IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27557 of 2008 Between: Tadikamalla Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, A.P. State Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27557 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the nature of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in removing 33 KV line from the petitioner’s house site in Ward No.2 of Pamuru Town and Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to remove the 33 KV line from his house site. I have heard Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner is the owner of the plot in question. The respondents have erected a double pole structure along with its fixtures on the said land. As the said structure was obstructing the construction, the petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 1997 in the Court of the District Munsif, Kanigiri. The said suit was decreed on 23.03.1992 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from encroaching into the petitioner’s plot and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the double pole structure along with its fixtures. The said decree was executed in E.P.No.19 of 2004. The present writ petition is filed with the grievance that though the respondents have removed the double pole structure and the supporting wires, they have not shifted the overhead line, with the result the live wire is passing over the petitioner’s plot. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, directed respondent No.1 to inspect the site in question and submit a detailed report as to whether the 33 KV line in question is dangerous to the inhabitants of the house proposed to be constructed by the petitioner. In pursuance of the said direction, the Superintending Engineer, APSPDCL, Ongole, filed a report along with a sketch and two photographs. In the said report, it is stated that the existing 33 KV Pamur - Botlagudur line was laid in the year 1986 for the purpose of 33/11 KV Botlagudur Sub Station for electrification of the villages in Pamur Mandal and for providing better electricity for farmers, that at the time of laying of the line no layout was available and no roads were formed and that the double pole structure, which existed in the petitioner’s site, was shifted in pursuance of the judgment and decree. It is further stated that the height of the line is more than 20’ from the ground level and that it is passing at one end of the site and the existing line would not be dangerous to the inhabitants of the house proposed to be constructed. I have carefully perused the sketch and the photographs. The fact that in pursuance of the judgment and decree, the double pole structure was shifted from the petitioner’s land is admitted. From the sketch it is evident that the line is passing from a corner of the petitioner’s plot on the front side. Even if a house is constructed, a part of the front portion of the house may come under the overhead line. Unless the petitioner raises a double storied structure, there is no possibility of the structure being in proximity of the line. At any rate, the petitioner, having filed the above suit for the limited relief of removal of the double pole structure along with the supporting wires, is not entitled to maintain this writ petition for a further relief of removal of the electric line passing over his land. In strict sense, this writ petition is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata and also Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.36103 of 2008 and WVMP.No.306 of 2009 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.07.2010. ES