Radhakrishna Rao, J.
'1. APSEB is laying a 132 KVDC Line from the existing Chandrayana-gutta-Moulali Line to Imbliban Sub-station near APSRTC Central Bus Depot, Gowliguda.
2. In the above process of the execution, the route of the line is approved through the Survey No. 20.
3. It may be noted that there is no damage to the standing cattle grass on account of the above line being laid. The cattle grass can be continued to be grown in spite of the line being laid over and above Survey numbers. Further, it may be noted that the tower locations of the line in the area are fixed to cross in minimum possible cattle gross area.
4. As per the safety requirement in practice, a distance of about 30 feet on either side of the line is to be made as safety zone. But however the area can be continued for use on agricultural purpose, vehicle movements and for formation of roads etc., as the line is laid with proper required clearance above the ground level.'
1. By the said letter, the petitioner also was requested to extend his cooperation in execution of the line as it is being laid for the benefit of the general public.
2. On receipt of the above notice, the petitioner who is the absolute owner and in possession of the agricultural land bearing S. No. 210 under Moosi River, near Chaderghat, Hyderabad with an extent of AC. 1.08 cents which is being used for agricultural purposes for several years, filed this writ petition stating that without any notice and without recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the action of the authorities is illegal and the said communication is unsustainable in law.
3. The scheme for locating this tap line and establishment of substation was sanctioned by the A.P. State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 28 of the Electricity Supply Act at a cost of Rs. 464.32 lakhs. The scheme is also included in the VII Plan. The execution of the work had already commenced in November 1989 and about 90% of the foundation work was already completed.
4. According to the petitioner, the actual area that will be affected for the transmission line coming through his land is about 400 Sq. Yards and this causes grave injury to his rights and interests. When he is contemplating to file a representation before the concerned authorities, all of a sudden the men of the Board started digging the land one day previous to the filing of the writ petition.
5. The respondents filed a counter stating that with a view to improve the voltage position in the southern part of the Hyderabad City, the Board conceived a scheme for 132 KV tap line of a distance of about 14 KMs. and a line is proposed between the location Nos. 34 and 35 of Chandrayanagutta and Moulali 132 KV line and the tapping line shall end at the sub-station to be located at Imliban near Gowliguda Bus Station and the said line is proposed for the public purpose and in public interest. The respondents further submit that out of the total locations of 42, erection in about 20 locations has already been completed and foundation in 36 locations was completed. According to the respondents, any further delay in execution of the work would cause great hardship to the Board and grave inconvenience would be caused to the inhabitants of the city who are faced with frequent power interruption and low voltage.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that without recourse to any law and without recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Board has no authority to erect the poles in his land.
7. According to the Board's Standing Counsel, under Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board has power which the Telegraphic authority possess under Part III of the Indian Telegraphic Act for placing any wires, Poles, Wall-brackets, Stays, apparatus and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity, or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephonic communications necessary for the proper coordination of the works of the Board. According to the respondents, Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act included in part III there of, the Telegraphic line under, over, along or across and poles in or upon any immoveable property for the purpose of a telegraphic establishment or maintained by the Central Government. Sub-section (8) of Section 10 of the above Act further provides that the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that a user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraphic authority places any telegraphic line or poles. By virtue of Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act vesting in the Board the power possessed by the telegraphic authority, the Board for the limited purpose of erecting a transmission line is not obliged to acquire any land belonging to any person notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 12, 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act. In view of this, according to the respondents, the action of the Board in seeking to lay the line over the land belonging to the petitioner is in accordance with law and cannot be challenged by the petitioner.
8. The grievance of the petitioner is that he will be put to much loss and damage due to erection of poles. But according to the respondents, the petitioner will not suffer any loss. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he has got a right to claim compensation and this is not the proper forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. When the Board has got ample power to lay the lines for public purpose and in public interest without recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act the petitioner has no right to question the same in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to claim compensation before the competent authority if he so desires.
9. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.