DEVISETTY RAMASWAMY Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a resident of Sattenapally in Guntur District, owns an extent of Ac.4.46 cents in Sy.Nos.438 and 431/2 of Madala Village, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District. He states that he raises dry crops such as jute, chilly, cotton etc in these lands. The cause for grievance in this writ petition is that the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APTRANSCO) proposed to erect a tower in his lands in the process of laying transmission lines from Nunna to Sattenapally. He issued legal notice dated 04.04.2012 to the APTRANSCO in this regard alleging that his lands would be rendered useless by installation of the tower and that it would also have an adverse impact in terms of the lands' sale value as well as the feasibility of raising bank loans on the security thereof.

(2.) He complained that no notice or opportunity was given to him prior to the decision to install a tower in his lands. He further alleged that the authorities had diverted the transmission lines at the instance of the big ryots of Madala Village and that upon enquiry, he was able to confirm that the line route had been modified to his detriment without following any procedure and without notice to him.

(3.) The petitioner further stated that he was served with a notice on 14.05.2012 to the effect that the APTRANSCO would be exercising powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1885') and that the laying of transmission lines would result in removal of some trees and crops in his lands. He was given the option of either choosing payment of compensation or delivery of the removed trees and crops. Relying on Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2003'), the 'Works of Licensees Rules, 2006' (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2006'), and provisions of some repealed enactments, the petitioner contended that the action of APTRANSCO was in violation of law. He further stated that powers had not been conferred on the APTRANSCO by the appropriate Government under Section 164 of the Act of 2003, as the Central Government had to do so through publication of a notification in the Gazette of India. He relied upon the amended procedure for obtaining authorization under Section 164 of the Act of 2003, as set out in the letter dated 20.10.2011 of the Government of India, and alleged that this procedure had not been followed. He stated that APTRANSCO ought to have acquired his land by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that he was being deprived of his property in violation of constitutional protections. The petitioner further stated that in the light of the notice served upon him in May, 2012, he apprehended that he would be dispossessed pursuant thereto. He sought a consequential direction to the authorities not to erect the tower in his lands.