Telangana High Court
Dost M.Oosman vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 4653 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Petitioners seek a direction to respondents to conduct a joint survey in respect of electric poles of high voltage of 33 KV installed through their lands in Survey Nos. 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, and other contiguous survey numbers and pay appropriate compensation as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in accordance with Section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013), by declaring the installation of the said electric poles without consent as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, in addition to being contrary to Section 38 of the LARR Act, 2013.
2. Petitioners submit that their father, late Ghouse M Oosman had purchased agricultural lands covered by Survey Nos. 135 to 154, also known as Ramnagar Agricultural Farm, situated at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, admeasuring approximately 104 acres, in the early 1950s. These lands have been inherited, owned and possessed by petitioners and other family members. It is stated, 2 agricultural activities on these lands ceased in 2000 due to toxic and hazardous pollution in the area, a situation recognized and taken cognizance of by the Hon'ble High Court, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Consequently, there arose a necessity to convert the land use from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture for residential and allied purposes. Petitioners obtained land use conversion permissions from the District Revenue Officer, Medak at Sangareddy, having paid the requisite charges. Additionally, a DTCP layout plan of the land was also filed.
2.1. Petitioners contend that till 2000, the lands in Survey Nos. 135 to 153 were actively used for agricultural purposes, including cultivation of paddy, vegetables, and sugarcane. During this period, respondents, in a high-handed, unilateral and arbitrary manner, laid 33 KV electric poles across Survey Nos. 146, 147, 150, 151, 152 and adjoining lands, without notice to pattadars or owners and without following due process of law. It is emphasized that no electricity connection was ever provided to Ramnagar Agricultural Farm from these poles. They further state that poles created fear of electrocution and danger to the workers employed in the fields, resulting in huge agricultural losses and damages up to 2000 and 3 subsequently, obstructed the development of roads and infrastructure for the residential colony laid out later. 2.2. It is also stated, due to toxic and hazardous pollution from IDA, Muddu Mailaram and Isnapur Lake by 2000, agricultural activity was no longer feasible. Following the land use conversion, a residential colony was developed between 2002 and 2005. Petitioners entered into a Development Agreement with M/s Doyen Construction Private Limited for development of approximately 80 acres covering Survey Nos. 135 to 153. They state that respondents' unauthorized installation of 33 KV poles interfered with the planned development, obstructed roads, footpaths and infrastructure and caused reduction in the value of the surrounding land, imposing substantial financial and operational losses on the owners and pattadars. The affidavit emphasizes that the alleged losses from the poles include both the agricultural period prior to 2000 and the residential development phase thereafter. 2.3. Petitioners contend that electricity is a commercial activity, as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that installation of 33 KV poles, which were never utilized by them, caused continuous financial losses from the time of installation. They state that personal visits, representations by advocates 4 and legal notices dated 14.03.2023 were sent to respondents requesting an investigation and a joint survey of the poles with a competent surveyor present. However, respondents, for reasons known to them, allegedly did not respond to these communications.
2.4. It is stated, petitioners rely on the Ministry of Power Guidelines dated 15th October, 2015 asserting that compensation is required to be paid according to these guidelines. They further contend that under the Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Rules, 2006, Licensee Transmission Companies are obligated, under Rule 3(1)(a) to obtain consent and inform land owners regarding the purpose, damages, compensation, contact details, offer duration and payment timelines. Petitioners submit that Section 38 of the LARR Act, 2013 mandates compensation and possession procedures in such circumstances. They also cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Electricity Board v. Levisha (Civil Appeal No. 289 of 2006, dated 18-05-2007), wherein it was held that factors such as the site of land, distance between high voltage lines, extent of lines, passage over land and potential loss of use are determinative in calculating compensation. They further assert that the high-handed action of respondents, 5 engaged in commercial activities for substantial profit, cannot deny the rightful claims and losses of petitioners. The affidavit emphasizes that petitioners are senior citizens, aged over 80 years, suffering miseries and financial losses due to non- compensation for the electric poles.
3. This Court, by order dated 23.04.2024 directed respondents to conduct a joint survey in respect of the electric poles of high voltage of 33 KV installed, through the lands belonging to petitioners in Survey Nos. 146, 147, 150, 151, 152 etcetera within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, after giving due notice to petitioners and all the concerned and place a report on record by the next date of adjournment.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5, it is denied that petitioners are owners of the lands where 33 KV electric lines have been erected. The property in question is being developed by a property developer, M/s Doyen Constructions Private Limited, which had obtained permission for conversion of lands from Agriculture to Non- Agriculture vide proceedings dated 06.09.2005 from the District Revenue Office, Medak District. It is further stated that the said company obtained a layout from the Gram Panchayat and 6 developed the area into residential plots, having constructed approximately 50 houses. 33 KV lines are aligned along the roads developed within the layout and no objection was raised by the developer or the plot owners. M/s Doyen Constructions Private Limited is a proper and necessary party to the petition, having substantial interest in the lands, and that they had obtained the land conversion proceedings dated 06.09.2005 as well as layout permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. 4.1. It is also stated, 33 KV lines were erected more than 50 years ago to transmit power for 33/11 KV substations located at Isnapur, Chitkul and Patancheru Mandals. The power supply transmitted through these lines is primarily utilized for industrial purposes and residential colonies. It is highlighted that power lines were laid for a public purpose through agricultural lands more than 50 years back and petitioners, therefore, cannot claim compensation or relief at present after such a long lapse of time, as the cause of action arose more than five decades ago.
4.2. Respondents further contend that even if petitioners had any claim based on the statutes and applicable Acts at the time of installation of 33 KV lines, such claims are barred by limitation. No claim can be entertained as the alleged cause of 7 action arose over 50 years prior to filing the Writ Petition. The provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 are applicable only from 2003, hence claims regarding the electric lines installed before the enforcement of the Act cannot be considered. Respondents maintain that petitioners' allegations regarding unauthorized installation and demands for compensation cannot override the long lapse of time and the applicable legal framework, which precludes claims arising before the statutory period. Petitioners failed to provide evidence demonstrating that installation of 33 KV lines in Survey Nos. 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, and other adjoining lands had caused compensable damages under the existing law, particularly considering the substantial delay of over 50 years in raising any claim.
5. Petitioners have come up with the rejoinder stating that a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney had been executed between petitioners and M/s Doyen Construction Private Limited in respect of the land in Survey Nos. 135 to 153. Respondents were attempting to divert attention from the primary issue, which is the high-handed and unauthorized erection of high-tension 33 KV electric poles through their private patta land without notice or consent and without paying compensation for the losses sustained due to the 8 poles both during the period when agricultural activities were ongoing and subsequently due to realignment of the land for development purposes. It is further reiterated that, at no point of time, was the electricity transmitted via these poles consumed or utilized by petitioners.
5.1. Realignment of layout due to laying of 33 KV lines caused substantial losses to owners and objections were raised by the landowners at the time. Petitioners had also filed Writ Petition No. 25259 of 2006 to remove 33 KV power lines from Survey Nos. 135 to 154, Rudraram Village, which were causing havoc and significant damage to agricultural fields. The said Writ Petition was subsequently withdrawn on advice in order to pursue claims for compensation for the losses sustained due to the poles and the realignment of the layout for land development. Respondents failed to respond to legal notices sent regarding the matter for reasons best known to them and instead invented grounds of limitation and applicability of the Electricity Act, 2003. The affidavit highlights that, while respondents attempted to dispute ownership and raise limitation pleas, it is undisputed that petitioners are lawful owners of Survey Nos. 135 to 154 through which the 33 KV power lines have been laid.
95.2. It is further stated, respondents disobeyed the interim order dated 23.04.2024. The counter affidavit was filed with an intention to harass petitioners further and to delay relief, despite the existence of interim orders in their favour.
6. Heard Sri Anwar Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 to 5.
7. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, it is to be observed that 33 KV lines were installed for public utility over fifty years ago and have been in continuous use for industrial and residential supply. Along with the Writ Petition, petitioners have filed land conversion proceedings dated 06.09.2005 issued by the District Revenue Office, Medak addressed to M/s Doyen Constructions Pvt. Limited (GPA Holder) with regard to the permission for development of different extents of lands in various survey numbers of Rudraram Village. Though respondents contend that property was developed by M/s Doyen Constructions Private Limited duly obtaining permission and the said developer was not made party to the Writ Petition; electricity lines have been in existence for over 50 years and Section 38 of the LARR Act, 2013 and Electricity Act, 2003 including Ministry 10 of Power Guidelines of 15th October, 2015, do not have retrospective application to lines installed decades before their enactment, it is to be observed that the interim order dated 23.04.2024 for a joint survey was not complied with, allegedly due to non-cooperation of the respondent authorities.
8. The essential grievance in this Writ Petition is that the electric lines are allegedly passing through petitioners' lands and respondent authorities have not paid any compensation to them. Considering the serious rebuttal by respondent authorities that lands do not belong to petitioners and that electricity lines are existing for over five decades, and these being the factual matters that may come to light after joint survey, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the matter at this stage.
9. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing respondent authorities to conduct joint survey in terms of the interim order, dated 23.04.2024 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the report to petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to challenge any grievance or claim arising out of the joint survey report in an appropriate proceedings. No costs.
11
10. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 29th October 2025 ksld