disputed questions of fact concerning G.O.Ms.No.357, dated 22.03.2006, this Court disposes the present writ petition permitting the petitioner to approach appropriate authority, as outlined in Sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. Upon receiving such an application, the concerned authority is directed to make an endeavour to address the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.02.2026 Harin