Telangana High Court
Mohammed Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana, on 11 November, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_25077_2025
NBK,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 25077 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by Mohammed Ahmed and others to declare the action of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (TGSPDCL) in proceeding to lay the Electricity High Tension Towers and line on petitioners lands admeasuring about Ac.10.01 guntas in Sy Nos. 18/A/2/1, 18/A/2/2, 18/Α/3/1, 18/Α/3/2, 18/Α/1, 18/Α/2, 18/EE/1/1, 18/EE/2/1, 18/ΕΕ/3/1, 18/ΕΕ/3/2, 18/E/2, 18/E/1, 18/ΕΕ/1/2, 18/ΕΕ/2/2, 18/Α/1/2 and 18/A/1/1 situated at Rangapur Village, Basireddypalli Gram Panchayath, Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District, without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation by ignoring the availability of alternate route adjacent to the petitioners property as illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the T.S. Electricity Actandconsequentlydirect the respondents to utilize the alternate route available adjacent to the petitioners property.
1.1 The Petitioners claim to be owners and possessors of the mentioned agricultural land, having purchased the same for valuable consideration and that their names have been mutated in the revenue records. It is stated that petitioners have earlier filed WP No. 32157 of 2021 for the same relief and thereafter have withdrawn the said writ petition with liberty to file a freshwrit petition. The petitioners also state that they have earlier filed two separate writ petitions against the revenue authorities vide W.P.No.1033 of 2020 and W.P.No.31580 of 2022 when the authorities tried to dispossess them from the above property. It is the contention of the petitioners in the present writ petition that the petitioners have shown alternate route available adjacent to their property, and the 2 wp_25077_2025 NBK,J respondents can utilize the said alternate route and avoid acquiring petitioners' land, and accordingly prayed to allow the writ petition.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri. N. Sreedhar Reddy (Respondent No. 2 to 6) filed counter affidavit contending that petitioners have earlier filed W.P.No.20668 of 2025 for the very same relief which is sought in the present writ petition and by Order dated 28.07.2025, this Court disposed of the same, by recording the submission of learned Standing Counsel wherein the learned Standing Counsel stated that respondent-TRANSCO is erecting high tension poles over part of the above property belonging to petitioners and that they are willing to payof Rs.1,50,000/- per gunta acquired for erection of the poles, after due verification of the records submitted by the owners with regard to their title over the above property.
2.1 It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that, having accepted the above proposal by learned counsel for the petitioners with liberty to file appropriate application before the competent authority for enhancement of compensation, this Court, after recording the said submission, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners to submit relevant documentary evidence before the TGSPDCL to establish their title and possession over the subject lands, and the TGSPDCL upon satisfying with such documentary evidence, shall pay compensation to petitioners.It is stated that liberty was also granted to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the competent authority for enhancement of the compensation.
2.2 Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the question of any alternate route or diversion of erection of poles does not arise and that they are willing to pay compensation which is agreed upon in the earlier 3 wp_25077_2025 NBK,J writ petition, @ Rs.1,50,000/- per gunta which comes to Rs.60,00,000/- per acre and that the said compensation is in fact on higher side as the lands of petitioners are agricultural lands and located in a remote area. It is further submitted that erection of high tension poles would hardly take 86 to 90 sq yds of land which is less than one gunta. At this stage, he relied upon the judgment in the case of Power Grid Corporation vs Century Textiles, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that petitioner-landlord was at liberty to approach the competent court of law seeking enhanced compensation apart from holding that diversion/change of alignment cannot be thrust upon the Respondents.
3. Having considered the respective contentions, and perused the record, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is not inclined to substitute its view overriding the view of expert body such as TGSPDCL who have taken up the work of laying of high tension electric poles for development and infrastructure of electricity in the locality, and therefore this Court is not inclined to embark upon deciding whether alternate route for laying electric poles is feasible in the instant case. Further, the expert body of the TGSPDCL has determined that the subject location as suitable for laying electric lines and there is no question of deviation from the same; and, admittedly, the compensation for the subject property has been proposed at the rate of Rs.1,50,000 per gunta whereas the actual land utilized for the electric lines purpose by the Department is only about 90 square yards (which is way less than 1 gunta equivalent to 121 square yards), and the respondent-Department is in fact paying higher compensation.
4wp_25077_2025 NBK,J 3.1 As the respondent-Department has undertaken to pay adequate compensation as recorded in W.P No.20668 of 2025, which was agreed to by the petitioners, this Court does not see any merit in the contentionsof alternate route etc., when the matter has effectively attained quietus, with the respondent-Department and the petitioners, both primarily agreeing on the quantum of compensation of Rs.1,50,000 per one gunta of land.
3.2 Therefore, when the proposed compensation has already been agreed upon by the petitioners in an earlier round of litigation, and the expert body opined that there is no question of changing the site for laying electrical lines, this Court is of the considered opinion that any further adjudication of contentions of alternate route, at this juncture, does not serve any fruitful purpose. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 11th November, 2025 ksm 5 wp_25077_2025 NBK,J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25077 of 2025 11th November, 2025 ksm