IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that statutory authorities can lay transmission lines without individual notifications to landowners, provided they follow the established legal framework.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“........to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to lay the line and tower in the said plantation of mine in Survey No. 259 of Venkata Krishan Puram Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District including issuing of the Letter in reference No. Lr. No. AEE/400 KV Const./SD-II/VJA/E.Vem.K.Kota/D. No. 168/2016 dated 15.2.2017 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, the 6th respondent herein, and issuing of the notice dated 15.02.2017 bearing Notice No. 42 under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act No. XIII of 1885) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and mala-fide one and pass such orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit......”

2. The basic case of the petitioner as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac. 14.16 cents of horticultural/plantation land in Survey No. 259 of Venkata Krishna Puram Village. The horticultural plantation raised in the said land is (a) Oil Palm (b) Inter crop of Cocoa and Coconut. A High Tension Line of 200/400 KV is going through the petitioner’s land on the North East Corner and a Tower was erected in the land of the petitioner, as a result of which, half acre of land has gone into erection of tower and another half acre surrounding the said tower was left barren without plantation, so as to avoid accidents. In the year 2001, an accident occurred and one labourer died due to electric shock while plucking the oil palm fruit bunches.

The respondents have taken up the work of construction of 400 KV Electrical Sub-Station at Kamavarapu Kota Village to connect the same with 400/220 KV Sub-Station located at Vemagiri, East Godavari District and started laying of the connecting line. As per the alignment planned, the respondents have given the markings for all the towers for laying the said line. But no such markings were given in respect of the petitioner’s lands. In other words, by the said alignment, there was no proposal for laying the line to go through the petitioner’s lands and therefore, no survey was done with regard to the petitioner’s lands nor any peg marks were marked.

On 22.12.2016, the 7th respondent along with the supporting staff and others visited the petitioner’s land for the purpose of giving tentative markings for laying a Tower on the South Western side of the land and damaged the plantation in that area. The respondents have changed the alignment with a mala-fide intention, in order to protect the interest of the owners of the land adjoining or opposite to the petitioner’s land. The petitioner under those circumstances, made representations to the concerned respondent authorities to call for the Survey Reports/Sketches to comprehend the issue and take steps to rectify the same.

The 7th respondent addressed a Letter/Notice dated 15.02.2017 to the petitioner informing that the above mentioned line is passing through the petitioner’s fields/lands in Survey No. 259 and a Tower (location No. 87/1) is to be constructed in the petitioner’s land and the foundation work will be started within 15 days. The action of the respondent-authorities in changing the alignment of line is arbitrary, mala-fide one and only with a view to see that the line do not pass through the land of the other owners and to favour them. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Mr. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Anoop Koushik Karavadi appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the chronological events and the material placed on record made his submissions. He submits that the 3rd respondent issued a Noti