Dismissed

Reddipilli Tatarao, Visakhapatnam. v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept., Guntur Dist and 2 Ot

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2020WP/7403/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the erection of High Tension lines on a 40-foot road was dismissed. The court found the pits were dug on private company land, not the alleged public road, rejecting the claim that villagers' objection was mandatory or that physical obstruction was lawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Reddipilli Tatarao, Visakhapatnam. Vs Prl Secy… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Petition No.7403 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to erect HT lines on 40 feet road situated in S.No.15/1, 2 of Mindi village, Gajuwaka, in Ward No.65, GVMC, Visakhapatnam without issuing any proceedings and without calling objections from the general public as arbitrary, illegal and vilative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents not to erect HT lines in 40 feet road.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that he is resident of Mindi village and he worked as supervisor in Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam and retired in the year 1998. After his retirement, he is living with his family in his own house bearing H.No.2-28-73, Ramalayam street, Mindi village. In Mindi village, 40 feet road is existing in S.No.15/1, 2 of Mindi village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, which connects to 80 feet road goes to Port, Dockyard and Visakhapatnam city. On the eastern side of the Mindi village Road, Mindi village graveyard is existing in Survey No.15/1 since long time. The said 40 feet road was laid by the Britishers and existing since formation of Mindi village. The said 40 feet road was recently developed under the Member of Parliament Lads. The grave yard is developed and other facilities are provided and constructed a compound wall around the grave yard. While so, Sravan Shipping Services Private Limited people highhandedly tried to occupy the road by putting big containers across the road for which the villagers of Mindi village

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

agitated the issue of obstructing 40 feet road and the same was removed at the instance of local MLA in the year 2011. The villagers of Mindi village agitated in several forms from 2011 onwards till date. Several cases were registered against the villagers of Mindi village. Even though the Government land is available in S.No.15/1 and 15/2, but the pits were dug in the middle of 40 feet Mindi village road. The same was brought to the notice of the various authorities by the petitioners and other villagers. The enquiry reveals that at the instance of Sravan Shipping Company Limited, the respondents are trying to erect HT line across 40 feet road and a pit was also dug in the middle of the road. The Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated 07.02.2017 to the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka directing him to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner. So far, the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka has not taken any action against illegal encroachments made by the respondents for digging pits in the middle of the road opposite to the grave yard for erecting poles for HT lines. Being aggrieved by the illegal action of the respondents, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶9

On 02-03-2017, this court directed the respondents not to erect High Tension electrical poles in the middle of 40 feet Mindi village road in S.No.15/1, 2 of Mindi village, Gajuwaka, 65^th ward, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. On 23.03.2017, while admitting the writ petition, this Court extended the interim direction until further orders. Thereafter, it underwent several adjournments, but the respondents 1 to 3 especially the 2^nd respondent against whom certain allegations are made have not filed any counter. However, on 23.03.2017 the

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

proposed respondents 4 and 5 have filed implead petition for their impleadment in the writ petition. They also filed WVMP.No.1699 of 2017 seeking vacation of the interim direction granted on 02.03.2017 and these two petitions are pending consideration since long and the matter underwent several adjournments. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought for adjournment on 28.01.2020 for getting instructions. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 04.02.2020. On 04.02.2020, this court ordered I.A.No.3 of 2017 (WPMP.No.13225 of 2017) filed for impleadment of respondents 4 and 5. However, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment for getting instructions was rejected, and the main writ petition itself along with vacate petition was taken up for hearing today on the request of the counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 since they filed vacate petition.

¶14

Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents 2 and 3 at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, the impleaded respondents, under the guise of laying High Tension electrical lines highhandedly dug the pits for erection of poles in the middle of 40 feet road without calling for any objections from the villagers, in spite of availability of Government land in Sy.No.15/1 and 15/2 of Mindi village, the respondents dug pits in the middle of the 40 feet road thereby causing obstruction to the people to reach Mindi village grave yard situated in Sy.No.15/1 and 15/2 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel on record for the respondents 4

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

and 5 would contend that there is only 10 feet existing wide road from Mindi village to Mindi burial ground passing through Sy.No.15/1 and the said road is formed only up to Mindi village burial ground and there is no extension of the road beyond the burial ground. He further states that no documentary evidence is filed in support of the contention of the petitioner that the 40 feet road is existing from Mindi village to 80 feet road to reach Naval Dockyard and the same is formed by the Britishers. He further contended that having made several allegations against Sravan Shipping Services Private Limited, the impleaded the 4^th respondent. But, the 4^th respondent is not made a party to the writ petition and thereby the respondents 4 and 5 were got impleaded by filing implead petition by themselves. He would further contend that no documentary evidence is placed before this court in support of the contention that the petitioner made several representations to the authorities concerned. The Revenue and Municipal authorities are not made as party respondents to this writ petition. The police authorities are also not made as parties to this writ petition. In order to prevent them to submit true facts before this court to reach just conclusion, the petitioner filed this writ petition only with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners for extraneous considerations. He further contended that the impleaded petitioners have constructed warehouses/godowns in their patta lands. The HT electrical lines are passing through the petitioner’s factory premises over the godwons belongs to the 4^th respondent company, when there was a proposal to lay a new line for supply of power to Naval Dockyard, the 4^th respondent company requested the respondents to

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

change the alignments to minimise the inconvenience to the 4^th respondent company and undertook to bare necessary expenditure that will be incurred in realignment of laying transmission lines also. The 2^nd respondent considered the request of the 4^th respondent company and was agreed to relocated the two towers for laying high tension lines in Sy.No.15/3, Mindi village, which is adjacent land belonging to the 5^th respondent company, which is sister concern of the 4^th respondent company subject to condition of depositing an amount of Rs.71,32,000/- towards expenditure to be incurred for such re-alignment vide communication dated 03.06.2016. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent company has deposited the said amount on 26.12.2016. Thereafter, the respondents have taken steps for digging two pits in Sy.No.15/3 of Mindi village, which is patta land belonging to the 5^th respondent company. As seen from the photographs, the pit was dug at the dead end of 10 feet Mindi village road near the Mindi burial ground situated in Survey No.15/1, whereas the pit was dug in the 5^th respondent patta land in Sy.No.15/3. At present, the pit would be wider, after completion, closure of the pit it would be reduced in width. The Station House Officer, Gajuwaka registered a case in FIR No.547 of 2016 and 548 of 2016 for offences under Sections 324, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police requested the revenue authorities to furnish information as to know whether the subject land in which the said towers are sought to be erected is situated in a private land or Government land and the revenue authorities, after conducting detailed survey, had sent information to the police stating

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

that the land where the pit was dug is in the patta land situated in Sy.No.15/3, but not in Government land. The Tahsildar in his letter dated 18-2-2017 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S., Visakhapatnam had categorically stated that the land proposed for erection of electrical poles lies in Survey No.15/3 part of Mindi village and as per the records the said land extent Ac.0.96 cents is in Sy.No.15/3 of Mindi village which is a private patta land and was purchased by the 5^th respondent company vide document No.3166 of 2010, dated 09-07-2010. The writ petitioner, having filed the reply affidavit to the counter of the 4^th respondent, has not chosen to file any documentary evidence in support of his contentions even along with the reply affidavit.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 4 and 5, in support of their averments made in the counter as well as in vacate and implead petitions, have not filed any documentary evidence. In view of the above discussion, this court came to the conclusion, in the absence of any legal or admissible documents, it is very difficult for this court to decide the lis in the writ petition.

¶29

In the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court, having perused two photographs filed as annexures 12 and 13 to the writ affidavit, came to the conclusion that the respondents 2 and 3 dug the pits for erecting HT electrical poles in the land situated in Survey No.15/3 Patta land at the dead end of 10 feet Mindi village road near Mindi village burial ground, but not in the middle of 40 feet

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

road situated in Sy.No.15/1 of Mindi village as alleged by the petitioner. However, the 2^nd respondent AP TRANSCO had taken a decision to re-align High Tension lines avoiding warehouse godown, in the 4^th respondent premises. However, at the instance of the 4^th respondent to minimise inconvenience caused to the 4^th respondent as the existing high tension lines are passing through the godown of the 4^th respondent. When the 2^nd respondent started erection of new HT lines for supply of power to Naval Dockyard through the 4^th respondent company, the 4^th respondent requested for shifting of electrical poles and laying electrical lines, the 5^th respondent company was agreed and the 4^th respondent was asked to deposit expenses for shifting of electrical lines, the 4^th respondent was agreed and deposited Rs.71,32,000/- towards expenditure for the realignment of HT lines. Now, it is the duty of the respondents 2 and 3 to shift the poles to lay electrical lines through the 5^th respondent company. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the 3^rd respondent to seek no objection from the village people or from the land owners before erecting the electrical poles for laying HT lines, but the people who are affected are entitled for damages and they could approach the District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraphic Act and the petitioner along with villagers cannot take the law into their hands and prevent the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in erecting HT electrical poles for laying transmission lines. The petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations made in the writ affidavit by supporting legal documents and hence his contention could not be accepted to be true and the

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

writ petition is filed in a casual manner and prosecuted in a casual manner. The writ petition is of the year 2017 and this court has taken up the writ petition along with vacate stay petition, still the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment for getting instructions and this court is not persuaded to accept the same.

¶38

In view of above discussion, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶41

________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

Date: 05-03-2020 Ksn

MGR, J

W.P.No.7403 of 2017

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶47

Writ Petition No.7403 of 2017

¶48

5^th March, 2020

¶49

Ksn

Reddipilli Tatarao, Visakhapatnam. v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept., Guntur Dist and 2 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reddipilli Tatarao, Visakhapatnam. v. Prl Secy, Energy Dept., Guntur Dist and 2 Ot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Balaji Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M. Ramana Babu Vs Marella Narasimhulu

Smt. S. Noorjahan Begum, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Vemuladeevi Primary Agricltural Vs the State of Ap

K.V.S.N Jyothi, Vs Accistent Accounts officer

G Lakshmi Rajyam Vs the State of Ap