Disposed¶35

Sri. P. Sankarnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jul 2025WP/30652/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 30652/2014; APSPDCL; apprehended encroachment of land; 33/11 KV Sub-Station Basinikonda Village Madanapalle Chittoor district; temporary dumping of electrical poles and materials during construction; Written Instructions of Assistant Engineer Operation/East Section; interim order dated 14.07.2025; no representation by petitioner; disposed of without further consideration; no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; decided 17.07.2025; single Judge Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of the order. ¶35

Sri. P. Sankarnarayana Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of the order.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the Official Respondents (APSPDCL) encroached upon or interfered with the Writ Petitioner's land during construction of the 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Basinikonda Village.

¶31

Court's answer

During the construction of the 33/11 KV Sub-Station, some material was dumped in the open site belonging to the Writ Petitioner and the said material was utilized in the construction activities.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The Official Respondents had never interfered with the Petitioner's property; only during the time of construction was material placed in the land belonging to the Petitioner.

¶34

Key takeaways

Having regard to these aspects, the Writ Petition does not require any further consideration and is disposed of, with no order as to costs.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 30652 of 2014 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Special Original Jurisdiction), decided 17.07.2025 by Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. — P. Sankarnarayana Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others — Apprehended encroachment — 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Basinikonda Village, Madanapalle. The writ, filed in 2014 out of sheer apprehension that APSPDCL would encroach the petitioner's land, was disposed of on the strength of Written Instructions of the Assistant Engineer, Operation/East Section, APSPDCL, Madanapalle, submitted in compliance with the Court's order dated 14.07.2025. The Court found that during construction electrical poles and materials were temporarily dumped on the petitioner's open site and used in the works, and were subsequently shifted; the sub-station stands completed and charged; the Official Respondents never otherwise interfered with the petitioner's property. The writ therefore required no further consideration and was disposed of, with no order as to costs; interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

¶1

¶2

APHC010209852014

¶3

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

¶4

[3328]

¶5

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 30652/2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

SRI. P. SANKARNARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. LATE. P. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BASINKONDA(V) R/O. MADANPALLE (M), CHITTOOR DISTRICT -A.P.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.,, TIRUPATHI -A.P.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., MADANPALLE-A.P.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., MADANPALLE-A.P.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.R RADHA KRISHNA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶22

2.V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶23

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORAL ORDER:

¶27

No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner.

¶28

Ms. A. Jyothi Ratna, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APSPDCL is present.

¶29

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 14.07.2025, Ms.A. Jyothi Ratna, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Assistant Engineer, Operation/East Section, APSPDCL, Madanapalle. Copy of it is not supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner because there is no representation and the same is taken on record. The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶30

“1. It is submitted that, initially for providing better services i.e., extending supply of electricity in good voltages for both domestic and agricultural consumers it is identified to construct a 33/11 KV SubStation at Basinikonda Village and started the construction activities which is a site abutting the petitioner's land. During on going construction works the electrical poles and materials are dumped in the open site of petitioner and later it was utilized for construction activities Subsequently, the sub-station works are completed and charged and the same is under utilization as on the day.

¶31

It is further submitted that the petitioner in anticipation got filed above writ that the site may be encroached by APSPDCL authorities. In fact, the APSPDCL authorities never interfered with the petitioner's property. However, during construction activities for the time being some electrical materials are placed and subsequently, it was shifted.”

¶32

The above extract would indicate that during the construction of a 33/11 KV Sub-Station, some material was dumped in the open site belonging to the Writ Petitioner and the said material was utilized in the construction activities.

¶33

¶34

It is also stated that subsequently, the Sub-Station work is completed, whereas, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition out of sheer apprehension that the Official Respondents have encroached his land. The Written Instructions would also indicate that the Official Respondents had never interfered with the Petitioner’s property and that during the time of construction only, the material was placed in the land belonging to the Petitioner.

¶35

Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that this Writ Petition does not require any further consideration. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶36

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶37

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶38

Dt: 17.07.2025

¶39

Vns

Sri. P. Sankarnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P. Sankarnarayana Reddy, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Ratna Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

T Ratna Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Potnuri Ramu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.S. Jayalaxmi Vs Sri.Rajesh Tiwari

N. Deena Kumari Vs Sri Adhar Sinha I.A.S.

T.Mallikarjuna Rao, Vs Smt. a.Thameem Ansariya, IAS