Telangana High Court
M/S Sri Abhishek Steels And Power ... vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITIONS No. 14273 OF 2023
06.03.2026
Between:
M/s Sri Abhishek Steels and Power Limited,
(previously known as Abhishek Steels Limited),
Rep. by its Authorised Representative
Shri Yash Agarrwal
..... Petitioner
And
Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana
Ltd.(TSSPDCL)
Through its Chairperson & Managing Director
& another
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents in illegally possessing the land in Survey Nos. 131, 131/2, 131/3 and 131/4 situated at Kandla Koi Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District since 1991 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution. Consequently, a direction is sought to Respondents to deliver possession of land to petitioner by vacating immediately since they are in illegal possession of the land despite withdrawal of consent by 2 Petitioner and direct them to pay compensation for the losses incurred due to their illegal possession.
2. Petitioner claims to be a Limited Company having been incorporated on 07.11.1985 and engaged in the business of manufacture of iron and steel, having its plant at Gundla Pochampally Village, Medchal Road, Ranga Reddy District. The land belonging to them situated in Survey Nos. 131, 131/2, 131/3 and 131/4, Kandla Koi Village was procured by Respondents for setting up a sub-station on the promise of supplying power through a dedicated feeder line to petitioner's steel factory situated near the aforesaid land at Gundla Pochampally Village.
2.1. It is the further case of petitioner that they requested for a HT (High Tension) Line vide letter dated 07.11.1987 for supply of 2000 KVA on 33 KV supply to be supplied via a dedicated feeder which was approved by the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB) subject to the following conditions.
• Payment of INR 19,57,500/- towards service line charges. • Payment of INR 15,000/- towards service connection charges. • Payment of INR 5,85,500/- towards security deposit. • Handing over of a land of 4 acres in area free of cost for the erection of 132/33 KV Medchal Sub Station.
2.2. It is stated, petitioner on 20.01.1998, paid Rs.15,000/- towards service connection charges and 3 Rs.5,85,000/- towards security deposit; it was agreed between petitioner and company that petitioner would hand over Acs.4.00 in the first week of February 1988 for erection of sub- station primarily in order to get better voltage and uninterrupted supply of electricity by way of a dedicated feeder line as well as general development by way of sub-station in the areas surrounding that land.
2.3. It is further stated, though Government issued G.O.Ms No. 41 of 1986 dated 15.05.1986 exempting the Small Scale Industrial Units from paying the service line charges, the erstwhile APSEB demanded payment of the same and when request of petitioner to exempt from payment of service line charges was negated by erstwhile APSEB, he filed Writ Petition No. 962 of 1988 wherein interim direction was granted. Petitioner states that out of Acs.4.00, it had handed over agricultural land of Acs.3.00 (appx.) forming part of Survey Nos. 131, 131/2, 131/3 and 131/4 situated at Kandla Koi Village to Respondents. Despite the same, though erstwhile APSEB released power supply on 19.02.1988 vide HT SC No. RRN 418, it was not through a dedicated feeder line but was through a common feeder. It is also stated, due to family disputes, entire assets and liabilities of petitioner were handed over to one of its Directors, Gopal Agarwal and due to bad 4 marketing conditions, production at petitioner's factory was affected and petitioner was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by its Banker, Canara Bank and the unit was shut. 2.4. According to petitioner, still they are the rightful owner of Acs. 3.00 of land which was handed over to Respondents and as petitioner is not using power supply from Respondent's sub-station, they have withdrawn the consent given to Respondents to be in possession of the above property and therefore sought a prayer to declare that Respondents are in illegal possession of petitioner's property and to re-deliver the property.
3. Learned Senior counsel Sri Dammalapati Srinivas assisted by Sri Apurva M. Gokhale, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in 2023, petitioner sent representations demanding vacation of land and compensation which were received but ignored; the land transfer was never registered; no acquisition proceedings occurred under land laws and Acs.1.50 remain vacant. It is argued that petitioner handed over the land free of cost for a dedicated feeder via sub-station, but respondents failed to provide it despite compliance with all conditions which hits respondents with the doctrine of estoppels entitling petitioner to reclaim possession; hence, the letter of consent dated 23.05.1998 issued by way of gift deed 5 becomes invalid as per the Transfer of Property Act and no title of ownership can be passed on the basis of unregistered agreement under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3.1. According to learned Senior Counsel, the continued occupation of land without a valid statutory mode violates the Rule of Law as the State cannot deprive a citizen of property without the specific sanction of law which is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution. Respondents are legally- barred from retaining possession after failing to fulfil the promise that convinced petitioner to hand over the land and as on today, land is in the name of petitioner.
3.2. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1, Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi 2 and State of Haryana v. Amin Lal 3 and contends that forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law was violative of both their human right and constitutional right under Article 300-A. It is further argued that allowing the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine the constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in the 1 (2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 508 2 2024 SCC Online SC 3725 3 2024 SCC Online SC 3368 6 government. It is also contended, the right to property is enshrined in the Constitution and requires that procedural safeguards be followed to ensure fairness and non- arbitrariness in decision-making especially in cases of acquisition by the State; therefore, the delay in approaching the Court while a significant factor cannot override the necessity to address illegalities and protect right to property enshrined in Article 300-A. The right of an individual to vindicate and protect private property cannot be brushed away merely on the grounds of delay and laches. It is argued that delay and latches cannot be raised in a case of continuing cause of action and the present matter involves a continuing cause of action due to ongoing illegal possession by respondents.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, based on the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer, submits that the prayer, as sought in the Writ Petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. Petitioner has virtually sought for a prayer in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession which cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. According to him, a writ of mandamus can only be granted in a case where there is 7 a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of that officer to discharge the said obligation.
4.1. It is argued, erstwhile APSEB agreed to provide uninterrupted power supply to petitioner but never promised to supply such power through a dedicated feeder. Further, the promise to supply power supply to petitioner was subject to the condition of handing over the land for construction of a sub- station, pursuant to which petitioner issued the Letter of Consent dated 23.05.1988 and delivered possession of land to the erstwhile APSEB. It is stated that in the transfer of land/consent letter of petitioner, it is specifically stated that Electricity Board shall become the full owner of the property to use the said open site given to them for unlimited period. It is further stated in the said consent letter that neither petitioner nor their successors/assignees etcetera shall have any right to take back the land from Respondents and the only restriction was that the Electricity Board will not be entitled to sell the property without the consent of petitioner. It is further argued that consent letter was given by petitioner for the purpose of construction of 132/33 KV sub-station.
4.2. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that pursuant to the land being handed over, the erstwhile APSEB 8 became full owner of the said land on which they have constructed a sub-station which is in operation since past 35 years and petitioner was one of the beneficiaries who received power supply from the said sub-station since then. It is further contended that petitioner does not have any power to cancel the consent letter nor can take back the land in which sub- station was constructed, more so by agitating the said issue in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Considered the rival submissions and examined the issue on hand. It is to be noted, the Writ Petition, as framed and filed, is a private law remedy which can only be agitated before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, if petitioner has any right or authority to do so. The judgments relied upon by petitioner and the ratio laid therein is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as rightly contended by the Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents.
6. Admittedly, petitioner company submitted requisition to APSEB for supply of power which approved estimate for extending HT supply at 33 KV and requested petitioner to complete the departmental formalities. It is the case of Respondent No.1 that the Board agreed to release power supply subject to completion of formalities listed in 9 letter dated 07.01.1998 including handing over of land free of cost for erection of 132/33 IKV Medchal Sub-station and APSEB has agreed to supply uninterrupted quality power but did not promise to supply the electricity via dedicated feeder to petitioner industry. They denied the contention of petitioner that the said land was handed over on assurance of providing power supply through dedicated feeder.
7. Learned Standing Counsel draws attention of this Court to the Letter of Consent dated 23.05.1988 where under petitioner gave its consent in favour of APSEB as under:
i) That our company and many other companies established in the vicinity have approached the Board of the Second Party to erect 132 IKV sub-
station to facilitate us and all other establishments. Upon which the Board has agreed to establish the above said substation of 132 KV subject to providing land on free of cost.
ii). On the request of Board, to get better voltages and continuous uninterrupted power supply we have agreed to allow the Electricity Board of the second part, to construct its 132 KV sub-station on an area of approximately 3 acres, as shown in the schedule.
iii). That now onwards the Electricity Board shall become the full owner to use the said open sight being given to them for an unlimited period. Ourselves or successors, assigns etc., shall not have any right to take back the land from the peaceful possession of the Electricity Board of the second part. The only restriction on the Board will be that if shall not be entitled to sell away this land to any one without our prior consent. 10
iv). This letter of consent is executed in favour of the Board of the second apart for occupying the schedule land to construct 132 KV sub- station is with our consent and without any coercion. Now onwards they shall occupy the land mentioned in the schedule and start the construction of 132 KV sub-station to facilitate us and start the construction without any delay.' 8 From a perusal of the Letter of consent, it is to be seen, it was not stated anywhere that the said land was handed over on assurance of providing power supply through dedicated feeder. Hence, the contention of petitioner that land transfer was never registered, no acquisition proceedings occurred under land laws and the respondents continued in possession without a valid statutory mode violates the Rule of law as the State cannot deprive a citizen of the property without the sanction of law. The property in question was handed over to the erstwhile APSEB which was one of the conditions imposed by it for the purpose of providing uninterrupted power supply to petitioner. The Consent Letter issued by petitioner specifically states that Respondents shall become the full owners of the property to use the same for construction of a sub-station; neither petitioner nor their successors/assigns, etcetera have any right to take back the said land from Respondents.
11
9. In that view of the matter, now petitioner cannot turn around and claim that they are entitled to take back the subject property and they cannot term respondents as illegal occupants of the said property. This Court is therefore, of the view that no case is made out by petitioner for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th March 2026 ksld