Telangana High Court
Mr. Thota Pochamallu vs The Telangana State Northern Power ... on 17 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.25099 of 2019
DATE OF ORDER: 17.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Mr.Thota Pochamallu
... Petitioner
AND
The Telangana State northern Power
Distribution Company Limited,
Rep. by its Asst.Engineer, Peddapally
And another.
... Respondents
: ORDER :
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in laying pipeline pits for the purpose of an underground drainage system by encroaching upon the petitioner's house property, and in erecting an electric pole therein, in respect of the property bearing House No. 3-1-74, Dewdi Lane, Peddapally Mandal, Peddapally District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of house property bearing House No.3-1-74, 2 Dewdi Lane, Peddapally, (for short 'subject property') having purchased the same from its previous owner under registered sale deed No.5866/2012, dated 30.08.2012; that the subject property is an open plot and there was a dismantled house; and that as the petitioner is an employee of Singareni Company, he is residing at Godavarikhani; that on 31.08.2019, when the petitioner visited his subject property, he found that an electric cement pole, a drainage pipe line and a manhole pit had been laid in the subject property; that upon enquiry the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.2 had undertaken the said underground drainage works in Peddapally town. He further submitted that, despite the petitioner approaching the respondents and requesting them to remove the aforesaid unauthorized structures from the subject property, there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner issued Legal Notice dated 14.09.2019 to the respondents, calling upon them to remove the electric pole and pipe line from the subject property. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that earlier, when respondent No.2 encroached upon the property of petitioner's neighbor and demolished the old house therein, they have filed WP.Nos.4658/2017 and 8465/2017 and the same were disposed of by this Court on 10.02.2017 and 10.03.2017, respectively, with 3 certain directions to the respondents; that when the respondents violated the orders passed in WP.No.8465/2017, the petitioner therein filed Contempt Case vide CC.No.1309/2017 and the same is pending.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to property, which is a constitutional right, by laying pipe lines or erecting poles, in his property without following procedure as provided under law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that this Court vide order dated 19.11.2019, directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due process of law and finally prayed to allow the writ petition.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 on written instructions would submit that the respondent No.2 has neither demolished the petitioner's old house nor taken up any developmental works such as laying road or drainage in the subject property of the petitioner. He further submitted that if the respondent No.2 undertakes any development work in the subject property, they will follow due procedure as provided under law and prayed to pass appropriate order.
4
8. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the written instructions placed on record by respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over subject property, except in accordance with law. This order will not preclude the Respondent No.2 from acquiring the subject property for any public purpose duly following the procedure as provided under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 17.03.2026 tk