Allowed

K. Manitha v. The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Ltd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC6 Dec 2022WP/4028/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the erection of electric poles on the petitioner's private land. The Court ruled the act arbitrary and illegal as no notice or acquisition proceedings were initiated, basing its decision on a prior judgment regarding private possession.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to remove electric poles erected in the scheduled plot within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

K. Manitha Vs The Telangana State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETIT ION NO:4 028 0F 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

f{.$a{tnq,^{Wo K. Chennaiah Aged} about 47 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o H.No.13-l0-104,^p and T corony (rew CJJiirn"'"i5r'C"oi.;y bll';'kr;;;s;; Hyderabad - 500 060, Telangana.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Telanqana State Sorrthern Power Distribution Ltd., (A Govt. of Telanoana undertakins) (Formerrv cenirar powei^{-oi;i;i;;i;;;} dJilii,.,-vlinrb.iil.iy'"" Corporate office 6_.1_50 rr,4int Compound. Hv-oEnXdlb_sdo-ooi, -.",' (retansana, Rep. by its Chairmin a"n-d"rvd.jdiiiDii5i",

¶12

z The Divisionar Engineer, Terangana state southern power Distribution Company Ltd , Ranga neoov ISouihl, nunijh*""0jv'orYrtri"t.

¶13

3 The Superintendino Fnoineer (Operation), Telangana State Southern power Distribution Compa*ny Lid . Ralerio ra na gd r Circf ei Re-ihl eowli, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under A,.icre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit iitea tfrerewitn, the H;gh'e;uri ,rV 'n" pleased to issue a writ, order, direction especialy one in the nature of writ of electric lines Yrn.d3Tyr^dectaring in open plot^{the action of the respond"niJ} admeasuring 407.33 sq.ⁱⁿ yards, situated "r."tin; "l;;H at Narkhoda"p"rrr' ,"0 Village and Gram panchayat, Shamihabad Manial, nrng, RLJJy';;;i;;t, I:91suna^{state of the petiiioner as iilegar, arniirary.} viorative of Articre 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India uid frrth".. declare th; ;;i;;;;i t;" respondents in not considering the representation dt.20l0 ttzoil- oliiJ'piiionulis also illegal and arbitrary and. consequen,y direct thu ;.;o;;;;i;"i" tr.,," petitioner admeasurino 407.33 sq. yards or 340.g6 remove/shift the erectric poils and erectric rinei sq from meters the in "p"""pi"i""i" Grama Kantam, situated at Narkhoda vittage ano cram panchayat, Shamshabad Mandar, Ranga Reddy, Telangana State.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 to direct the respondents to remove/shift the electric polls and electric Iines from the open plot of the petitioner admeasuring 407.33 sq. yards or 340.86 sq. meters in Grama Kantam, situated at Narkhoda Village and Gram panchayat, Shamshabad ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. RAVINDER

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: R VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I)allc 1 ol' 8

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.4O28 OF 2O2l

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

This u,ri t pctition is filr:d lirr tl-rc lbllou,ing rclief: "....to issuc u r-it or-dcl or ditr:ctiorr more particularl-r' onc rr-r tlrc nllLLtrc ol Writ ol Mandamus dccJarrng ;,rr:tion ol' the rcspondents in ercc:ting clcctri<: polls arcl clcclric lines in open plot adnrc.rsnrirrq 107.33 Sq.-r,ards situal.cd at Nrrlilroclir lill:Lge zrncl^(]ran.r I)an ch a,r'atir , Slrirnrshrrlracl \1:rrrrlal. Iianga Iteddl llisl rrr:t.^{'1-cliirrqarrr} Statr:. of thc petitioner as illt e:rl. lrrbrlr'iu-\ . r,ioiativc of Articlc 2l ancl .10().\ ol ilrr Corrstrtution ol India and litr-tlrt r clcc'l;rr-r tlrc ac't.ion ol thc respondcrtl.s in r()1 r orisiclcrinq thc rcprescntation ciatcrl 2O.O L2012 I of thc petitioner is ztlso illcsai and i,rrbitrarl and consequentl_' clircr:t thc rcsporrdcnts to rcmovc/shift llrc clt:<:1r'ic polcs and clcctric lines from Lhc oltrrn plol ol tlrc petitioner".

¶26

IIeard Sri Oh.Ravindcr', lcarncd Counsel appearing lor thc pctitiolrcr, iin.l Sri R.Vinod Reddy,

¶27

l);tgc 2 ol 8

¶28

learrned Standing Counscl appcaring for tire rcspoltdcnts 3.^'l'hc le ar ncd Counscl for thc pctitioner subrnits tlteit tl-rc petitioncr is thc absolutr: ou,ncr and ltossr:ssor of ope, plot zrdmcasurrng 407.33 Sq.-vards. si1 rr.tccl at N:rrkhocia villagc ancl (]ram pancliayath, Sh:rmshabarl N4zL.rd;rl. llarr.rga Rr:cldy I)istrict. lnirially llrc srric[ pl.t u a s jotnti-r' lturchasccl by thc pctitioncr_ :r rtrl oltc D.M:urjula thr.ough a rcgisterc<1 salc clcr:cl lro.611l?OO3 dalcrl l8.0i tr0oll a.rd thereaftcr, thc saicl N,r..jula relcased hcr sharc in favour of thc pctitioncr lltr_orrgl-r regisierccl r-r:lcasc dcccl bc2rring cl11t.Lrrnr_-.t No. 1i3495/2005 datccl 15.12.2005. .lhr: s:,ird 1>lo1 is vacant plot and thc pctitioner is rcsicling in llvdcr.abacl. Rcr:entl1, u,l-icn the pctitioncr visitccl hcr plot, shc fbur-rrl three clcctrical polcs urcrc erccted and ck.ctric lincs passing throtrgh thc plot. Thc rcspondcnts havc not initiatcd any procccdings to acquire thc pctit ioner,s

¶29

I':r1y' 3 of 8

¶30

property nor paid an,v compcn sa tion to tlre pctitioner. There is no neccssity to ercct thc polr:s through the plot of the pctitioncr, bccausc alrcad,y scparate lines are available in t1'r c village. 'l'l-rc potitrloner is not residing in the viliagc and taking arrlvantagc of that the respondents ercctcd clcclrir:al polr_-s and clectrical lines in the plot of thc pctitiorrcr-. Inrnrcrlialr:11., the p<:til.ioner made represcn latiOn Io tlrt' )::.. rr.strtondcnt on 20.O1.2021 rcquestinr tlrr:m 1() rcnrovc thc r:l<:ctric poles and clcctrical lirrcs c'r-r:t.tt'd in hcr plot duly narrating thc cntirc far;ts anrl irlso lt.t. cnclosing her title documents and photoer:rplrs In spitc of thc samc_., the respondents h:l,c lol tzlli(.n unv irr:tion and not given any propcr rcply to Lhc- 1tc(itiorrcr-. In vjeur ol the same, the prescnt r,,-ri1 1'lctition is filr_-ci to dircct the re spondents to rcmovc or sh ift t ltc clcr:tric polcs lrom the plot of the pctil.ioncr.

¶31

l)ir g, r 4 of 8

¶32

4.^'l'hc lr:arncd Counscl for thc pe titioner lurthcr submits tl-rat thc rcspondcnts havc no righr ()r authorit_, to illcgally cncroacl-r into tl-rc plot o1' thc petitioner u,ilhout her conscnt in spite thcre are cxisting scparatc lines in the village since long time

¶33

Thr: lcarncd Counscl for thc pctitior-rcr subrnittcri tl.rat the schcclulccl land is in 'Grama Kantam', alrl thc samc not bclongs to thc Gram Panchayath or tlrc (l ovr'rnrnt:nt and the pctitioncr acquiri:d th<: samc through rcgislert:cl documents. As pcr the judgment ol' tlris Cor-rr-l tn Vunnam Bangarraju Vs. Gouernment of Andhra Pradeshl no oric intcr'lcrc with tltt: possessior.r of thc pctitioncr arrd rcqucstr:d to alloii' the lu'i t pctiliorr.

¶34

tl-rc 6. Thc lcarncd Standing Counsel for respor-idcr-r1s subrnits that thc pctitioncr admittcd ils

¶35

'* --'^{' l{r1'1ri)'{l-l)} 'l^ll

¶36

I):r {r' 5 of 8

¶37

l,;

¶38

schedulc plot is situatcd in Grama I(antam ancl no one has right over to alienatc thc samc as thc lzrnd owned by the (iram Panchayath or thc State Governmcnt. After liling thc prescnl u,'rit petition on 03.O3.2021 a lcttcr \ /as scr-v'cd to t,hc pctitioner informing that th rcc poles havc bcc-n crccted more than ten years back and for lhc past [c]r vcars no person has claimcd any right ovcr thr_. lancl and callcd upon the petitioner to furnish <:crtificd co1;v of original layout issued by thc competcnt autl.ror-jtics to ick:ntify the boundaries of thc plot. Till ciatc thc pctitioncr- has not submittcd any r:opics to link 1hc dot:urncnts to trace out her titlc and posscssion anci sought to dismiss thc writ. pct.ition.

¶39

After hearing both sidcs, this Court is ol thc considered vicw that, admittcdty as pcr thc clocuments filed by the petitioncr thc schcdulcd land is situated in (irama Kantam. 'lhc .judgmcnt rclicd upon by the

¶40

l):rgc 6 of 8

¶41

le arncd Cotrnscl lilr the pctitioncr ir-r Vunnann Banqctrraju Vs. Gouerrtment of Andhrq Pradesh (s-upra). sclr-rulci-t applr, to the instant casc

¶42

llclcvzrnt portion ol Vunnam Barugarraju Vs. ()ouc'ntmenl o.f Antlhra Pradesh (supra)is as follou,s:

¶43

{1. ( )rtt trtt. l(ctrttctnt is nol a (iouernrnerLt land and l^lierr: is rto prohibiti.ort to unclerlake transoctions on the s c icl lir r rris. ln .l a.cl, Orcunaltuntant clesoiltes tlte area i,lertiilii' I jor tlte. pury)ose oJ constntctiort of resiclerrtial I oils.:..; t.,nti ittt:irlental sttlLctures irL ct uillarle. lt is t c;,1lrc:, t,^(ioi,t't rLrttt:rtl lancl nor lctnd tx,sted itt t]-Le t illct.clt i tci rtclttt r 1u t" . ,\ __xxx.\

¶44

i 2. ,,t sltttrrlottl 1;rouision is brought to mg ttotice. tt'Jticlt Ittthiltri stlle ctf properttl standitg in th.e narne of c.t ltct.rl it t t l etr pc rson ; tll,t.ich is classified in the reuenu.e t c:cord; tts C n trn uhctrllotn. xxx.Ll-x

¶45

Irl viurv i)f thc abov<: judgmcnt ol this Court and also l hc rcspondcr-rts cannot dccidc the title ol the pctitioner l-l.y cncroaching :t privatc lancl and the

I I I

I)i.rgc 7 of 8

i \

\ \

respondcnts havc no authority to clccide lhc land u,hether bclongs to Gram Panchayath/ Govcrn mcnt or bclongs to thr: pctitjoncr. Admittcdly, pctitioncr is thc owner of 1.hc sctrcdulcd plot having acquircd ttrrougl-i the registcred documcnts and 1,hc rcspondcnts cannot dcny thc right ol 1.hc pctitioncr ovcr the propcltl sa-f ir.rg that it is a Gramakantam land and tlicy havc r-ro right to crect electric poles in thc schcdulc piot. The rcspondents bcfore crccting electrical poics in thc schcdule plot not issucd any noti<:c to any pcrsons or initiated any land acquisition proccedings ars pr:r thc Indian Itlcctricity Act. Mero cre cting clccl ri<:etL polcs will not give any right to the rcspond<:nt Cor-pora Lion to conl-inue the same on l.he ground that thc policos \r,crc erected poies ten ycars back, in spite of thc rcquest macle by the petitioncr for rcmovjng/shilting thc samc. 9. The action ol thc respondcnts in withouL issuing any notice to thc petitioner and without imitating land

¶51

Iraec 8 of 8

¶52

any lancl :rcquisitior-r procccdings as per Indian 1ll 'l'elcgrzrphrc l\r:1. erc<:ting polcs thc private land of thc pelitioncr is arbit rar-r, and illcgal

¶53

.ircr:orclir rgl.v, tl'rr: u'rit pctitiorl is allowed with a direction to tlrt: rcspondcnts to rcmove the electrical poles ('rcctcrl in thc s<:hcdulcd plot of thc petitioner i.c 4O7.33 Sq.'iu'cls. sjluartcd at Narkhonda villagc and Gram l)anchrr..,irth. Slr:rmshabad Mandal, Ralga Reddy District s,ithirr cighl (8) r,r'ccks from the date of receipt ol' cop-v of this ordt:r

¶54

1 1 . I\1ist:cl1err rr:oLrs pctitions, pcnding if any, shal1 stand closcd. \o orclt'r as to r:osts

¶55

¶56

SDi-N. SRIHARI ASSTSTATT.REGrSTRAR ,TRUE COPY// sec(riK oFFrcER

¶57

To, 1.^-fhe Chairnran and Managing Director, The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Ltd., (A Govt. of Telangana Undertaking)^(Formerly Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.), Corporate Office. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, HYDERABAD-500 063, Telangana.

¶58