The court established that the authorities had the power to proceed with laying electricity lines and towers without obtaining prior consent from the landowners, and that the compensation was being determined as per the guidelines.

ORDER

Subba Reddy Satti, J. - Challenging the notice dated 22.05.2021 issued by 4th respondent under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Telegraph Act,1885 and CEA (Safety and Electricity Supply) Guidelines, 2010, the above writ petition was filed.

2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners owned land in S.No.393 apart from other properties of Rajampet village. Banana, Mango, Lemon etc. crops are being cultivated. Abutting the petitioners' land, 132 KV sub-station was constructed in the year 1990. The land of the petitioners is fit for house sites. The 4th respondent issued notices impugned in the writ petition. A perusal of the notice would disclose that A.P TRANSCO is executing 132 KV D.C/S.C. line from 200 KV sub-station, Rajampet to 132 KV sub-station C.Orampadu under a system improvement scheme for improving the reliability of power supply; that the transmission lines are passing through the lands of the petitioners; that compensation for the land in which the tower laid will be arranged, for tower base area as a part of land diminution and as per the land rates fixed by the District Collector etc.,

b) Petitioners came to know that the respondents 2 to 4 got the administrative approval on 03.04.2013 for construction of 132/22 KV sub-station at C.Orampadu and the A.P. TRANSCO published notification in newspapers on 29.10.2014. The notifications were issued for the statewide projects without particulars. As per the land identified by the revenue authorities S.Nos.392 or 393 belonged to the petitioners was not included. Thus, the petitioners did not submit any objections. If the respondents lay lines directly from the sub-station, Rajampet, it will reduce one or two poles and shorten the line. The Tower/Lines in between 6-4 shown by the respondents are not in straight. Respondents changed the Detail Project Report (DPR) to benefit some persons only after 18.03.2020 and after filing of counter affidavit dated 06.11.2020 in W.P.No.18511 of 2020. The respondent authorities have to erect 99 Towers as per DPR, but now it has been changed to 96 with deviations and hence, they issued notices to the petitioners. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') is not applicable to the Acts specified in Schedule-IV, wherein the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is at Serial No.12. Section 105 (3) of the Act contemplates that the payment of compensation is as per Schedule-I and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in Schedules II and III of the Act. Notification was issued in S.O.No.2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015. Petitioners are entitled to compensation as per Schedule-I of the Act and as per G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed.

3.a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the A.P. TRANSCO in exercise of powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.115 Energy Department dated 07.10.2003 gave administrative approval vide TOO (CE-Construction-1) Ms.No.3 dated 03.04.2013 for construction of 132/33 KV sub-station at Chinna Orampadu and 132 KV DC/SC Line from 220/132 KV SS Rajampet to proposed 132/22 KV SS Chinna Orampadu. After the scheme was approved, the A.P. TRANSCO published notification in Telugu and English dailies on 29.10.2014 and objections are called for. However, the petitioners did not raise objections at any point in time. Notices were issued to all the concerned landowners. Notices dated 22.05.2021 were issued to the petitioner by registered post.

b) As per Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the A.P. TRANSCO got absolute authority to proceed with laying of electricity supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation, if any damage is sustained by reason of placing of such