Disposed

Suridevara Ramesh, Guntur Dist., v. Superintending Engineer, and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Sept 2024WP/34245/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought mandamus restraining power authorities from dispossessing him of Ac.5.25 cents for a sub-station without compensation. Court directed that any development over the land must follow due process under the Electricity Act, 2003, and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow due process under Electricity Act, 2003 if proceeding against petitioner's land; no costs.

Suridevara Ramesh, Guntur Dist., Vs Superintending… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 34245 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Suridevara Ramesh, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 40 Years,^Occ:Business R/o.D.No.3-28-18/93, lane, Rajendranagar, Guntur

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL Brodipet, Guntur^District.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco, Gunadala, Vijayawada Krishna District.

¶12

The District Collector, Guntur District Guntur.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly^{oneinthenature} of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in interfering and trying to dispossess the petitioner from^theland in survey No.439/1, admeasuring Ac.5.25 cents, situated at Peddapalakaluru Village, Guntur Mandal and district, for the purpose of construction of electricity sub-Station, without paying any compensation, as being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution^{ofIndiaandissuea} consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere and

¶16

dispossess the petitioner from the land or make any^{constructionwithout} following due process of law.

¶17

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 42624 OF 2011)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not interfere or dispossess or raise any construction over the petitioner's land in Survey NO.439/1, admeasuring Ac.5.25 cents, situated at Pedapalakaluru village, Guntur Mandal and district and pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V. R. REDDY KOWURI (SC FOR APCPDCL)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2; SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC FOR APTRANSCO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P VINOD KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010716542011

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3329]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 34245/2011

¶33

Between;

¶34

Suridevara Ramesh, Guntur Dist.

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

Superintending Engineer 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2.P VINOD KUMAR

¶41

3.V R REDDY KOWURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:-

¶43

This writ petition is filed claiming the following^relief: "...to issue an Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^actionof Respondents in interfering and trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Survey No. 439/1, admeasuring Ac. 5.25 cents, situated at Peddapalakaluru Village, Guntur Mandal and District, for the purpose of construction of electricity sub-station without initiating any proceedings in accordance with law and without paying any compensation,^as

¶44

¶45

¶46

being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents not to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from the land or make any construction without following due process of law and pass such other order or orders... ”

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing

¶48

Counsel for the Respondents.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after hearing both the counsels, on 27.12.2011, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order observed as under:

¶50

"...Pending further orders, the Respondents shall not^{interferewith} the petitioner’s possession of the landed property admeasuring Ac.5.25 cents in Survey No. 439/1 of Peddapalakaluru Village, Guntur Mandal & District for use of the said property for the purpose of construction of electricity sub-station, without following the due process of law...’’

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the interim orders of this Court dated 27.12.2011, the Respondents have not erected any sub-station in respect of the petitioner’s property. Therefore, the interim orders passed made absolute as a final order and the writ petition can be disposed of.

¶52

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned^{counselforthe} petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents^{andalsoinview} of the interim orders of this Court dated 27.12.2011, it is settled principle of "X

¶53

¶54

law, if the Respondents are intend to make any developments through the petitioner’s property, they are under the statutory obligation to follow due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, even in the present case, if the Respondents are proceeding further or if the Respondents are intending to make any developments through the petitioner’s property, they shall follow the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶55

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶57

petition shall stand closed.

¶58

Sd/- V SATYANARAYANA DEPUT^EGISTRAR

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To 1. The Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL Brodipet, Guntur^District 2. The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶62

1. The District Collector, Guntur District Guntur.

¶63

The Tahsildar, Guntur Mandal, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, (SC for APCPDCL) [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, (SC for APTRANSCO) [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI P VINOD KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr

'4 f

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.34245 of 2011

of
X 0 6 FEB 2025 B
*2. ^Jj
Curreni Secnon -^f/r
%aLogSPATCX^^

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Suridevara Ramesh, Guntur Dist., v. Superintending Engineer, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suridevara Ramesh, Guntur Dist., v. Superintending Engineer, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadiraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gadiraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kola Srinivas Rao Vs The Union of India

N. Anardhan Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., I.T. Dept. and 6 Ors.

B Raja Vs Sasi Busan Kumr IAS

V Rama Krishna Reddy, Vs Sri S.S.Rawat IAS