Malepati Venkata Gopal Naidu Vs the Union of India

MALEPATI VENKATA GOPAL NAIDU, S/O. RAMAPPA NAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST RIO. DOOR NO.13-581-7, KV REDDY NAGAR, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 411

¶11

GONUGUNTLA BALAIAH,, S/O. G. KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RIO. DOOR NO.3/15, KONDEPALLI, VANGANUR VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 411

¶12

GONUGUNTLA RAMAPPA,, S/O. G. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.3-70, KONDEPALLI, TADIPARTRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 411

¶13

GONUGUNTLA RAKESH, S/O. G. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST R/O. DOOR NO.1 /1266-1, POOSALA STREET, YERRAMUKKAPALLI, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516 004

¶14

GONUGUNTLA CHAKRAVARTHI,, S/O. LATE G RAJA GOPAL NAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.3-27, KONDEPALLI, VANGANUR VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT - 515 411

¶15

ALLU RAJA SRI,, W/O. A CHENNA KESAV NAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O. DOOR NO.3-45, KONDEPALLI VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. PIN-515 411

¶16

2

¶17

KUMMETHA RAMANJANEYA REDDY,, S/O. CHINNA NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O. DOOR NO.1-5, REGADIPALLI, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT-516 444

¶18

PUTTLURU PAVAN KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RIO. DOOR NO.1-5-A, REGADIPALLI, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT - 516 474

¶19

ALLU NAGABHUSANAM NAIDU,, S/O. CHENNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICLUTURE RIO. D. NO.1-18-A, KONDEPALLE, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

GONUGUNTLA SATISH KUMAR,, S/O. VENUGOPAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURER/O.3-24, KONDEPALLE, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT.

¶21

ALLU GEETHA,, W/O. ALLU GOVARDHANA CHOWDARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE RIO. D.NO.5-34-B, KONDEPALLI, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶22

GONGUNTLA BHASKAR NAIDU,, S/O. SREERAMULU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.D.NO.3-20, KONDEPALLI, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

...PETITIONER(S)

¶24

AND

¶25

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI110001.

¶26

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITEDAPTRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA, ELURU ROAD, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA. 520004 REP., BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶27

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANANTHAPUR.515001

¶28

ANANTAPUR II REZ TRANSMISSION LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, URJANIDHI, 1 BARAKHAMBA LANE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW

¶29

3

¶30

DELHI-110001. REP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶31

ANANTAPUR II REZ TRANSMISSION LIMITED, SECOND FLOOR, CDR COMPLEX, KALYANDURGAM ROAD, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, PILLIGUNDIA, ANANTAPUR-515001. REP., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶32

M/S ADANI RENEWABLE ENERGY FORTY TWO LTD, ANANTHAPURAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. REP., BY ITS PROJECT INCHARGE.382421

¶33

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANANATHAPURAM REVENU DIVISION, ANANATHPURAM DISTRICT.515001

¶34

THE TAHSILDAR, TADIPATRI MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.515411

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.G1/188/202 5, dated 11.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 determining the compensation for Right-of-Way (ROW) corridor @10 percent of the land value, without putting us on notice as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the guidelines issued by the respondent No.1 for payment of compensation in regard to Right of Way (RoW) for transmission lines and also the well established legal principles, apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to us under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to re-determine the compensation for Right-ofWay (RoW) corridor as per the guidelines, dated 14.06.2024 and 21.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 by duly setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.G1/188/2025, dated 11.11.2025 issued by him and pass

¶37

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to direct the respondent No.3 to re-determine the compensation payable to us under Right of Way corridor by duly suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.G1118812025, dated 11.11.2025 issued by him, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

¶39

4

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶41

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.D S SIVADARSHAN

¶44

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶45

3.C SUMON

¶46

¶47

5.V V SATISH

¶48

5

¶49

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the APEPDCL.

¶51

This Writ Petition is filed by the writ petitioners to direct the respondent No.3 to re-determine the compensation for Right-of-Way (RoW) corridor as per the guidelines, dated 14.06.2024 and 21.03.2025 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Power (Respondent No.1) by duly setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.G1/188/2025, dated 11.11.2025 issued by Collector and District Magistrate, Anathapuramu (Respondent No.3)

¶52

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of the agricultural lands. While so, the Anatapur II REZ Transmission Limited (Respondent No.5) herein is laying a 400 KV D/C transmission lines passing through the lands situated in the villages i.e., Yellanur, Putlur and Tadipatri Mandals in Ananthapuram District, which were belonging to the petitioners herein. He further submits that the Collector and District Magistrate (Respondent No.3) without adhering to the guidelines for payment of compensation in regard to ‘Right of Way’ for transmission lines, had issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2025, by fixing the compensation @ 10% of the land value contrary to the Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical Plants and Electric Lines) Regulations, 2022 dated 14.06.2024, wherein, the petitioners are entitled for compensation @ 30% of the land value for the loss or damage effected by the ryots under Right of Way. Hence, this writ petition.

¶53

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6, had filed counter affidavit. He contended that in pursuant to the meeting held by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahasildar) of Tadipatri with the landowners on 15.04.2026 and 20.05.2026 and 25.05.2026, M/s. Adani Renewable Energy Forty Two Ltd., Anatapuramu (Respondent No.6) has agreed, on a without prejudice basis, to pay compensation at 30% of the

¶54

6

¶55

land value to all landowners in line with the applicable government orders as and by way of a goodwill assurance and in view to facilitate resolution so that work could be carried out on the site.

¶56

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the 6^th respondent has agreed to pay compensation @ 30% of the land value though they are entitled @10% for the reasons that the notification was issued much prior to the Central Electricity Authority (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical Plants and Electric Lines) Regulations, 2022 dated 14.06.2024, however, the respondent No.6 had paid compensation to all the effected parties except four petitioners herein. He further submits that the respondent No.6 will pay the compensation to the remaining four petitioners on par with the other petitioners and seeks time to process the same.

¶57

Considering the submissions of both counsels, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the concerned respondents to pay the compensation to the remaining four petitioners on par with the other petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶58

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach appropriate forum, if they advised to initiate any other proceedings, if necessary.

¶59