Dismissed

Emmadi Ramarao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2025WP/7413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging laying of HV poles and electric lines on petitioner's land without notice or land acquisition. Counsel sought permission to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh writ petition; the court granted permission.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition; miscellaneous applications closed; no order as to costs.

Emmadi Ramarao Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^33of I

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANAATHYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THE THIRDDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 7413 OF 2025}

¶7

Between

¶8

EmmadiRamarao,s/oChinnaBasavaiah,aged4T.years'occ.agriculture'Fi; ii.N;.^{'rizsl-o"noigitapaiuvillase' Wvrd mandai,Khammam district'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana,^{rep. By its principal secretary,Energydepartment'} Secretariat buildings,^Hyder-abad.

¶12

2 Transmission Corporation^{of Telangana Limited,Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad} rep by its Chairman^{and Managing Director}

¶13

J The Assistant Engineer,^{TGTRANSCO,Sub station,Wyra, Wyra town and} mandal, Khammam^district.

¶14

The Assistant Sub^{Divisronal Engineer(ADE), TGTRANSCO'Sub Station'} i""ta SunAiraian^{nagar, Wyra,Wyra town andmandal, Khammam}

¶15

The Divisional^{Engineer (Electrical), officeof Divisional Engineerelectrical'} Khanapuram haveli,^Khammam

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the Highcourt may be} pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirection,moreparticularly,oneinthenatureof writ of mandamus, declaring^{the action of respondent No.3 in trying to layHV} transferpolesand,electricallineinthelandofthepetitionertoanextentofAc.l02 gts., in Sy.^{No. 366Aof Gandagalapadu village of Wyramandal' Khammam} district without^{permissionor issuingany notice or without acquiringthe landof} the petitioner in^{collusion with the local leaders and adjacentlandownersand} withoutaffordingopportunityofhearingasillegal,arbitrary,unfair'inviolationof articles 14, 21 and^{300-Aof the constitution of lndia and in violation of principles}

¶18

of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondents not to ray erectricar lines and HV transfer poles without following due process of law.

¶19

IANO:1 o F 202s

¶20

Petition under Section 1S.1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents No.3 to 5 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for his land admeasuring Ac. 1_02 gts., in Sy. No. 3664 of Gandagalapadu village of Wyra mandal, Khammam district, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 202 5

¶22

Between:

¶23

Emmadi Ramarao. S/o Chinna. Basavaiah, aged 47 years, occ. agriculture, R/o H.No. 3-125, candasatapaou viirig;-WG;;;;r( Khrmmam disrricr.

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

1 State of Telanoana. reo -Bf/^{_its principalsecretary,Energydepartment,}

¶27

Secretariat buildings, Hyderaoao.

¶28

2 Transmission Corooration rep by its Chairmah and Managing of Telangana dii"cto? Limited,^'""' Vidyut Soudha,^{' "'"'} Hyderabad

¶29

3 The Assistant Engineer, TGTRANSCO, Sub station, Wyra, Wyra town and mandal, Khammam district.

¶30

4 The Assistant Sub Divisional Engineer (ADE), TGIRANSCO, Sub Station, Leela Sundaraiah nagar, Wyra, wiri tow,\ rro'irr"'olf , ihammam

¶31

5 The Divisional Enoineer (Fleckical), office.of Divisional Engineer electricat, Khanapuram haveii, Khanimam.

¶32

The Proiect Director. proiect Imprementation unit, Nationar Highway Authority of lndia (NHA|), Mamarhd nospit'at roia, X"rirri Nibg;'r;li'hirrm

¶33

7 \orthern.^{Power DistributionComp_any} of Tetangana Limited (TGNPDCL). Rep. By its Chairman & Nranaging'Dir6ctor, H.r.rolzld]orjZ CJ,.pdrliJ o"n"#, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkatagutta, H",ir;k;;a;, w"iIn-sir,"i;rrng",ii_sb6ooil",

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition under Section 1 51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶36

implead the^proposed respondent No.6^{and 7 as respondentNo.6 and} respondent No.7 in the writ^petition for fair^{and properadjudication of the case.}

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAVI CHANDRA^SEKHAR

¶38

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP^{FOR ENERGY}

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent^No.2 to 5: SRI^{N.SREEDHARREDDY,} SC FOR TRANSCO

¶40

Thi: Court made the following: ORDER

¶41

I i

¶42

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶43

W.P.No.741 3 of2o25

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to hle lresh r,r,rit petition.

¶46

Permission is accorded.

¶47

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as

¶48

withdrawn granting liberty as sought for. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/- B. REKHA RANI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

1 One CC to SRt G,RAV| CHAN DRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OpUC]

¶52

2.) One CC to SRt N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TRANSCo [OPUC]

¶53

.) Two CCs to Gp FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

4 Two CD Copies

¶55

BSR N/,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310712025

ORDER

WP.No.7413 of 2025

-,-:a _':
,)-' 14r4'
e
I -') 1{ ilE zr[i (:
/
* oF:.,,,,

¶61

D!SMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN,

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

4
1N

Emmadi Ramarao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emmadi Ramarao v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Heemankshi Bakers Pvt.Ltd., Vs The State of Telangana

Danagiri Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

A M K Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Kampati Vijaya Vs The state of Telangana

Sri. Puram Gopi krishna Vs The State of Telangana

M/S.Suguna Metals Pvt.Ltd Vs the M.D., Apcpdcl., and 3 Others