HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3707 of 2003 Date : 15.09.2009 Between : Rama Lakshmi & another. …..Petitioners And National Thermal Power Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director and Chairman, New Delhi & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3707 of 2003 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in depriving them of their property in Survey Nos.174.2 and 174.3 of Rachanapalli village of Ananthapur Mandal and District, without paying compensation and without undertaking recourse to the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioners are the owners of the land covered by Survey Nos.174.2 and 174.3, situated at Rachanapalli village of Ananthapur Mandal and District. In the above said Survey Numbers, there was a proposal for erection of towers for High-Tension lines by the Power Grid Corporation through the land admeasuring Ac.1.90 cents, belonging to the petitioners. This writ petition is filed, stating that due to erection of towers, they will be deprived of their property to an extent of Ac.1.90 cents in the above said survey numbers. It is also their case that if towers are erected, the balance extent of land admeasuring Ac.8.25 cents also cannot be used for residential purpose, in view of the restrictions on construction of buildings under the power lines, and also on both sides of such lines. In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though the said land was initially agricultural land, but the same is not used for agriculture, and in view of expansion of the town limits, the land is useful for residential purposes. It is stated that some third parties have proposed to purchase the land, but however, in view of the proposal for erection of towers, the intending purchasers went back from purchasing the land. With the aforesaid factual basis, the petitioners seek directions to the respondents not to interfere with their land to the extent of Ac.1.90 cents in the survey numbers referred above. 3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation of India. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the said Corporation is a Government Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which is involved in developing an efficient power transmission system network throughout the country. It is stated that the said Corporation has been entrusted with the job of construction of 400 KV S/C transmission lines between Gooty and Neelamangala under Ramagundam Stage-III project for transmitting power that will be generated in Stage-III of Ramagundam, to the power deficit Southern Region, in the interest of general public. The transmission line is located in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and the project was scheduled to be commissioned by the end of February 2005. In the counter affidavit, while referring to various provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, denied the various allegations of the petitioners, and it is stated that the land belonging to the petitioners is only the agricultural vacant land, and by erection of towers, no loss or prejudice is caused to the petitioners. It is stated that the stringing works will be taken up in a phased manner and the space below each tower is large enough to enable even a tractor to move easily under the tower. It is stated that as the land of the petitioners is agricultural land, they can cultivate any crops and even grow trees to certain height along the line corridor. In the counter, it is stated that the obligation of the respondent- Corporation is only for payment of compensation, in case if any damage is caused to the crops or trees as a result of erection of electric towers or laying of transmission lines. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, and Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 5. It is contended by Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners that in view of erection of towers from the land of the petitioners, which is a private patta land, they are deprived of that property for its utility. As such, it is submitted that unless the land in question is acquired and compensation is paid to the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no towers can be erected by the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that in view of erection of towers, the potentiality of the land will be diminished and the same is not useful for construction of buildings in view of the restrictions imposed after the lines are laid. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha & others[1]. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents that in this case, in view of erection of towers for laying Grid for transmission of generated power from Stage-III of Ramagundam, a survey was conducted, and towers will be erected as per the recommendations of experts for line alignment. It is submitted that in view of erection of towers, there will not be any loss to the petitioners and in view of the large space available in between the legs of the towers, the petitioners can utilize the land for cultivation, without any obstruction. It is submitted that when the survey was conducted, lands were vacant and the respondents have denied the allegation that they are useful for residential purposes. It is submitted that in view of the provisions contained in the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are applicable for the purpose of laying lines, and if any damage is caused to the petitioners, they can put-forth their claim for damages, before the competent authority, but they cannot seek any directions in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, not to interfere with their possession. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhaskara Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. APSEB, Hyderabad[2], and also in an un-reported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s.Narne Estate Private Limited v. Power Grid Corporation in W.P.No.26075 of 2003. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties referred above, the only question which arise for consideration is, whether, for the purpose of laying power lines by the Power Grid Corporation, is it obligatory for them to notify the lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from which, they take their lines through their towers. 8. By virtue of the provisions under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Act, 2003, the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are made applicable for the purpose of erection of lines for laying of Grid by the Power Grid Corporation. As per Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, respondent-authorities are empowered to lay lines for user purposes, from any immovable property. In that view of the matter, merely because the lines are passing through the land belonging to the petitioners, it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents to acquire the said land and pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Sri Sai Surya Gardens Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India[3], while considering the identical issue, by interpreting the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Sections 28, 29 and 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, has held that laying of high-tension transmission lines across the property of a private party, in pursuance of a scheme, is not unconstitutional. In the said judgment, it is stated that the right of the owner is only to the extent of claiming compensation for the damages, if any. Further, in the case of M/s.Narne Estate Private Limited v. Power Grid Corporation in W.P.No.26075 of 2003, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that if any damages are suffered on account of erection of high- tension lines, the affected party can avail the remedy under Section 167 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. Further, in the case of Bhaskara Housing (P) Ltd. (2 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that once a scheme is published for laying electric lines and construction of towers by the Board, without making any objection to the scheme, no objections can be raised at a later point of time. 9. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that for erection of towers through the land of the petitioners, a preliminary survey was conducted, and thereafter, a scheme was notified as contemplated under the provisions of the Electricity Act, and only thereafter, steps were taken for erection of towers for stringing lines. Though the learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (1 supra), but in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles for determination of compensation when such electric lines are taken from the land belonging to the private parties. The said judgment would not render any assistance in support of the petitioners’ plea for issuing directions not to interfere with their possession over the land in question. In any event, as much as the scheme was already approved, if any damage is caused due to laying of lines from the land of the petitioners, they can as well claim compensation by resorting to the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, but they cannot seek any directions either to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or for issuance of directions to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioners over the said land. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2009 ajr [1] (2007) 6 SCC 792 [2] 1998 (6) ALD 781 [3] 2004 (2) ALT 256 (D.B)