APHC010651482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 38836 OF 2022 Between: 1. KOLLATI VENKATA RAJKUMAR, S/O.SIVA NAGA RAJU, HINDU, MALE, AGE-23 YEARS, 2. KOLLATI SWAMULU,, S/O.VEERA SWAMI, HINDU, MALE, AGE-48 YEARS, 3. KOLLI PEDDI RAJU,, S/O.VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGE-61 YEARS, 4. KOLLI NAGA RAJU,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGE-56 YEARS, PETITIONER NO'S. 1 TO 4 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.1, CHINATADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE AP CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD, CORPORATE OFFICE AT BESIDE GOVT POLYTECHNIC, ITT ROAD, KRISHNA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA- 520008. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE APCPDCL DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GUDIVADA. 3. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE APCPDCL, OPP CNR GARDENS, ELURU ROAD, KAIKALURU.521333. 2 4. THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELE APCPDCL, KALIDINDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.521344. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, OFFICE AT ELURU 6. THE CHINATADINADA GRAMPANCHAYAT, . CHINATADINADA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Grampanchayat 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the respondent-DISCOM authorities are starting construction of 33/11 KV Sub-Station, nearby residential area in the land classified as Puntha without considering their objections dated 05.11.2022. They are seeking a direction to consider the said objections and not to construct the said Sub-Station in the subject matter land. 2) Mr.Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions inter alia to the effect that the petitioners are residents of Ward No.1, Pallepalem Area, China Tadinada Village, Kalidindi Mandal and DISCOM authorities are constructing 33/11 KV Sub-Station in the land which is quite opposite to the petitioners’ residence. He submits that in fact, the land in Sy.No.179 of the said village is classified as “Puntha”, which is meant for usage of villagers and if the Sub-Station is constructed in the said land, the lives of the locality people, including the petitioners will be at peril. He submits that under those circumstances, the petitioners submitted their objections dated 05.11.2022 for construction of Sub-Station in the subject matter land. As the respondent-DISCOM authorities are proceeding with the construction without considering the objections / representation, he submits that the present Writ Petition is filed. He further submits that a learned Judge of this Court vide Orders dated 30.11.2022 directed the respondents to maintain status quo for a 4 period of one week, that the said orders are extended from time to time. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector–5th respondent further submits that the DICSOM authorities have undertaken the construction of the Sub-Station in question, without obtaining permission from the District administration. He submits that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat allotting an extent of Ac.0-35 cents in R.S.No.179 of China Tadinada village, which is classified as Puntha Poramboke land, cannot be utilized for any other purposes without changing the classification of the land. He also placed reliance on the decision of a learned Judge passed in W.P.No.1759 of 2020, dated 06.02.2020 and seeks appropriate directions. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel representing the DISCOM authorities made submissions with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. While denying the averments to the effect that the Sub-Station is being built quite opposite to the land of the petitioners, the respondent-DICSOM authorities specifically asserted that in many places, the Sub-Stations are being constructed at the heart of the locality, which is the load center and best in class equipments and safety standards are now being followed to ensure that no person’s life is in danger and the apprehension of the 5 petitioners is based on wrong notions. It is submitted that in view of the interim orders, the construction of the Sub-Station was stalled and keeping in view the interest of the public at large, the interim orders may be vacated and the Writ Petition be dismissed as the same is devoid of merits. 5) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 6) At the outset, it is pertinent to note that as per the Writ prayer, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-DISCOM authorities are proceeding ahead with the construction of the Sub- Station in the subject matter land without considering their objections / representation dated 05.11.2022. From a reading of the said objections, the apprehension of the petitioners appears to be that the construction of the Sub-Station in the land in question may endanger the lives of the residents. As noted above, the learned counsel for the petitioners had also advanced arguments with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit about the resolution of Gram Panchayat allotting the land for the purpose of construction of Sub- Station, that is not tenable, though there is no challenge to the resolution. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same. 7) In the said counter affidavit, a stand was taken that the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution allotting the land for the 6 purpose of construction of the Sub-Station without having any authority to allot the Puntha Poramboke land. At the same breath, it is stated that the said extent of Ac.0-35 cents in R.S.No.179 of China Tadinada village is classified as Puntha Poramboke, which is vested with the Gram Panchayat. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that the authority or otherwise of the Gram Panchayat in allotting the subject land for construction of Sub-Station is not the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. Be that as it may. The material on record would go to show that Panchayat Secretary forwarded the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat to the DISCOM authorities stating that they have no objection for construction of Sub-Station. In so far as the utilization of the subject land for the construction of Sub-Station without change of classification, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no aid. In the said case, the Government sought to distribute house sites in the land, which is classified as Puntha Poramboke. The learned Judge while opining that that the land is part of village and it is deemed to have been vested on the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 53 of the Panchayat Raj Act held that as per Section 58(2) of the said Act the Government may, at any time by Notification in the A.P. Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in Sub-Section (1) shall cease to rest in the Gram 7 Panchayat, if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government. 8) In the light of the above stated legal position and the averments in the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent that the Puntha land vests with the Gram Panchayat, the allotment of subject matter land by it for the purpose of construction of the Sub-Station is unsustainable, cannot be accepted. 9) This Court, however, keeping in view the apprehension of the petitioners and the residents in the vicinity of the proposed Sub- Station area, deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to examine the objections dated 05.11.2022 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till consideration of the said objections and the intimation of the decision taken thereon to the petitioners under proper acknowledgment, the interim orders dated 30.11.2022 shall continue. 10) With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 11) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 16.02.2026. Ssv 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.38836 of 2022 Date: 16.02.2026 Ssv