THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.25937 OF 2001 O R D E R Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents – A.P.TRANSCO, in settling the claim of the petitioner made vide legal notice dated 18.10.2001 for the loss sustained due to the burnt of sugar cane crop of 240 metric tones raised in Acs.4-00 of land situate in Sy.No.54/1-A of Srikalahasti Town, Chittoor district, which is estimated at Rs.1,80,000/-, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that she is an agriculturist and has taken on lease an extent of Acs.4-00 of land situate in Sy.No.54/A A of Srikalahasti from one V.Gurudasaradhan s/o V.Guruswamy Chetty of Srikalahasti, to raise sugar cane crop of variety 86V96 in the said land and also has entered into an agreement on 21.12.2000 to that effect and she also entered into an agreement with Sri Venkateswara Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited Tirupathy for supply of sugar cane and further she spent huge amount for raising the sugarcane crop. When the sugarcane crop is ripe for cutting, on 11.10.2001, the high tension electric line which is running over the above said land, fell on the sugarcane crop and as a result, the entire crop got burn and she incurred heavy loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. Her grievance is that the felling of the high tension wire, is due to the sheer negligence on the part of the respondents. She gave a comp to the S.H.O. Srikalahasti Town and got issued legal notice to the respondents on 18.10.2001, calling upon them to pay the estimated damages of Rs.1,80,000/-. Though the respondents received the notice, did not reply the same, nor settled her claim. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The 2nd respondent – Assistant Divisional Engineer of A.P.Transco (Operation), Srikalahasti, Chittoor District filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. While denying the averments made in the writ affidavit, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents are not aware about the alleged agreements entered into by the petitioner with the landlord and the sugarcane factory and further it is false to state that the High Tension Electric Line which is running over the said land, fell on the sugarcane crop on 11.10.2001 due to improper maintenance of the respondents and resulted in fire. It is stated that the alleged fire accident was never brought to the notice of the respondents except by way of legal notice dated 18.10.2001 and after receipt of the legal notice, the respondents visited the lands in question and did not find any fall of electricity line in the lands of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner did not give any complaint to the electricity authorities immediately. Thus the case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the fire accident is not caused due to falling of the high tension wire and that it may be due to some other reasons. 4. The petitioner did not file any reply to the averments made in the counter affidavit. 5. From the above it could be seen that the case of the petitioner is that the fire accident to the sugarcane crop raised by her, was due to the falling of the high-tension wire, which are running over her lands and that it is due to the negligence in maintenance by the respondents. On the other hand, the case of the respondents – A.P.TRANSCO is that the they have specifically visited the land of the petitioner after receipt of the legal notice dated 18.10.2001 and did not find any fall of high tension wires. In my considered view, this is a pure disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition. 6. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 7. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the competent authority in accordance with law, if she is so advised. AVS -------------------------------------- 15—04—2009