ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The petitioners who are ten in number seek a declaration that the action of the respondents in erecting high tension transmission lines (H.T.Lines) in their land at Narigapalle Village, Chittoor District is illegal and contrary to law. They also seek a consequential injunction against the respondents not to lay electric transmission lines on their land.
2. The facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioners allege that they own mango and coconut gardens in various extents of land in Narigapalle village. The mango trees are 20 to 30 years old. When the respondents commenced the work of raising transmission lines, they approached the third respondent whereupon by letter dated 28-4-2001 they were informed that respondents 1 and 2 are constructing transmission towers. Alleging that before taking such action, notice was neither published nor given to the petitioners, they filed the present writ petition. This Court on 20-12-2001, while ordering notice before admission, directed the respondents not to cause any damage to the petitioners' agricultural property including mango crop while laying the electric poles.
3. After receiving notices, respondents 1 and 2 have come forward with an application being WVMP No. 259 of 2002 praying this Court to vacate the interim orders. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2, the writ petition itself is heard finally and being disposed of at this stage.
4. The averments in the counter affidavit accompanying the WVMP may be noticed in brief. The first respondent herein namely, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., is a fully-owned Government of India company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation is now engaged in the construction of Talcher-II transmission system. The scheme involves evacuation and transmission of power from Talcher-II generation system to the southern States of Andhra Pradesh Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala at a cost of Rs. 3,574.78 crores. The transmission system (400 KVA transmission lines) makes its way through Kolar in Karnataka. Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh. Vellore and Chengalilpat in Tamil Nadu. In Chittoor District, four transmission towers of the Corporation at a height of 31 meters also are to be laid in Narigapalle village, especially in the petitioners lands with which we are concerned. The Corporation states that the scheme contemplated under Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ('Electricity Act' for brevity) was published in the A.P. Gazette No. 184, dated 8-12-1997 calling upon all the persons interested to make representations in respect of Talcher-II transmission system. The Corporation also published a notification in Eenadu on 21-11-1997, but none of the villagers, much less any of the petitioners, made any representation. It is further stated that the Corporation also sent notices by Registered Post on 20-11 -2001 informing the petitioners of the intention of the Corporation to carry out the work of erection of towers in their lands. They were also informed that if any damage is caused to the crops or the trees in their lands, adequate compensation would be paid. The petitioners did not make any representation nor objected thereto. It is also stated that by reason of the interim order dated 20-12-2001, the work has been stopped though the foundation work for the towers in the alignment has substantially been completed. The Corporation also justified their action placing reliance on the provisions of Section 18A read with Section 42(1) and (2) of the Electricity Act.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S. V. Muni Reddy and Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan, Additional Advocate-General for the Corporation. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that being the small farmers, it would be difficult for the petitioners to raise the mango crop again due to drought conditions prevailing in Narigapalle. He also submits that the Corporation can always design the alignment of transmission lines without damaging the petitioners' lands. Such a course was not explored and the Corporation is proceeding with the construction of transmission towers in an arbitrary manner.
6. The learned Additional Advocate-General has taken me through various provisions of the Electricity Act. He also placed before me the relevant provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Telegraph Act') which has been incorporated under Section 42(1) by way of reference. He also submits that under the provisions of the Electricity Act, the Corporation being a generating company has power to enter any private land after publication of the scheme under Section 28 and, therefore, the action of the Corporation cannot be termed as illegal.
7. The petitioners have not challenged the scheme published in A.P. Gazette dated 8-12-1997. The relief is sought by pressing only ground that no prior notice has been issued to the petitioners before depriving their right to ownership to enjoy the property. This has been denied in the counter affidavit stating that the respondent-Corporation has sent notices by registered post on 20-11-2001 informing the petitioners about the scheme and the intention of the Corporation to erect transmission towers, in the absence of denial of the statement by duly filing a rejoinder, the uncontroverted averment in the counter affidavit has to be accepted as true. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
8. The Electricity Act deals with production and supply of electricity and all matters connected thereto. In pith and substance, it not only regulates the generation, transmission and supply of electricity by agencies fully controlled and regulated by the Government as well as generating and transmission companies in the private sector. Section 2(2) defines 'Board' as State Electricity Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Act. Be it noted that Electricity Act was substantially amended by Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No. 115 of 1976) by the Parliament. After amendment, the provisions of Electricity Act were substantially amended. Section 2(4A) defines 'Generating Company' as one registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which has among its objects, establishment, operation and maintenance of generating stations. Section 18 deals with general duties of a State Electricity Board whereas Section 18A deals with the duties of a generating company. The general duties of a statutory board and the duties of an incorporated company are substantially the same. Section 18A(c) lays down that it shall be the duty of the generating company to carry out detailed investigations and prepare schemes for establishing generating stations and tie-lines sub-stations and transmission lines connected therewith. Chapter V of the Electricity Act deals with the works and trading procedure of the Board and generating company, Section 28 of the Electricity Act is relevant and reads as under.
28. Preparation and sanctioning of schemes :--(1) For the efficient performance of its duties under this Act, the Board or a Generating Company, as the case may be, may prepare one or more schemes relating to the establishment or acquisition of generating stations, tie lines sub-stations or transmission lines as are referred to in Clause (e) of Sections 18 or Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18A as the case may be.
(2) The Board or, as the case may be, the Generating Company which has prepared a scheme, may, sanction such scheme either generally or in respect of any part of the area specified in the scheme and where a scheme has been sanctioned in respect of any part of the area such scheme subsequently be sanctioned in respect of any other part of that area:
Provided that where the scheme is of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 29, the scheme shall not be sanctioned (generally or for part of an area) by the Board or the Generating Company except within the previous concurrence of the Authority.
(2-A) The Board or, as the case may be, the Generating Company, shall, as soon as may be after it has sanctioned any scheme which is not of the nature referred to in Section 29 forward the scheme to the Authority and if required by Authority so to do, supply to the Authority any information incidental or supplementary to the scheme within such period as may be specified by the Authority.
(3) Every scheme sanctioned under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette and in local newspapers as the Board or, as the case may be, the Generating Company may consider necessary.
9. Section 42 of the Electricity Act enables the generating company to enter upon the land after publication of the scheme under Section 28 for the purpose of placing any wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays apparatus and appliances for the transmission and distribution of electricity, in so doing, a generating company shall have all the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under Telegraph Act with regard to the telegraph established and maintained by the Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act needs to be extracted in this context.
42(2) A Generating Company may for the placing of wires, poles, wall-brackets, stays apparatus and appliances for the transmission of electricity or for the transmission of telegraphic or telephonic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of the works of the Generating Company, exercise all or any of the powers which the Board may exercise under Sub-section (1) and subject to the conditions referred to therein.
10. Under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the telegraph authority may place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across any immovable property. A telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible and further that it shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of power under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act.
11. The conspectus of reading provisions referred to hereinabove would be this. A generating company engaged in generation, transmission and supply of electricity is empowered under the provisions of Electricity Act to lay electric poles, construct transmission towers on any private land without giving any notice and without causing damage to the property provided there is a scheme published as required under Section 28. Even while erecting transmission lines, if any damage is caused, by reason of Section 10 of the Telegraph Act read with Section 42(1) and (2) of the Electricity Act, a generating company has to pay compensation for the damage sustained by the owners of the land or owners of the crops.
12. In H. Bhadur Singh v. A.P.S.E.B., 1991 (1) ALT 7, a similar question was considered by this Court. After referring to Section 42 of the Electricity Act and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, this Court held that a State Electricity Board was not obliged to acquire the land belonging to any person notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 12, 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act.
13. In Bhaskara Housing (P) Ltd., V. A.P.S.E.B, : 1998(6)ALD781 , the same principle was reiterated by this Court by observing. A cumulative reading of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with that of proviso make it apparently clear that if the sanctioned scheme provides for any of the things contemplated under Sections 12 - 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the officers of the Board can exercise similar powers conferred upon the authorities of the Telegraph Department under Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the instant case since the sanctioned scheme provides for laying of lines and construction of towers it should be held that the Board and its officers have the power to invoke the provisions of Part-Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and therefore, prior consent is not necessary as required under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
14. In Superintending Engineer v. Thangaprakasam, : AIR1999Mad365 , the Madras High Court also considered the scope of Section 42 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act and held.
The cumulative effect of my discussion in the above paragraphs would lead me to hold that when the Statute namely, the Electricity Supply Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act recognises the absolute power of the Electricity Board to proceed with the work of constructing concrete bases for installing high posts to draw high tension wires for supply of electricity over the field of an individual, subject to his right to claim damages, if proved. So long as the work is done by the Board in accordance with the sanctioned Scheme and in accordance with the provisions contained in the above referred to two enactments, it may not be within the framework of law to restrain them from doing so. By granting an order of injunction, the Board cannot be prevented from doing an act which is recognised by a Statute. The action of the Board in the case on hand is in the larger interest of the public to have an undisturbed power supply.
15. The exercise of power by the generating company in this case is challenged only on the ground of absence of notice. As a question of fact, I have already held that there was valid notice in law to the petitioners.
16. The second aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioners need be 'paid any compensation for the damage sustained either by reason of cutting of the mango/ coconut trees or by reason of damage to other crops. The Corporation in their counter affidavit has categorically come forward that necessary compensation will be paid if the petitioners or anybody sustained any damage to the land, crops or other appurtenances to the land. In view of this, it is for the petitioners to approach the Corporation claiming any damages, if sustained by them.
17. In the result, subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.