IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21608 of 2011 Between: U.Prameela and 3 others ..... PETITIONERS AND A.P.Transmission Corporation, Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.21608 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The primary grievance of the petitioners is against the laying of 400 KVA high voltage transmission line across the petitioners’ land, bearing Sy.No.395 of Bommaraspeta village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The prayer in the writ petition is supported by the petitioners on three principal grounds. The first ground is that already two transmissions lines are passing through the petitioners’ land disabling the petitioners from utilizing the land for any agricultural operations and now a third high tension transmission line is proposed to be laid, which will further render the petitioners’ land unusable. The second ground is that the alignment of the proposed transmission line is not made in straight, but deliberately slanted by making it pass through the petitioners’ land and this has been done only to save the lands of others from which the line would have passed had it been in a straight line. The third contention is based upon the policy of the State Government, as enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.470, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I) Department, dated 09.07.2008. Under the said G.O. and the scheme/regulations, appended thereto, the Government of Andhra Pradesh intended that the outer ring road should have one kilometer belt on either side of the ring road, developed as a growth corridor. The petitioners state that their lands in Sy.No.395 fall within the said one kilometer growth corridor and in terms of the scheme issued under the said G.O., the petitioners are bound to develop the growth corridor, otherwise they will be liable to pay the deferment charges for not developing the growth corridor. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a reply received by him from the Executive Director General, State Public Information Officer, A.P.TRANSCO dated 16.06.2011, wherein it was proposed that only one leg of the transmission tower would fall in the petitioners’ land, whereas, in fact, respondents are taking steps to construct more than one tower. A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating that 400 KVA double circuit line was proposed to be laid between Malkaram to Vijayawada Termal Power Station. A notification for publication was issued by the Chief Engineer, 400KV Vidyuthsoudha, Hyderabad and the same was published in A.P.Gazettee No.211 dated 17.07.2007, apart from which, the same was also published in Hindu (English) daily dated 29.05.2007 and Vaartha (Telugu) daily dated 30.05.2007. It is stated that the said scheme was later revised which was also published in Gazette No.321 dated 22.07.2008. The respondents further asserted in the counter that a survey was conducted in the year 2008-09 to lay the entire length of 268 kilometers of transmission line and the work relating to them was awarded to various agencies. Under the said scheme, 725 towers were proposed to be erected, and out of that, 555 towers were already erected, and more than 77% of the transmission line work was completed and no objections were raised to the proposed work from anybody, except the petitioners. It is acknowledged that the petitioners filed several representations objecting to the laying of transmission line through their land, whereupon again a check survey was conducted and the request of the petitioners to minimize the coverage of their land was considered by making marginal changes in the alignment and thereby in the end only two legs of towers are falling in the land of the petitioners, whereas the other two legs are falling in the neighbouring land. The respondents stated that technically and to the maximum extent possible, they have accommodated the petitioners, as above, and beyond that, it is not technically feasible to altogether exclude the petitioners’ land from the purview of laying transmission lines. To the extent of the lines already passing through the petitioners’ land is concerned, it was stated that petitioners had purchased the property in 1982, whereas the two other lines were erected as long back in 1971 and 1976. To the extent of the growth corridor aspect is concerned, the counter affidavit does not specifically deal with, but during the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed a sketch plan showing the landmark in which the transmission line is proposed to pass through. The learned standing counsel for the respondents also submitted that no intention can be attributed to the respondents that they deliberately take the transmission line through the petitioners’ land, but the alignment of the transmission line is based upon techno economical feasibility and survey. In view of the fact that the respondents have tried to accommodate the petitioners to the maximum extent possible, it is submitted that this Court would not interfere with the said decision, as the action of the respondents is completely inconformity with the provisions under Sec.164 of the Electricity Act r/w.Sec.10 of the Indian Telegraphs Act. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and I have examined the grievance of the petitioners with reference to the plan filed by the petitioners at page-42 of the material papers, which is similar to the plan produced by the learned standing counsel for the respondents during the hearing. The plan shows that the petitioners’ land in Sy.No.395 is located to the extreme north of the plan and the plan also shows two options earlier given to the petitioners, i.e. option-1 and option-2 showing the proposed alignment of transmission lines. The alignment finalized by the respondents, which is now questioned, however, shows that the petitioners’ land is affected to the minimum, whereas under option-1 it would have been affected to the maximum. The two transmission towers shown, as proposed to be erected, are almost on the boundary of the petitioners’ land and it also shows that the alignment of the transmission line passes through the land of various other landowners, including ITCs as well as land used by real-estate developers. It also shows that a compound wall of a school will also be effected by erection of legs of one of the towers. In other words, the laying of transmission line, which is in the larger public interest, cannot be interdicted, even assuming that the petitioners’ private interests over the land are likely to be effected even if to the minimum extent. No mala fides have been alleged against the respondents and there is no reason for the petitioner to contend that the line is made passing through his land deliberately, and on the contrary, the material on record establishes that the alignment is finalized as a result of techno economical feasibility survey and the said alignment cannot be said to be deliberately designed to affect the petitioners’ land. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the growth corridor aspect is concerned, that situation does not arise as on today, as apparently, petitioners themselves cannot be said to be the responsible if they are unable to develop the land on account of erection of transmission towers therein. At this stage, an important transmission line connecting Vijayawada Thermal Power Station to Malkaram, covering a distance of 268 kilometers ought not to be allowed to be affected, particularly when 77% of the work relating to laying of transmission line is completed. Therefore, I am unable to see any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. More so, in view of the fact that even if the petitioners suffer any damage on account of erection of such transmission lines, their remedies in terms of Sec.10(d) r/w.Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraphs Act would still be available. Even as per the mandatory provision under Sec.10, the respondents are required to ensure, as little damages as possible is caused while erecting the transmission lines, I therefore, do not see any illegality or serious prejudice to the petitioners which outweighs the public interest sought to be served by the erection of the transmission lines, as proposed. The Writ Petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 26.08.2011 Dsr