IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8773 of 2009 Between: 1 Mallampati Kutumba Rao, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, R/o. Vakkalagadda Village, Chalapalli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Mallampati Srinivas Prasad, S/o.Kutumba Rao, R/o. Vakkalagadda Village, Chalapalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. Transco, rep by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, 132 K.V. Lines, Vidyuth Soudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, 132 K V Lines, Patamata, Vijayawada. 4 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.V.SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: O.MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to lay 132 KV line through land admeasuring Ac.2-68 cents in Survey No.78/2 and Ac.1-43 cents in Survey No.78/3 of Vakkalagadda Village, Challapalli Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A 132 KV electrical line from Pamarru to Avanigadda was envisaged vide notification dated 03-07-2006 issued by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioners is that without their consent and acquiring the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the respondents are seeking to proceed with the work of erection of towers on their lands. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is inter alia stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 07-10-2003, authorizing respondent No.1 to place the electrical lines for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telegraphic communication necessary for proper coordination of the works and entrusting the powers, which the telegraph authority possesses under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is stated that in pursuance of the said Government Order, a notification was issued which was published in Gazette No.225, dated 03-07-2006, inviting persons interested to send objections to respondent No.1 within two weeks from the date of publication of the notification. In the said notification, the proposed 132 KV line from Pamarru to Avanigadda was also included. As no objections from any quarter were received by the respondents, the work was commenced and completed to a major extent. The respondents further averred that they have followed the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the 2003 Act’) and that in view of the powers conferred on them under Section 164 of the 2003 Act read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, respondent No.1 is entitled to lay the electrical lines without obtaining the consent of the land owner or acquiring the land. They also pleaded that this power is upheld by this Court in G.V.S. Ramakrishna and others vs. A.P.Transco[1]. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the abovementioned averments. In G.V.S. Ramakrishna and others vs. A.P.Transco (1 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court considered in detail the same issue, which is raised in this Writ Petition, viz., Whether the Electrical Supply Company, under the provisions of the 2003 Act, is entitled to lay the line over the lands of the private persons without their consent and initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, and held as under: “As could be seen, Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authorities to place and maintain the telegraph lines under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. However, the said power shall not be exercised in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority without the permission of that authority. The proviso (d) to Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 further made it clear that while exercising powers conferred under Section 10 the Telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than the property under the control or management of the local authority shall pay full compensation to all the persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of the said powers. It is also relevant to note that as per proviso (b) of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph lines or posts.” The learned Counsel for the petitioners has not disputed this position. In view of the abovementioned judgment, the petitioners do not deserve any relief. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11494 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8th June, 2009 lur [1] W.P.No.860 of 2009 dated 26-03-2009