Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Zameer Ahmad vs Livisha on 21 January, 2026
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010705402025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 36250/2025
Between:
1. S ZAMEER AHMAD, S/O. S.MIRAJ HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT
67 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-3-683, JESUS NAGAR,
ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
2. S.BASHEER AHMAD,, S/O. S.MIRAJ HUSSAIN, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-3-683, JESUS NAGAR,
ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, ANDHRA
PRADESH REGION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL
OFFICER PLOT NO 21, TEACHERS COLONY,
GURUNANAK NAGAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA
PRADESH
2. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROJECT DIRECTOR NO.6-4-239, 3RD CROSS, MARUTHI
NAGAR, ANANTAPUR- 515004
3. THE TAHSILDAR, B.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDHAR, B.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL,
ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
5. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF
ANDHRA PRADESH LIMTIED, REP BY EXECUTIVE
2
ENGINEER/TECHNICAL OPERATION CIRCLE,
ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT
6. ANANTHAPUR II REZ TRANSMISSION LTD, CDR
COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.6-193, KALYAN DURGAM
ROAD, GANESH NAGAR, HOUSING BOARD COLONY
PILLIGUNDLA, ANANTAPUR- 515001
7. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-110 001
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ,
order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to erect
the high power transmission tower in the property of the Petitioners
to an extent of Ac.2.28 cents in Sy.No.149-2D3 and to an extent of
Ac.1.67 cents in Sy.No.149-2D4 of Podaralla Village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapuramu District without
acquisition and without following the Laws relating to such
acquisition as arbitrary, illegal, without any authority and in violation
of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in any manner
with the Petitioners property to an extent of Ac.2.28 cents in
Sy.No.149-2D3 and to an extent of Ac.1.67 cents in Sy.No.149-2D4
of Podaralla Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapuramu
District and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents
not to interfere in any manner with the Petitioners property to an
extent of Ac.2.28 cents in Sy.No.149-2D3 and to an extent of
Ac.1.67 cents in Sy.No.149-2D4 of Podaralla Village,
Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Anantapuramu District and pass
3
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased Pleased to implead the proposed
Respondent Nos.8 to 11 as the Party Respondent Nos.8 to 11 in
W.P.No.36250/2025 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. D S SIVADARSHAN
3. AKHIL KRISHNAN NHAI Panel Advocate
The Court made the following:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36250 OF 2025
ORDER:
The Writ Petitioners, claiming to be the owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.1.67 cents situated in survey No.149-2D4 and Ac.2.28 cents in survey No.149- 2D3, respectively, both situated in Podaralla village, Bukkarayasamudram mandal, Anantapur district (hereinafter referred to, as „the subject properties‟), filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondents in trying to erect high power transmission tower in the subject properties without acquisition and without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with their possession in respect of the said properties.
2. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition goes to show that mother of the petitioners was the original owner of the subject properties and other properties, and after her death, the petitioners got the 5 respective subject properties in the registered partition effected on 30.01.2025, and have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. 6th respondent, which is a subsidiary of Resonia Limited, was awarded the works for development of Inter-State Transmission Scheme „Transmission System for Integration of Anantapur-II REZ- Phase-I‟ through Tariff Based Competitive Bidding, and the transmission system will be used for evacuation of green power from Anantapur REZ and for supplying reliable green power between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. The petitioners came to know that one such transmission tower is proposed to be laid in the subject properties belonging to the petitioners in survey No.149- 2D3 and 2D4 of Podaralla village.
It is the further case of petitioners that on 1.11.2025, 4th respondent released details for proposed fixation of tower base compensation for erection of transmission towers by Anantapur II REZ Transmission Limited wherein survey No.148 of Podaralla village was mentioned for tower base compensation for erection of transmission tower, 6 whereas the respondents are taking steps to high-handedly erect the tower in the subject properties situated in survey No.149.
3. It is further stated in the writ affidavit that 5th respondent, vide endorsement dated 06.11.2025, gave information under the RtI Act, 2005 to the petitioners that the approved tower schedule with LoC No.AP38 and Tower Code C (15-22)-00 with farmer name Hussain and survey No.149 in Podaralla village. 2nd respondent replied to the application made by petitioners under RtI Act, 2005 that there is no information available in their office regarding the information sought by the petitioners.
It is further stated that foundation of the said high power transmission pole is about 70 x 70 square feet and the overhanging conductor wires which are raised above the said base would be approximately to a width of 240 feet and the pole is to a height of 240 feet; that the adjacent site of petitioners‟ land is a fast developing township and erecting such transmission pole would endanger lives of people around the said area.
7
It is the grievance of the petitioners that before erecting such a tower in their land, neither any notice was issued to them nor any survey is conducted; that if the said tower is erected, entire remaining land of petitioners becomes useless; that the respondents have no such power to act in such arbitrary manner; that the lands of petitioners are situated adjacent to National Highway, and they had already lost Ac.1.00 cents of their land for extension of National Highway; that in view of high potentiality to the lands in the said locality, the respondents are trying to relocate the existing transmission line to favour the people of their choice at the cost of depriving the petitioners of the potential use of their land; that due to discrepancies in Notifications, 7th respondent high-handedly encroached into the land of petitioners and started preliminary work of laying foundation for erecting the Heavy Transmission Lines in the centre of the lands of petitioners, without any notice.
It is further stated that under Sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, it is for the licensee to make 8 application to the District Collector in respect of laying of over head lines, and the District Collector has no power to pass any order under the provisions of the said Act on the application made by the NHAI. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 of the Act (which deals with power of Telegraph Authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts) and disputes as to compensation in case of property other than that of a local authority.
It is further stated that as 1st and 2nd respondents do not fall under the purview of definition under Section 2 (39) of the Act (licensee), the shifting of over head transmission lines at the instance of NHAI is contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. Hence, the Writ Petition.
4. 6th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the material averments in the writ affidavit and contending inter alia as follows.
9
The subject Anantapura project is a Green Energy Corridor proposed to evacuate 4.5 GW of low-cost renewable power generated at the Anantapura Renewable Energy (RE) Zone, and the same was approved by the Ministry of Power under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and in furtherance of the aforesaid „prior approval‟, the Ministry of Power, vide Order dated 12.09.2025, conferred 6th respondent with all powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying overhead lines concerning the transmission system, which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts.
It is further stated that in view of the design and route duly approved by the competent authorities, the subject land falls within the approved route, and the petitioners are entitled to all statutory entitlements, including compensation, in accordance with law.
It is further stated that the respondents inadvertently mentioned survey No.148 in the list, in place of 149, whereas, land of petitioners is involved for the purpose of 10 laying the electricity transmission lines, and compensation, as legitimately determined by the authorities, would be paid to them; that the said list is not backed by any statute or law, and it was prepared only for the purpose of identifying farmers and respective land owners to facilitate payment of compensation; that compensation would be paid to the petitioners in accordance with law taking into account the area covered by the tower base as well as right of way of electricity transmission line.
It is further stated that there is no issue of relocation of any existing transmission line, as the present work relates to a fresh and new electricity transmission line being erected by 6th respondent; that all approvals and information pertaining to the project are available with the District authorities and in public domain; that the petitioners have full knowledge regarding location of Tower No.AP-38 in the subject lands as mentioned in the information furnished by respondent No.5; that since the subject tower abuts National Highway and transmission 11 lines cross the National Highway, 6th respondent has already applied for no objection certificate from NHAI.
It is further stated that in erecting the electricity towers and laying transmission lines, 6th respondent is strictly following the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, which comprehensively prescribe all safety protocols; that it is not respondents 1 and 2, who are laying the electricity transmission lines, and it is only 6th respondent which is vested with statutory authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to lay the lines, and which is erecting towers and laying transmission lines after obtaining all necessary approvals, including permissions under Sections 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
It is further stated that prior consent of the petitioners is not required for erecting towers and laying transmission lines, as 6th respondent has been conferred statutory authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and they are entitled only to compensation as per the 12 norms prescribed under law, and there is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioners.
5. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Akhil Krishna, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2; and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 3 and 4; Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the record.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the action of respondent- authorities in taking steps to lay to erect high power transmission tower in the subject properties is high-handed and contrary to law; that neither the petitioners were issued any notice before taking such steps nor the subject properties of the petitioners were acquired as per the procedure contemplated under law. It is his further submission that originally, in the details given by 4th respondent on 1.11.2025, for fixation of tower base 13 compensation for erection of transmission towers by Anantapur II REZ Transmission Limited, land in survey No.148 of Podaralla village was mentioned for tower base compensation for erection of transmission tower, but in view of high potentiality to the lands of the petitioners, being situated abutting to National Highway, the respondents are trying to relocate the existing transmission line to favour the people of their choice, depriving the petitioners of the potential use of their land.
7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for 6th respondent contended that the Ministry of Power, vide Order dated 12.09.2025, published in the Gazette of India on 15.9.2025, conferred 6th respondent with all powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying overhead lines concerning the transmission system, which the Telegraph Authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts; that no notice or opportunity of hearing, to the owner/occupier of the premises affected by laying of lines, is mandated under the provisions of the 14 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is his further contention that the petitioners are entitled to adequate compensation and all statutory entitlements in accordance with law, if they are the owners of the land affected, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the following decisions.
(a) In Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v.
Century Textiles and Industries Limited & others1;
(b) In Devisetty Ramaswamy v. the Chief Engineer, 400 KV Line AP Transco (APSPDCL), Hyderabad2;
(c) In K.Subrahmanyam & others v. the State of Andhra Pradesh & others;3
(d) In Sri Sai Gardesn (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & others4;
(e) In K.Subrahmanyam & others v. the State of Andhra Pradesh & others5;
1 (2017) 5 SCC 143 2 MANU/AP/0114/2013 3 MANU/AP/0565/2021 4 MANU/AP/0387/2004 5 MANU/AP/0965/2021 15
8. Now, the point that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the action of respondent-authorities in proposing to lay the high power transmission tower in the schedule properties belonging to the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice, and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, any interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?
9. The Ministry of Power, Government of India, vide Order No.25-17/24/2025-PG, dated 21.2.2025, conveyed prior approval under Section 68 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in favour of 6th respondent for installation of Ananthapuram-II-Davangere 765 kV D/c line (-150 km) and Ananthapuram-II-Cuddapah 765 D/c line (-200 km), overhead transmission lines under the transmission scheme „Transmission System for Integration of Ananthapur-II REZ-Phase-I (for 4.5 GW). Pursuant to the approval, 6th respondent published notice for transmission scheme in local newspapers viz. New Indian Express (English); Dakshin Bharat Rashtramat (Hindi), Akash Jyoti 16 (Hindi), Samyuktha Karnataka (Kannada), Andhra Jyothi (Telugu) on 10.04.2025 and Dakshin Bharat Rashtramat (Hindi) and Akash Jyoti (Hindi) on 15.4.2025 (Corrigendum) and in Weekly Gazette of India dated 19.4.2025, for the general public to make observations/representations on the proposed transmission route within two months from the date of publication. Pursuant to the request of 6th respondent, the Ministry of Power, Government of India, vide Order dated 12.09.2025, published in the Gazette of India on 15.09.2025, conferred all the powers to 6th respondent under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying the above overhead lines, which the telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by Government or to be established or maintained subject to conditions stipulated therein.
10. 1st objection of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of the subject properties and that neither the subject properties were acquired by the 17 respondent-authorities nor any notice or opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the owner/occupier of the premises affected by laying of lines, before erecting high- power transmission tower in the subject properties.
11. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads thus:
"Exercise of Powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases:
The Appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained."
It is clear from a reading of the aforementioned provision that the Appropriate Government may, for placing 18 electric lines or electric plant for transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications, confer upon any public officer or licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supply of electricity under this Act, any of the powers of the telegraph authority. Thereupon, the authorized public officer, licensee or other person would have all the powers which a telegraph authority possesses under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with regard to placing of telegraph lines and posts.
12. In the case on hand, the Ministry of Power, Government of India, vide Order dated 12.09.2025, published in the Gazette of India on 15.09.2025, conferred all the powers to 6th respondent under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for laying the above overhead lines, etc. in respect of the subject project. By virtue of the same, 6th respondent acquires all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in laying down power transmission lines. It is 19 pertinent to note that as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest. The legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving the objective and through the scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the same as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines. Powers of the telegraph authority conferred by Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 stand vested in, and are enjoyed, by 6th respondent.
13. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section 10
(b) of the Act, 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Section 10 (d) of the Act, 1885 20 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the telegraph authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. While exercising discretion under Section 16 (1) of the Act, 1885, the District Magistrate is not required to issue notice to the person objecting to or resisting the exercise of powers by the authority under Section 10 of the Act, 1885 or give him an opportunity of hearing.
14. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles and Industries Limited & others (1 supra), wherein it is held thus:
"The learned Judge pointed out that it had been clarified even in G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA AIR 2009 AP 158 (1) that Section 67(1) of the Act of 2003, as well as the Rules made under Section 67(2) thereof, would govern the field only in the absence of an order under Section 164 of the Act of 2003 and consequently, in a case where an order was passed by the appropriate Government in exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Act of 2003, the authorized licensee would be 21 competent to exercise such powers which a telegraph authority possessed under the Act of 1885 with respect to placing of lines and poles. The learned Judge further observed that as powers under Section 10 of the Act of 1885 could be exercised without acquiring the land, the same would be the position with a licensee conferred with such powers under Section 164 of the Act of 2003.
On facts, the learned Judge found that the laying of electric lines in that case was pursuant to a notification invoking Section 164 of the Act of 2003 and therefore, Section 67(1) of the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2006 were not attracted. The learned Judge consequently held that there was no necessity for the APTRANSCO to obtain the consent of the owner/occupier who was affected by the laying of such lines.
Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, the judgment of the Supreme Court in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. LIVISHA (2007) 6 SCC 79 makes it clear that the owner of a land would be entitled to claim compensation on the basis of various factors. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be 22 diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor....
10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used."
This principle was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD vs. CHINAMMA ANTONY (2008) 11 SCC 4476. Presently, the issue is whether the petitioner can stall the subject scheme on the ground that he was not given prior notice or an opportunity of hearing. The judgments of this Court in G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA and in K.SUBBA RAJU speak against the petitioner insofar as this aspect is concerned. As pointed out in G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA, it was not even necessary for the APTRANSCO to issue a notification setting out the details of the scheme and calling for objections as the provisions in the Act of 1948 requiring the said 23 procedure stood repealed by the Act of 2003. The procedure envisaged by the Rules of 2006 read with Section 67 of the Act of 2003 had no application to the case, once Section 164 was pressed into service. Section 68 of the Act 2003 also has no application to the case on hand as the said provision, dealing with overhead lines, also figures in Part VIII relating to works of licensees and was in continuation of Section
67. xxx On the above analysis, this Court finds that there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of such owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. Section 17 postulates that such a right would arise only after laying of the lines or posts and upon the failure of the authority concerned to act upon a requisition to remove or relocate such lines or posts etc."
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing is required to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by laying of lines or posts and there is no provision in the Act, 1885 which 24 mandates the same. It can be held that the petitioners failed to establish any failure on the part of 6th respondent in following the due procedure, and while exercising the powers under Section 164 of the Act, 2003, 6th respondent is not required to either initiate acquisition of land or obtain consent of the owner.
16. The other contention of the petitioners is that in the details released on 1.11.2025 by 4th respondent for proposed fixation of tower base compensation for erection of transmission towers by Anantapur II REZ Transmission Limited, survey No.148 of Podaralla village was mentioned for tower base compensation for erection of transmission tower, but in view of high potentiality to the lands in the said locality, the respondents are trying to relocate the existing transmission line to favour the people of their choice at the cost of depriving the petitioners of the potential use of their land. The said contention is resisted by the respondents stating that inadvertently, survey number is mentioned as 148 in the list, in place of 149, and that the said list is not backed by any statute or law, 25 and it was prepared only for the purpose of identifying farmers and respective land owners to facilitate payment of compensation and that there is no issue of relocation of any existing transmission line, as the present work relates to a fresh and new electricity transmission line being erected by 6th respondent. Admittedly, the subject work is a new one and the question of relocation, as alleged by the petitioners, does not arise. As regards mention of survey No.148 in the list released on 1.11.2025 by 4th respondent, admittedly, it appears to be an inadvertent mistake, and as the list was issued only for the purpose of identifying farmers and respective land owners to facilitate payment of compensation and in view of powers vested under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and even as per the respondents, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and all statutory benefits, the said contention of the petitioners is not tenable.
17. The other contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that if the said tower is erected, entire remaining land of petitioners becomes 26 useless and that the lands of petitioners are situated adjacent to National Highway and has high potentiality, and that the adjacent site of petitioners‟ land is a fast developing township and erecting such transmission pole would endanger lives of people around the said area. It is his submission that petitioners‟ right to enjoy the subject properties profitably is being deprived of, by the action of the respondents.
18. There cannot be any dispute that under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In case of loss of property or damages or deprivation of right of the petitioners to enjoy the subject properties profitably, they are at liberty to seek payment of compensation as per law. In Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Limited v. Union of India & others,6 it is held that since the respondent-Corporation can exercise enough power to lay transmission lines across the property of the petitioner therein, except claiming compensation, petitioner therein cannot validly challenge 6 MANU/AP/0387/2004 27 the action of the Board on the ground that it affects his valuable rights.
19. In case if there is a threat that the proposed erection of tower would endanger lives of people around the area, the authorities shall take appropriate or suitable measures to redress their grievance as per the provisions of law. There cannot be any dispute that the Courts have to keep larger public interests in mind while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has to be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice. The interest of justice and the public purposes would coalesce. However, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation in respect of the subject properties in accordance with law. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition.
20. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 21.1.2026 DRK 28 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36250 OF 2025 21.1.2026 DRK