B. Md. Sameer, Vs Powergrid Corporation of India Limited

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010343572026

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 19117/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. MD. SAMEER,, S/O B. MD. FAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO.4-343-38, TELECOM NAGAR RAMJALA ROAD, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518301.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARLA SARAI, NEW DELHI-110016.

¶13

POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, HOUSE NO.256, APHB COLONY, PRODDATUR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT- 516360.

¶14

POWERGRID KURNOOLIV TRANSMISSION LTD, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518360.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION UNIT, APTRANSCO, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518005.

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522 238

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering and proposing to construct High-Tension Electric Line through the Petitioners properties for an extent of 1) Ac. 1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, 2) Ac. 1-96 cents in Survey N0.22/B, 3) Ac. 1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 and 4) Ac. 1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totaling comes to Ac.5-96 cents of Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District without assessing/estimating the damages, hearing his objections and paying compensation, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19, 21 and more particularly property right guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere/construct the High- Tension Electric Line through the Petitioners properties for an extent of 1) Ac.1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, 2) Ac.1-96 cents in Survey No.22/B, 3) Ac. 1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 and 4) Ac. 1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totaling comes to Ac.5-96 cents of Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District without assessing/estimating the damages, hearing his objections and paying compensation without following due of process of law and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner’s properties for an extent of 1) Ac. 1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, 2) Ac. 1-96 cents in Survey No.22/B, 3) Ac. 1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 & 4) Ac. 1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totaling comes to Ac.5-96 cents of Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District without assessing/estimating the damages, hearing his objections and paying compensation without following due of process of law till disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.VENKAT CHALLA

¶27

2.GP FOR ENERGY

¶28

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 19117/2026

¶33

ORDER:-

¶34

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

¶35

“ to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering and proposing to construct High-Tension Electric Line through the Petitioner’s properties for an extent of 1) Ac.1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, 2) Ac.196 cents in Survey No.22/B, 3) Ac.1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 and 4) Ac.1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totaling comes to Ac.5-96 cents of Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District without assessing/estimating the damages, hearing his objections and paying compensation, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19, 21 and more particularly property right guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere/construct the High-Tension Electric Line through the Petitioner’s properties for an extent of 1) Ac.1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, 2) Ac.1-96 cents in Survey No.22/B, 3)Ac.1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 and 4) Ac.1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totaling comes to Ac.5-96 cents of Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District without assessing/estimating the damages, hearing his objections and paying compensation without following due of process of law and pass such other order or orders…”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel

¶37

for Power Grid Corporation for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶38

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1-11 cents in Survey No.22/A, Ac.1-96 cents in Survey No.22/B, Ac.1-44 cents in Survey No.23/1 and Ac.1-45 cents in Survey No.23/2 totalling to an extent of

¶39

4

¶40

Ac.5-96 cents situated at Gonabhavi Village, Adoni Mandal, Kurnool District and he has been cultivating the said lands. While so, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are proposing to lay High-Tension Electric Line through the petitioner’s lands without following due procedure and without assessing/estimating the damages and without paying compensation. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 19.07.2026 issued by the respondent No.3, wherein, it is stated as under:

¶42

“No tower is envisaged for erection on the land of petitioner. No construction work is taken up in the petitioner’s property, till date. It is again reiterated that standard procedure shall be followed to take up construction works.

¶43

The allegations are false , baseless and unfounded. No tower is envisaged on the petitioner’s land. Only overhead lines will pass through his land”

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as of now the respondents are not laying any High-Tension Electric Line as alleged by the petitioner and it is only an apprehension of the petitioner herein. He further submits that if they intend to lay any High-Tension Electric Line through the lands of the petitioner, they shall follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the Rules made thereunder.

¶45

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents, if at all they are proposing to lay High Tension Lines

¶46

5

¶47

through the petitioner’s lands, they shall follow the due procedure as contemplated under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Rules made thereunder including compensation as well as the other benefits as conferred under Act.

¶48

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶50

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Date:20.07.2026 BSP

6

04

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶55

WRIT PETITION NO: 19117/2026

¶56

Date:20.07.2026 BSP

B. Md. Sameer, v. Powergrid Corporation of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Md. Sameer, v. Powergrid Corporation of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Jafreen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chavala Venkata Rao (Withdrawn) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathina Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malepati Venkata Gopal Naidu Vs the Union of India

N. Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kaipuram Ramadevi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited