1. Dost M.Oosman v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnlia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th: High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\,4andamus directing the respondents to conduct a joini s.irvey in respect of the electric poles of high voltage of 33 KV installed through thr- lands belonging to the petitroners in Survey Nos. 146, 147 , 15O, 151 , 152, etc. a rd tc f ix and pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners as per ther lzrw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia and as per Section 38 of the LARR of 2013, by duly declaring that the said action of the respondents in rl cgal and unauthorized erecting the electric poles of high voltage of 33 KV instaleC through their lands without their consent. as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjus. malafrde, vtolative of principles of natural justice. violative of Articles 14, '.'1 and 30O-A of the Constitution of lndia, contrary to Section 38 of Right to Fa r Compensation and Transparency in [-and Acquisition Rehabilitation and R( s-.ttlement Act, 2013, apart from violativ. of the law laid down by the Hon'ble S ucreme Court of lndia and unconstitutional lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r,lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL rl may be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a joint survey in respect o' the electric poles of high voltage of 33 KV installed, through the lands belongi:rg to the petitioners in Survey Nos. 146, 117 , 'l 50, 151, 152, etc., for the purpc se of payment of the appropriate compensation to the petitioners as per the aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as per Section 3€t :f the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 pending disposal of the above Wr i Petition, pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M S ANWAR SIDDIQUI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAP,AKA WRIT PETITION No. 4653 OF 2024 ORDER Pctirioncrs seek a clirection to rt : pondeuts [() corrdur:t .t joinr survcy in rr:spect of elcctric poles oi :tigh voltagc of 33 K\z inst;rllcd through their [:rnds in Survey \os. 146, 147,

1.5O, 151, 152. trncl othcr (ontigr.r()us survey nLtnrlr,:rs itnd pav :rppropri:rLe r:onrpcnsaLirrn as pcr thc [au, laid 'l,rrvn l>r' the LI,rn'ble Suprtrnc Court irnd irr zrccordance rviLi.r 'i,:cLirtn .lS o[ thc Right tc, I,-:rir Compe nsation and Transpai-( nc\'' ir.r Land Ar:quisition, liclrirbilitation .rnd Resettlement Ac1 2013 (LARIi Act, 2013), by dcclaring thc installation of the sairi t lcclric polcs \r,ithout conscnl as illegal, arbitr:rry, malaltde, :rrrri violatir.c ol Articlcs I4, i 1, arrd .lOO A oJ' thc Constitutior of .nclta, in zrclcliticirr to bcing conLrary to Section 38 of the LARII Act . 201I1.

2. l)r'titioncrs su}-lmit that their father, lrtt' Ghouse M Oosman harl purchased agricultural lands corrr-'r t: I b1' Sur-vey Nos. 13.5 to 154, also known as Ramnagar Agrit r;ltural Farm, siLuate(l at Rrrclraram Village, Pzrtanchcru Mancr 1, Sangareddy District, adrneasuring approximately 104 acres in tht: earl1, 1950s. These leinds have been ir-rherited, owned rrnd possessed by petitioners and other family members. I1 is stated, i L 2 agricuitural 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 N:rtional Green Tribunal (NGT), and the Hon'blc Suprcmc Court ol India. Consequently, thcre arose a necessity Lo convert thc land usc from Agriculture to Non-Agriculture lor residential and allied purposes. Pctitioners obtained land use conversion permissions from the District Revenue Officer, Medak at Sangarcddy, having paid rhe rccluisite charges. Additionirll_v, a DTCP la.r,out plan ol the land u as also filed. '2.1. Petitioners contend that till 20O0, thc lands in Survey Nos. 135 to 153 were activcly used foi agricultural purposes, including cultivation of paddy, vegctables, and sugarcane. During this period, respondcnls, in a high-handed, unilateral and arbitrary manner, laid 33 KV electric poles across Survey Nos. 146, I47, l5O, 151, 152 and adjoining lands, u,ithout notice to pattadars or o\r.ners and u'ithout lollowing due process of [aw. It is emphasized that no electricity connection was ever provided to Ramnagar Agricultural F arm from these poles. They further state that poles created fear of electrocution and danger to the workers employed in the helds, resulting in huge agricultural losses and damages up to 2OOO and n subsequcntly, obstructed thc dcvelopment ol roacls and inlras t nrc'tur,: lbr rirr: rcsidentiaI color-r\'laic1 or-tt larrr. 2 .2 . I r is irlso stated, rluc to [oxio an .] harzardous pollution from IDA, Mr-rddu Mailaram and Isna r, rr Lakc br. 2OO0, agricultural activity \(ras no longcr lcasible. frrllou,ing the lancl use con,.,ersion, a residential colony u,as devel rped tretu,cen 2OO2 ancl 2005 Pctrtioners cntercd into a Lrevelopment Agreerncn t u ith M / s Do1'en ConsLruction Privat,: l,itruted [or developmr:nt ol approximately 80 acres covering !iun'r:y Nos. I35 to 15:J. 'l'hcv state that respondents' .r rauthorized installatkrn of 33 KV polcs interfered ri,ith tfre planr-red developmtrnt, obstructed roads, lbotpaths and i.rliaslructure and causcd reduction in the value of thc surro.tlrclilrg land, imposing subst:rnti:rl llnancial an<.1 operational i'rsscs on thr- o\t,ners ancl 1]attadals. The affidavit emphasizes thirt th(: allegeci losses from the polcs includc both the agricultura ;rcriod prior to 2000 and the rcsidential devclopment phase thercilfter.

2.3. Petitioners contend that electricity is:r commercial activit]', as rccognized bv the Hon'ble Supreme C.urt and that installation of 33 KV poles, which were never utilizr:d by them, caused continuous financial losses from the time o' installation. They state tlrat personal visits, representations 11' aclvocates 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 survevor present. However, respondents, lor reasons knou n to tl-rem, allegedly did not respond Lo thcse communications.

2.4 . [t is stated, petitioners rely on the Ministry of Pou'er Guidelines clated 1Sth Octobcr, 2015 asserting that compensation is required to be paicl according to thcse guidelines- They further contend that under the Electricit-v Act, 2003 and Elcctricig Rules, 2006, Liccnsee Transmission Companies arc obligatcd, under Rule 3(1)(a) to obtairt consent and inform land owners regarding the purpose, damages, compensation, con[act dcLaiis, offer duration and payment timelines. Pctitioners submit that Section 38 of the LARR Act, 2013 mandates compensation and possession procedures in such circumstances. They also cite the judgment of thc Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala Etectricitg Board a. I*visha (Civll Appeal No. 289 of 2O06, dated 18-05-20O7), wherein it was held that factors such as the site of land, distance between high voltage lines, extent o[ lines, passage over land and potential loss of usc are determinative in calculating compensation. They further assert that the high-handed action of respondents, ':al ) enElaged in c()mlncrcial :rctivities for substantiai I r-rl'it, cannoI deny the rightlLlL claims and losses of petitioners 'l lrc afhdavit emphasizes thllt petitiorers are senior crtizens, rrqr.d over 80 ycars, sufferrng miserics and hnancial losses lrr<: to non- compensatiorr litr the ele<:tri<: poles.

3. Thrs Court, bv order dated 23.04.2 r-24 clirected respondents lo ( oltduct r .joint survev ll.t rcspecI r l tlte electric polcs of higlr voJtage ol-33 I(V instzrlled, [hrolrrli: tht: lancls belongrng to pctitioners in Survey Nos. l4b, 147, )3), 151, 152 etoetera withrn litrrr wecks frorn the date of receip rtl-ir copv of tl're said ordcr', afrt:l' giving due notice to peti[ion(,rs itnrl all the concerned and place a rcport on record by the rrcxL date of adjournme nt.

4. In thc coun tcr- affidavit lrled or] trehalf of Respondents 3 to 5, it is dcnied that pet itioners i r : on.ners of the lands whcrc 33 KV clcctric line s havc beerr i:rr_.ctr:d. The propert] in qucstiorr is being developed bv a propt,r r.,.developer, M/s Doyen Clonstructions Private Limited, which 'iird obtained permission frrr conversion of lands from Agricul r re to Non- Agriculture utle proceedings dated 06.09.2OO5 frorr the District Revenue Ofh<:e, Medak District. It is furthcr staterl Lhzrt the said company obtained a layout from the Gram Pa n,:hayat and 6 developed the area into residentral p1ots, having constructed approximately 50 hotrses. 33 KV lines are aligned along the roads dcveloped u,ill-rin the layout and no objection u.as raised by thc devcloper or the plot owners. M/s Doyen Constructions Private Limited is a proper and necessary party to the petition, having substanlial interest in the lands, and thal Lhcy had obtained t"he land conversion procecdings dated 06.O9 .2005 as \\,ell as la1,'out permrssion from the concerned Gram Panchal,at.

4.1. [l is a[so stated, 33 KV lines were erected more than 50 years ago to transmit power for 33/ 1l KV substations iocated at Isnapur, Chitkul and Patancheru Mandals. The power supply transmitted through [hese Iines is primarily utilized for industrial purposes and residential colonies. It is highlighted that pou,cr 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 Iapse of time, as the cause of action arose more than hve <lecades ago.

4.2. Respondents further contend that even if petitioners had any claim based on the statutes and applicabie 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 c 1 action arose over 50 years prior to hling the Writ Fetition. The provisions of the trlectricily- Act, 2003 are applica tle only fron-r 2OO3, hcnce claims regarding the elecLric lines ir-r;talled before the enforcement of the Act cannol be considered. litcspondents maintain that petitioners' allegations rcgarding u rauthorized installation and demands lor compcnsation cannc ,rverride the long lapse of time and the applicable lcgal lrarn,:v,,ork. which precludes claims arising before Lhe statutory perioC Pelitior-rers failcd to provide evidcncc demonstrerting that in-st,rll:.tion ol 33 KV lines in Survey Nos. 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, arLd other adjoining lands had causcd cornpensable damaq ts under the existing 1aw, particularly considcring the subsr ar r t ial delat, of over 50 years in raising an1, claim.

5. Petrtioners irave come up witi-r Lhe re.;r incler stating that a registered Development Agreement cum-Gcre al Power of Attorney had been executcd betn,een petitioners and M/s Doyen Construction Private Limitecl in respect of the Lr:rcl in Survey Nos. 135 to 153. Respondents were attemprl t11 to divert attention from the primary issue, which is the higl l-randed and unauthorized erection of high-tension 33 KV r k:ctnc poles through their private patta land r,",ithout notice or consent and without paying compensation for the losse s suslaine(i dtre to the 8 poles both during the period when agricultural activities were ongoing and subsequentll' due to realignment of the land for developmcnt purposes. It is further rciterated that, at no point of time, u'as the electricity transmitted uia these poles consumcd ur utrlizrtl hy pctitioners.

5.1. Realignment of la5'out duc to la)'ing of 33 KV lines caused suirst:rntial losscs to o\{rncrs irnd objections were raised by thc landor,r'ncrs .tt thc tirne. Petitic.rners hacl also hled Writ Petition No. 25259 of 2006 to removc 33 KV power lines lrom Survcy Nos. 135 to 154, Rudraram Village, u'hich vvere causing havoc and signrficanL damage to agricultural fields. The said Writ Petition u,as subsequcntly r,r'ithdrawn on advice in order to pursuc claims for compens:rtior-r for lltc losses sustained due to the polcs and the realignment of the layout for land developmenL. RespondenLs failed to respond to legal notices sent regarding thc matter for reasons best known to them and instead invented grounds of limitation and applicability of the Electricity Act, 2003. Thc af{idavit highlights that, while respondents attempted to disputc ownership and raise limitation pleas, it is undisputed thzrt petitioners are lawful owners of Survey Nos. 135 to 154 through which the 33 KV pou,er lines have been laid. 9

5.2. It is further stated, respondents rlrsobeved the interim order darccl 23.O1.'2024. The cout'itcr alTirl nit v';rs hled with an intentiorr to hulrass petlrioncrs fr-rrther LrLd 1o dclav relief, clespite thc cxistence of interim orders in tht r zrvour.

6. Hearcl Sri Anwar Sicldiclui, learnt'rl t.ounscl lirr petitioners as u,ell as Sri N. Sreedi-rar Rcdd1., lc;rltr rl Slzrndu.rg Counsel lor Respondenls 3 to 5.

7. Having considcred the sllbmissior s arcl the material on record, it is to be obsencd thal 33, I.\, lincs $r'rc installed for public utilitv over fiftl ycars ago ancl lr -n,e ltccn in continuons use lor industrial and residential suppi,. Along ri,ith lhe Writ Petition, petitioners have tiled lan, convcrsion procecdings datecl 06.O9.2005 issued by the Di:; r-icL l?evcrrr-rc Officc, Medak addressed to M/s Doyen Consl rrctions I\t. Limited (GPA l{older) u,ith regard ro rhc pc rtission lbr development of different extents of lands in v;rri)us survcy numbers of Rudraram Village. Though respond,'r.ts contcnd that property was developcd by M/s Doyen ( onstructior-ts Prlvate Limited duly obtaining permission :.r rl tlie sarid developer was not made party to the Writ petitir n; electricity lines have been in existence for over 50 years ancl S(lction 3g of the LARR Act, 2013 and Electriciry Acr, 2003 inclu iing Minisrry l0 of Power Guidelines of 15t' October, 2015, do not have retrospective application to iines ir-rstalled decades before their enactment, it is to bc obst:twed that the interim order dated

23.04.2024 for a joint survcy was not complie d with, allegedlv due to non cooperation of thc rcspondent authoritics.

8. Thc essential grievance in this Writ Petition is that the electric lines arc allegedlv passing through pctitioners'lands and respondent authorilies ltar.e not paicl anv compensatlon to them. Considering the serious rebuItal by respondent authorities that lancls do nol belong to petitioners and that electricity lines are existing lbr over hve decades, and these being the factual matters that m.ry comc to light after joint survey, this Court is not lnclined to go into n'rcrits of the matter at this stage.

9. The Writ Petitior-r is therelorc, clisposed of directing respondent authorities to conduct joint survey in tcrms of the interim order, dated 23.O4.2024 u,ithin four q'eeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order and communicate the report to petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty [o challenge any grievance or claim arising out of the joint survey report in an appropriate proceedings. No cosLs I I I I I j I i l I i ; ! i ! i I i I ! l ! i I f i ! i I I I ! I I I I l1 I

10. Conseque ntly, miscellaneous Appli<:r.t ons, if any sl-rnll st:rnd c losed. *SD/-C- DEEPIKA AS SISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Pdncipal Secretary, Power and Energy Depar rrrent T.S. Secretariat, Saifabad, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. Chairman and Managing Director, The Transn ri:,sion Corporation of Telangana Limrted, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hydr:ra rad, Telangana State.

3. The Chief General l\/anager, TSPDCL, N/lint Compour d Hyderabad. 4. The Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Operatron, -i jt']DCL., Sanga Reddy. Telangana State.

5. The Superintendent, TSPDCL, Sangareddy, Sangar,:cdy District, Telangana State.

6. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, T S Secretariat, Saifabad. The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

7. The Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, Sa rila Reddy District 8. The Deputy lnspector of Survey & Land Records. C)ffice of the Assistanl Director of Survey & Land Records, Sanga Reddy S;i nJa Reddy Distnct

9. The lVlandal Surveyor, Patancheruvu [t/andal, Sang:r 1.:dd), Drstrict. 1O.One CC to SRl. IV S ANWAR SlDDlOUl, Advocate []PUCI 1 1 One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TG SI'DCL 12 Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the S.ate of Telangana. [OUT] 13 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for tre State of Telangana

14. Two CD Copies PVL BS HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 ORDER WP.No.4653 of 2024 ,x /f 4 )\' . t', :.. '..\. ,(' ) ), 2 B ilt0lJ 2025 {{n"onr.n '- l\ : ,] -:1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \g + {\r