Dismissed¶74

M. Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2025WP/43022/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bontakunta Vagu / Bonthakunta Vagu stream-bed encroachment; 220 KV DC Line Towers; concrete tower structures; Yamnampet Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; Sy.Nos.165 and 166; Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 and Rules, 2004; A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905; Electricity Act, 2003; Indian Telegraphic Act, 1985; Article 21 and Article 226, Constitution of India; Telangana TRANSCO approval; Infosys Technologies SEZ Pocharam; ITIR project; Mavin Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd.; writ of mandamus; dismissed without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs, and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stood closed. ¶74

M. Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs, and the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition stood closed.

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the official respondents 1 to 7 in allowing respondent No.8, acting through respondent No.9, to encroach upon and occupy the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu in Sy.Nos.165 and 166 of Yamnampet Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is violative of the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the Rules, 2004 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. +2 more

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.7, specifically the relevant paragraph Nos.2 to 8 of the said counter affidavit referred to and extracted in the order.

¶74

Key takeaways

On such consideration, the Court opined that there are no merits in the present writ petition and accordingly dismissed it, with no order as to costs.ratio¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Surepalli Nanda, J.), Writ Petition No. 43022 of 2015, decided 03-01-2025: A landowner of Yamnampet Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus (i) declaring that official respondents 1 to 7 had allowed M/s Infosys Technologies Ltd. (respondent No.8), acting through Mavin Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.9), to encroach upon and occupy the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu in Sy.Nos.165 and 166, contrary to the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, the Rules, 2004 and Article 21; (ii) declaring the approval by respondent No.7 (Superintendent Engineer, Construction-Ranga Reddy, Telangana TRANSCO) of the erection of 220 KV DC Line Towers with concrete structures in the stream bed illegal and arbitrary; and (iii) directing removal of the partially erected tower structures in Sy.No.165. The petitioner also invoked the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Respondent No.7's counter affidavit (paras 2 to 8) asserted that the transmission line was approved under the Electricity Act, 2003 along the vagu so as not to disturb the free flow of water or damage nearby lands, that the construction is governed by the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1985 and the Electricity Act, 2003 and does not violate the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, and that the line supplies the Infosys ITIR/SEZ at Pocharam and nearby villages. Taking the counter affidavit averments into consideration, the Court held there were no merits in the writ petition and dismissed it without costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 43022 OF 201s

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Ramesh, S/o. late M.B.V RAO, Aged about 45^years, Occupation Business, Ri./o. Plot No. 49, Cyber Meadows Society, After Chirec School, Opp Lane to DCHL, Masid Banda, Kondapur, Cyberabad, Hyd-84.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangaria, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation and Command Area Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector Cum Ex-Officio Chairman, Under the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Director, Urban Forestry, HMDA (HUDA), Tamaka, Hyderabad.

¶15

The RDO-East Division, Ranga Reddy District, Off at Vayupuri, Malkajgiri, R.R.Dist.

¶16

The Tahsildar (MRO), Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Superintendent Engineer, Construction-Ranga Reddy, Telangana TRANSCO, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶18

B. M/s lnfosys Technologies Ltd., Rep. by its Regional Head-Facilities Mr. Dass Gunalan, SEZ Survey No.41, Pocharam Village, Singapore Township PO, Ghatkesar Mandal, R. R. Dist, Hyderabad

¶19

Mavin Switchgears & Control Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Dilegtor^Mr. lrshad A. Khan, Plot No. 9, Near Harsul Power Station CIDCO^{N-1 1,} Aurangabad-431-001 Maharashtra State, lndia

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be

¶22

-1/ -

¶23

i I I I I i I I i

¶24

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus-

¶25

a. Declaring the action of the official respondents 1 to 7 in allowing the Bth respondent acting through the 9th respondent to encroach and occupy the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu situated in Sy Nos. 165 and 166 of Yamnampet village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to be violative of provisions of Telarrgana Water, Land and Trees Ac| 2O02 and the Rules, 2004 and also violatiVe of Article 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia

¶26

b. To also declare the action of the 7th respondent in approving the erection of 22O KV DC Line Towers by way of constructing a concrete structures in the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu situated in Sy Nos. 165 and 166 of Yamnampet village , Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arlicle 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also in gross violative of provisions of Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act,2OO2 and the Rules, 2004

¶27

c- To direct the respondents 1 to 6 to remove the already partially erected concrete structure-.; of towers in Sy No. 165 of Yamnampet village, by the 8th respondent through the^gth respondent in the Nala/Stream Bed of Bonthakunta Vagu.

¶28

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 55472 OF 2015 )

¶29

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 suspend the operalion of approval granted by the 7th respondent permitting the 9th respondent to erect 22o Kv DC Line Towers by permitting the Bth and 9th

¶30

¶31

I I I I 1 I i : t,

¶32

respondents to construct a concrete structures in the^{NalaiStream Bed of} Bonthakunta Vagu situated at Yamnampet village,^{GhatkesarMandal,Ranga} Reddy District, consequentially to direct the respondents¹ to^{6 to forthwith} protect the Nalalstream Bed of Bonthakunta Vagu situated in Sy Nos. 165 and 166 of Yamnampet village, Ghatkesar Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District, in the} interest of^justice, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UNNAM MURALIDHAR^RAO

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL^{ADMINISTRATION}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI LAXMALLA^SANDEEP,

¶36

AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV

¶37

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3, 5 & 6: GP FOR^REVENUE

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V.NARASIMHA^{GOUD, SC FOR HMDA}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI N.SREEDHAR^REODY, SC FOR TRANSCO

¶40

The Court made the following: ORDER

',7

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA^. WRIT PETITION o.43O22 of 2015

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Hearci Sri Unnam Muralidhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, appearing on behalf of ttre respondent No.2.

¶48

The petitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver as under:

¶49

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

¶50

(a) Declaring the action of the official respondents 1 to 7 in allowing the 8t' respondent acting through the 9th respondent to encroach and occupy the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu situated in Sy.Nos.165 and 166 of Yamnampet Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. to be violative of provisions of Telangana Water Land and Trees Act, 2002 and the Rules, 2004 and also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Ind ia;

¶51

(b)^To also declare the action of the 7th respondent in approving the erection of 220 KV DC Line Towers by way or constructing a concrete structures in the Nala/Stream Bed of Bontakunta Vagu situated in Sy.Nos 165 and 166 of Yamnampet Village, Ghatkesar Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

¶52

¶53

j I I I I

¶54

ii li lr I t;ti li lr ; I

¶55

also in gross violative oF provisions of Telangana Water Land and Trees Act, ZOOZ anO ttre ;rl;r';;;;,.,,

¶56

(c) To direct the .".".;TT"1'.?::"' res i^r.t 9^il,;;; .::,:,^j:J"I"AI: in Sy.No.165 of yarr t respondent throush il:'rr:f Y::l?."il :1" ;" Nala/Stream Bed of Bonthatrntu Vug-,i; (d) To pass such other order(s) as this Hon,ble Cout fit and proper in the circumstan-ceJ'or trre ;::.,:"",

¶57

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a joint owner and possessor of land in Survey Nos.166, 153, 754, L45, L46, t47 and 149 of yamnampet Village, Chatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and the petitioner challenges the illegal encroachment and obstruction of the Bonthakunta Vagu (a natural water creek) by respondent Nos.g and 9, who are involved in laying high_tension transmission lines for an IT SEZ. Respondent No.7, a Government authority, allegedly approved the construction of transmission towers in the creek bed, violating environmental and land protection laws, including the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Act, 2OO2 and the A.p. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The petitioner claims that these actions contradict respondent No.g,s environmental sustainability claims. As such, the petitioner seeks an injunction to halt the

I i I

I I I I l I

construction, restoration of the creek, and legal action against the respondents for their violations.

¶63

The ounter a davit has n filed on behalf the tN nd th an h 2

¶64

the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

¶65

"2. lt is submitted that the ITIR project was announced at Pocharam village by central government of India and Infosys is the company who constructed the SEz: with a seating capacity of 12000 employees and with a addition of more 25000 employees by Feb'2016 and the government of Telangana is keen about the development of IT industry at pocharam Village by giving all the facitities including electricity. ot 22 D ts f e .Th OKVI ro stn wt the Vaqu and it is not obstructinq the flowas co nded bv the oetitioner.

¶66

It is submitted that the Botukunta Vagu is passing through the Sy.Nos.165 to 167 and where in, as per petitioners statement. Sy. No. 165 is a government land. The Vagu which is passing through Sy.No.1ti6 belongs to him.

¶67

As detailed at^para (2); as per the provisions of the Elecl.ricity Act 2003, TSTRANSCO has the power to lay the towers and as such, the transmission line approvai was given to erected along the Vagu in order not to d,sturb the free flow of water as well as not to cause d;rmage to the costly lands in the vicinity of Yamnampet village.

¶68

The petitioner himself stated that, he is trying to devel,rp a layout and a gated community in said land. The petitioner's main intention is to obstruct the

¶69

¶70

erection of the line- In this conn€ction, it is submitted that the erection of rhe rowers is foi pi.oviO-tng supply to Infosys and also to give u i"fiuOf. iuppfy "f "iii.to the nearby villages. Unlike t"he gitet-^{-communitiesT} building constructions, rransmiisi6i iiie construction will not reduce the utilization of tanJ of Vigu.

¶71

6, The construction of Transmission line shall not cause any obstruction for green buffer zone and it is taken up in the. interest tf puOlic.-ev-en after the construction and charging of construction lines, 9re9lery^{developments/Cropscan} be taken up below the line and as such the coniention oi tie petitioner is not tenable.

¶72

The Transmission line construction is governed by the Indian Tetegraphic Act 1985, th;'flectiicity nli 2003. The laying of this transmiision-tine is not in violation of Telangana Water, Land anJ Trees Act. 2002.

¶73

It is submitted that the towers are being constructed and th^e lings -are being drawn as per the Etectricity Act, 2003 and if there iriny oUstruction for laying the tines it wiil deiay tne pro3eci Lken up by Infosys which will result in Oeprivin j^-emptoyment to thousands of youngsters.,,

¶74

Taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.7 and the relevant paragraph Nos.z to g of the said counter affidavit (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that there are no merits in the present writ petition and accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

I I

I I iI I I I

I I 1 ll I

.,{