Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palem Ram Suresh, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.10953 of 2021
Palem Ram Suresh, S/o late P.Ramalingaiah
Naidu, aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o
Kuchivaripali, Rajampet Revenue Village,
Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District and
another.
... Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Energy Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and
six others.
... Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioners : Ms.P.Lakshmi Priya
Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 : Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi
ORDER
Challenging the notice dated 22.05.2021 issued by 4th respondent under Section 68 and 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Telegraph Act,1885 and CEA (Safety and Electricity Supply) Guidelines, 2010, the above writ petition was filed.
2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners owned land in S.No.393 apart from other properties of Rajampet village. Banana, Mango, Lemon etc. Page 2 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 crops are being cultivated. Abutting the petitioners' land, 132 KV sub-station was constructed in the year 1990. The land of the petitioners is fit for house sites. The 4th respondent issued notices impugned in the writ petition. A perusal of the notice would disclose that A.P TRANSCO is executing 132 KV D.C/S.C. line from 200 KV sub-station, Rajampet to 132 KV sub-station C.Orampadu under a system improvement scheme for improving the reliability of power supply; that the transmission lines are passing through the lands of the petitioners; that compensation for the land in which the tower laid will be arranged, for tower base area as a part of land diminution and as per the land rates fixed by the District Collector etc.,
b) Petitioners came to know that the respondents 2 to 4 got the administrative approval on 03.04.2013 for construction of 132/22 KV sub-station at C.Orampadu and the A.P. TRANSCO published notification in newspapers on 29.10.2014. The notifications were issued for the statewide projects without particulars. As per the land identified by the revenue authorities S.Nos.392 or 393 belonged to the petitioners was not included. Thus, the petitioners did not Page 3 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 submit any objections. If the respondents lay lines directly from the sub-station, Rajampet, it will reduce one or two poles and shorten the line. The Tower/Lines in between 6-4 shown by the respondents are not in straight. Respondents changed the Detail Project Report (DPR) to benefit some persons only after 18.03.2020 and after filing of counter affidavit dated 06.11.2020 in W.P.No.18511 of 2020. The respondent authorities have to erect 99 Towers as per DPR, but now it has been changed to 96 with deviations and hence, they issued notices to the petitioners. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act") is not applicable to the Acts specified in Schedule-IV, wherein the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is at Serial No.12. Section 105 (3) of the Act contemplates that the payment of compensation is as per Schedule-I and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in Schedules II and III of the Act. Notification was issued in S.O.No.2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015. Petitioners are entitled to compensation as per Schedule-I of the Act and as per G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. Page 4 of 14
SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
3. a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the A.P. TRANSCO in exercise of powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.115 Energy Department dated 07.10.2003 gave administrative approval vide TOO (CE-Construction-1) Ms.No.3 dated 03.04.2013 for construction of 132/33 KV sub-station at Chinna Orampadu and 132 KV DC/SC Line from 220/132 KV SS Rajampet to proposed 132/22 KV SS Chinna Orampadu. After the scheme was approved, the A.P. TRANSCO published notification in Telugu and English dailies on 29.10.2014 and objections are called for. However, the petitioners did not raise objections at any point in time. Notices were issued to all the concerned landowners. Notices dated 22.05.2021 were issued to the petitioner by registered post.
b) As per Section 164 of Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 10 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the A.P. TRANSCO got absolute authority to proceed with laying of electricity supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation, if any damage is Page 5 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 sustained by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. The acquisition of land is not necessary. The approved tower profile and tower schedule were prepared by conducting detailed survey in March, 2016. As per the approved tower schedule, A.P. TRANSCO has in fact completed the work in respect of 91 towers, out of the original proposed 99 towers including line work and sub-station works.
c) The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act") is not applicable to the electricity erection towers as per Section 164 of Electricity Act. A.P. TRANSCO is paying compensation amounts to the farmers as per slab rate fixed by the District Collector vide proceedings Ref.E6/1976/2018, dated 07.06.2019 duly considering the G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. The information furnished under RTI dated 18.03.2020 is for the towers which were already executed. There is no procedure for collecting land survey numbers while doing the line survey. While taking up the actual line execution, it will address the revenue authorities to identify the actual land holder and survey Page 6 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 number of the land where the tower is proposed to be laid for paying land diminution/crop compensation.
d) A detailed survey was conducted, and the tower schedule was approved on 19.03.2016. During that time, there is no 132/33 KV features 220 KV sub-station, Rajampet. The work for erection of 132/33 KV features in 220 KV sub-station, Rajampet was awarded on 30.05.2017. During the execution of that work, the orientation of proposed 132 KV C.Orampadu feeder bay at 220 KV SS Rajampet and the revised tower schedule was approved on 08.03.2019. The revision of the tower schedule is completely based on technical aspects but not to benefit some other people. The contention of the petitioners to lay towers just adjacent to the compound wall of 220 KV sub-station Rajampet is not technically feasible and such changes in alignment of line would impact other landowners and further lead to multiple litigation. There is no provision under the Electricity Act, 2003 to obtain prior consent from the owners of private property for laying electrical lines. Page 7 of 14
SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
e) A.P. TRANSCO conducted a check survey with revenue authorities and obtained the details of survey numbers and landowners for location No.04 & 05. Accordingly, notices were issued to the petitioners for laying of towers. An amount of Rs.65,21,538/- was deposited by A.P. TRANSCO to the Sub Collector, Rajampet vide cheque No.0755234 dated 17.03.2021 towards compensation for land acquisition of 220 KV SS Rajampet. The 132 KV sub- station at Chinna Orampadu is almost completed in all respects and the A.P. TRANSCO spent approximately 20 crores. The work envisaged on public interest and the same is meant for agriculture supply and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The Tahsildar filed a separate counter affidavit on its behalf and on behalf of 5th respondent, almost reiterating the averments in the counter filed by 4th respondent.
5. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners contending that respondents issued notices without considering G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. Guidelines were framed under G.O.Rt.No.83 for payment of compensation towards Page 8 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 damages with regard to right to way for transmission lines. The respondents have not conducted any survey for laying towers and thus, prayed to set aside the impugned notices.
6. Heard Sri P.Sreeramulu Naidu, learned senior counsel representing Ms.P.Lakshmi Priya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 5 & 6, Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent.
7. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would submit that original DPR is changed and the change in DPR is not on straight line. He would submit that while fixing compensation, notice under Section 67 of Electricity Act, 2003 has to be issued and the respondents failed to take into consideration S.O.No.2368 (E) dated 28.08.2015, while fixing the compensation. He would also submit that LOC 4& 5 were not shown earlier and from LOC 6 to sub-station, if a line is drawn, lying of tower in the petitioners' land can be avoided. He also would contend that prior consent of the petitioners was not taken.
Page 9 of 14
SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
8. Per contra, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that no DPR is required, and the compensation is being determined by the District Collector as per the guidelines. He would also submit that Exhibit P3 filed along with writ petition is not speaking about final plan and in fact, original plan was slightly changed to benefit the petitioners. As per the original plan, towers are to be laid in the centre of petitioners' land and to avoid loss to the petitioners, the authorities considered feasibility and are now laying towers slightly moving to an end. He would submit that in fact efforts were taken by the respondents to mitigate the loss caused to the petitioners to the extent possible. He would also submit that the guidelines relied upon by the petitioners for fixing compensation under G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017 do not apply to the facts of the case.
9. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the notices impugned are liable to be set aside?
2) Whether the respondent authorities are following the procedures while fixing the damages?
3) Whether the consent of land owner is necessary for laying electricity lines or towers?Page 10 of 14
SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
10. The main contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that without consent of the petitioners respondent authorities are erecting towers in their land. Regarding obtaining permission qua erecting towers or transmission line, no permission of landlord is necessary.
11. In K.Subrahmanyam and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors1, learned single Judge of this court observed as follows:
6. The Indian Electricity Act was repealed and in its place, new statute i.e.. The Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted and there is no provision to obtain prior consent even from the owners of the private property for laying electricity lines. In fact, this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in 2013(4) ALD-88, held that the APTRANSCO would not be required to either initiate proceedings for acquisition of land or to obtain consent from the owner for erecting tower or laying the lines and the entitlement of Land Owners to compensation would arise only at a later date and it cannot be a ground to hinder the implementation of the scheme. The Apex Court in a decision reported in 2007(6) SCC 792 and 2008(11) SCC 476 held that both telegraphic lines and electric lines are required to be drawn over the agriculture lands or other property belonging to the private parties and in drawing such lines the entire land cannot be acquired, but the effect thereof could be diminution of value of the property, over which, such lines are drawn and the Telegraphic Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed. The latest Judgment of the Apex Court in 2017(5) SCC 143 1 MANU/AP/0565/2021 Page 11 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 also supports the power of the electricity companies to erect towers and lines without prior consent of the owners. The law in this regard is already settled by this Court in several cases in favour of the power utilities and the issue is no longer 'res integra'. In fact, the petitioners have no manner of right to oppose the laying of lines and erection of towers in Government land. Based on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Against the order of the learned single Judge, intra Court appeal was filed W.A.No.303 of 2021. Writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 17.09.2021.
12. The similar issue came up before the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Chinamma Antony2, wherein it was made it clear that the owner of the 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 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.2
2008 (11) SCC 476 Page 12 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, 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."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others [(2017) 5 SCC 143], considered the aspect of lying of lines and the permission from the land owner and also Sec 164 of the Electricity Act 2003 and Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules 2006. Eventually, concluded that no prior permission is required. Thus, in view of the expressions referred to supra, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without getting permission the authorities are proceeding with work falls to ground.
14. The other contention of the learned senior counsel is that compensation is not fixing properly and in fact compensation has to pay as per provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Learned senior counsel relied upon the report of committee for payment of compensation in regard to Right of Way for Page 13 of 14 SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021 transmission lines. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.83 dated 20.06.2017. The said G.O. deals with guidelines for payment of compensation towards damages in regard to Right of Way for transmission lines. District Collector, in fact, keeping in view the G.O., fixed the damages. The damage for Right of Way is 10% of value as per the rate fixed by Sub-Registrar. In view of the same, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that damages need to fixed as per the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 falls to ground.
15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that DPR was changed. In fact, in the counter affidavit it was specifically contended that detailed survey was conducted and the tower schedule was approved on 19.03.2016. Initially there are no 132/33 KV features in 220 KV substation Rajampet. The work for erection of 132/33 KV features in 220 KV substation, Rajampet was awarded on 30.05.2017. Revised detailed survey was carried out and tower schedule was approved on 08.03.2019. Copy of the revised tower schedule is also filed along with counter affidavit. Page 14 of 14
SRSJ WP No.10953 of 2021
16. The alignment, normally finalized taking into consideration various technical aspects. Thus, change of alignment, may not technically feasible. As seen from the record the authorities had taken maximum precaution, technically, to mitigate the damage to the land of petitioner. APTRANSCO spent nearly 20 crores on the project and the project is envisaged in the interest of public meant for agriculture supply.
17. In view of the discussion supra, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 20th October, 2023 PVD