K. SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the owner of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac. 5.60 cents, situated in Sy.No. 368 and in various survey numbers of Kuchivaripalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. The 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the 1st petitioner is the owner of the agriculture land situated in Sy.No. 369 to an extent of Ac. 9.58 cents of Kuchivaripalli Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District. In order to develop the said land, the 1st petitioner made an application to the competent authority to convert his land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The competent authority i.e Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, asked the 1st petitioner to pay conversion fees. Accordingly, he paid the fee and the land was converted into non-agriculture, petitioners intended to develop the said land. While so, the 5th respondent proposed to lay the transmission line from 220 KV SS-Rajampeta to 132 KV SS C.Orampadu, through the land of the 1st petitioner and tag the lines, when the 1st petitioner objected the proposed action of the respondents, the 5th respondent has issued notice dated 01.03.2021 to the 1st petitioner under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003. It is specifically contended that the highhanded act of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Works of Licensees Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules') rules framed by the 1st respondent through G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 27.02.2007, which reads as:

(3.) A reading of the above rule, it is clear that when the owner or occupier of the land raised any objection in respect of the works to be carried out, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, but no such permission was obtained by the respondents, which is highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, though, the respondents herein proposed to transmit the High Tension Line through the land of the 1st petitioner.