The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Gorporation of lndia Ltd v. Century Textiles and lndustries Limitedl, has clearly held that under Section

subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of lndia Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Shadnagar (CAO), Plot No. 779, Sri Sai Balaji Township,Solipur Village, Shadnagar, Rangareddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction particularly Writ Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.7 and 8 in proceeding with the installation of overhead transmission lines (765 KV) (Location No. AP47, Tower DB2) over the petitioners' land admeasuring g37 square yards (non- agriculture land) in Sy.No. 29lEEl2,: situated at Dathapur Vitlage, Nawabpet lManda'|, Vikarabad District, without paying compensation as per law and the action of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not fixing the rate of compensation in respect of non-agricultural lands for installation of overhead transmission lines (Location No. AP47, Tower DB2) in respect of the petitioners' land admeasuring 937'square yards in Sy.No. 29lEEl2, situated at Dathapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and rules made thereunder, the lndian Telegraph Act, 1885 and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. l.A.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 to direct the respondent no. 7 and 8 not to proceed with the installation of overhead transmission lines (765 KV) (Location No. AP47, Tower DB2) over the petitioners' land admeasuring 937 square yards (non-agriculture land) in Sy. No. 2glEEl2, situated at Dathapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, without paying compensation, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRt MOHD ISLAMUDDTN ANSART counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 7 & I : sRl N.BHUJANGA RAo, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : G.p FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 7 NN 1 Devarapu Kiran Kumar, Rl/o.Rangareddy District & another. AND Union of lndia & 7 others Petitioners ...Respondents

1. The Petitioners filed the present Writ petition declaring the action of respondent Nos.7 & 8 in proceeding with the installation of overhead transmission lines (765KV) (Location No.Ap47, Tower DB2) over the petitioners' land admeasuring g3T.square yards , situated in Sy.No.29lEE/2 of Dathapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, without paying compensation as per law and the actionof respondent Nos.4 & 5 in not fixing the reate of compensation in respect of non-agricultural lands for installation of overhead transmission lines in respect of petitioners property, as 2 illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles of natural justice, and Articles '14, '19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

2. Heard Sri Mohd.lslamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners; leamed Standing Counsel for Central Government representing respondent No.1 ; learned Government pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.4; leamed Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent No.S and Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8.

3. The case of the Petitioners is that the respondents, without following due process of law or any acquisition proceedings, attempted to enter into the petitioners' land to install high-tension electric poles and towers for transmission of cunent. lt is contended that such action amounts to trespass and violates the petitioners' right to property guaranteed under Article.300-4 of the Constitution of lndia.

4. Respondent Nos.7 and 8, on the other hand, filed a detailed counter affidavit denlng the petitioners' allegations. lt is stated that the Power Grid Bidar Transmission Limited (PBTL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of lndia Ltd., is executing a project i.e. "765 kV Bidar PS-Maheshwaram Transmission Line,'duly 3 INC_trrr_2,25 approved by the Ministry of Power, Government of lndia, under Section 68(1) and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, "the Electricity Act"). They stated that they have been conferred with powers of the Telegraph Authority under Part lll of the lndian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, "the Telegraph Act"), which authorizes them to lay transmission lines without acquisition of land, conferring only user rights upon the licensee. They further stated that the alignment was finalized after detailed survey and public notice, and that prior intimation was given to the petitioners regarding the proposed works. lt is also submitted that no construction activity has been carried out in the petitioners land in view of the objections raised, and that compensation, if any, for actual damages to crops or structures will be paid as per law.

5. The issue for consideration before this Court is whether the respondents are acting illegally or without jurisdiction in seeking to install high-tension transmission poles in the petitioner's land.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power Grid Gorporation of lndia Ltd. v. Century Textiles and lndustries Limitedl, has clearly held that under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, the transmission licensee does not acquire ownership of the land but only a right of user to lay '(zorzl s scc ua N8() wp-313O7-X)25 transmission lines, subject to payment of compensation for any damage caused during execution. lt was further held that the licensee is not required to obtain consent of the landowner nor to acquire the land, and that such projects, being of public and national importance, cannot be stalled by individual objections.

7. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Sri Sai Surya Gardens (P) Limited v. Union of lndia2; K. Subba Raju v- Executive Engineer, TLG Division, APTRANSCO3; and Bommi Reddy Narasimha Reddy v. Power Grid Corporation of lndia Limiteda, has consistently held that while executing transmission lines under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, no prior notice or acquisition proceedings are required, and the remedy available to the aggrieved landowner is only for compensation.

8. ln view of the settled legal position and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondents are executing a transmission project duly approved by the competent authorities and are empowered under law to do so. The apprehension of the petitioners that the respondents are acting arbitrarily is misplaced. The respondents are, however, bound to ensure that minimum inconvenience is caused to the petitioner and to compensate for any 'eooql4 ALD 291 ' (zoro) 4 ALD 3s8 o {zoro;.1 }[p osz 5 loss or damage caused to crops, trees, or structures as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The respondents shall be entitled to cany out installation of the high-tension fransrnr'ssion line/towers in the subiect land in accqdance with law and approved alignment ii. The respondents shall ensure that minimum damage or disturbance is caused to the petitioners'land. ( iii. tn case any damage occurs to the petitioners' land, crops, or structures, the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as per Sectlon 10(d) and Section 16 of the Tetegraph Act, and the respondents shall process such compen sation promPtlY. iv. The petitioners, if aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, are at libefty to approach the competent authority under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act for redressal.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition' shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII "SD/.C. DEEP!KA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To '1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Chairman, Central Electricity Authority, Seva Bhavan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

3. The Chairperson, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, Having its office at 31d and 4th Floor, Chanderlok, Building No. 36, Janpath, New Delhi. :1i,.:r .I'.--. -:rr.t.:.;r " _i.''r'r.::., \ SA BS 4- The District co-lector and Magistrate, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 5' The Revenue Divisional oftic5r, vikaiabid oiriiion, vikaiabio oi"irt.t. 9. The Tahsildar, Nawabpet Mand'ar, vik;iabao oirtrrit. 7. ].he chalnnan and Managing_ Director, powerbiio corporation of lndia Limited, Head euarters a[o-b-ales2 and sgs, K;r"diguda Main Road, Secunderabad. 8. The Deputy General Manager, pgwerg_r( Bidar Transmission Limited, 100 pgrcentage whoily owled subsidiary ol power crid corpoiation oi'inii, Limited, shadnagar (cAo), plot No. zzg,-srisai e"hji io;nihipi,'sot,=rr* - Village, Shadnagar, Rangireddy District. 9. Two cc's to G.P FoR REVENLIE, High court for the state of retangana at 10.one cc to sRr MOHD TSLAMUD.D_!NAS4Iil, Advocate [opUC] 11. ONC CC tO SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, OEPUil'SiJiiCrrON GENERAL OF 12.Two CD Copies llyderabad. (OUT) lNDlA, Advocate [OPUC] (+ , HIGH COURT I\ \ DATED:1011212025 i \ f I ;i 'i;i.r 'i;,'i ) 20trc rrffi ). (1\ !- .l Sl>,.-,-,-r -..-.-.; ORDER WP.No.31 307 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1 Yr- 2o \2/ 2)