THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36237 of 2014 Dated: 04.12.2014 Between:
M. Konda Reddy .. Petitioner and A.P. TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K. Rathangapani Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to5: Mr. O. Manohar Reddy The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seeking to erect 132 KV transmission line tower in the petitioner’s land admeasuring 1052 square yards in Sy.No.34/B1 of Takkellapadu Village, Pedda Kakani Mandal, Guntur District, by changing the original place of erection marked over the land of respondent No.6, as illegal and vitiated by extraneous reasons.
The petitioner is the owner of 1052 square yards in Sy.No.34/B1 of Takkellapdu Village, Pedda Kakani Mandal, Guntur District, purchased from respondent No.6 under registered sale deed No.1196/2003 dated 12.05.2003. The petitioner averred that his plot is abutting National Highway No.5 (for short ‘NH-5’) with commercial potentiality and that a 132 KV transmission line is passing over his land from south-west corner to north-east corner, crossing NH-5. The petitioner further averred that the existing tower towards south-west is situated around 225 feet from the boundary of his land and that the connecting tower is situated on the edge of the other side of NH-5 and the service road. That respondent No.1 and its officials, therefore, proposed to shift the said tower in order to maintain the minimum required distance from NH-5. In order to adhere to the maximum distance norm between two towers at 250 metres, respondents 4 and 5 initially made markings for shifting the existing south-west tower by moving the same by 100 feet towards south-west direction and by moving the north-east tower located on the edge of NH-5 by 150 feet. That, however, to the petitioner’s shock, he came to know that on the influence of respondent No.6, respondents 4 and 5 are making markings to shift the south-west tower by 225 feet instead of the originally planned 100 feet. Feeling aggrieved by this action, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, TLC- SD-1, Guntur, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has inter alia averred that there is an existing 132 KV Tadepalli – Guntur SC line erected in the year 1958 and that to provide adequate horizontal and vertical clearances to the 6 lane road of NH-5 in Guntur District, the existing towers on the line have to be dismantled and re-erection of new towers at various locations including the location between 88 and 89 has to be taken up. That the National Highway Authorities have addressed letter to respondent No.1 for maintaining adequate clearances at various places of NH-5 and that on considering the same, the estimate of costs was prepared and communicated to the National Highway Authorities on 17.09.2013. It is further averred that out of nine places where re- erection of towers was required, the erection was completed on eight locations and that even with respect to location No.89 (south-west tower), diagonal foundations were laid and at that stage, the petitioner has raised an objection and filed the present writ petition. It is further averred that the tower at location No.89 is erected at the edge of the land of the petitioner with three legs of the tower falling over the petitioner’s land and one leg falling over the adjacent land and that the re-erection of the tower is being done strictly in accordance with the stipulated technical norms. The counter-affidavit further averred that as per the NHAI norms, the height of the wires crossing the National Highway should be 12.5 metres and that for this purpose, new towers have to be re-erected and the distance between two towers must not exceed 250 metres and in order to conform to these technical aspects, the tower has to be erected over major part of the petitioner’s land. The counter-affidavit denied the allegation of the petitioner that markings were initially made outside his land and later on the location was shifted into his land by moving ahead by 150 feet.
On 02.12.2014, this Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. During the hearing, Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that if the tower is located as proposed by respondents 1 to 4, it will violate the distance norm prescribed between the National Highway and the tower. Therefore, this Court has adjourned the case to today, to enable the Assistant Executive Engineer to confirm his claim that the proposed location satisfies the distance norm. He was directed to get the sketch prepared based on ground position and produce the same before the Court.
Accordingly, the Assistant Executive Engineer has filed a sketch after measuring the distances on ground. A perusal of the sketch shows that the proposed location (location No.89) is at a distance of 70 metres from the edge of the aligned NH-5 measured in the direction in which the line is aligned. However, the distance between the edge of the National Highway and the tower measured from the eastern direction i.e. to the right of the alignment, the distance is only 17 metres. The sketch also shows that the distance between the proposed location (location No.89) and the proposed location of tower No.88 on the north-east side beyond NH-5 is 250 metres.
Clause 1.3.10 of the Manual on Construction of Transmission Projects deals with Highway Crossings. This clause prescribed minimum distance from the centre of nearest tower to the road edge at 1.5 times the tower height, to have sufficient tower falling distance. This clause also envisages that the crossing span shall not exceed 250 metres and that the ground clearance at the roads under maximum temperature and still air shall be 12.2 metres.
Keeping in view the above norms, if the sketch is examined, the proposed location satisfies the distance norm between two towers and also between tower No.89 and the edge of NH-5 measured through the line of alignment of the tower. However, the distance between the edge of service road of NH-5 and the proposed tower will fall short of the required distance, if it is measured towards the right of the tower on the south-eastern direction.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the distance is always measured through the line of alignment and that, therefore, it conforms to the norms prescribed by the Manual.
In my opinion, this Court cannot substitute its opinion over the decision of the technical experts. If the location of tower No.89 is moved towards south-west direction, it will straight away violate the distance norm between location No.88 and location No.89, as the distance between two locations at the crossing of National Highway shall not be more than 250 metres. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to direct respondents 1 to 5 to move the tower away from his land towards south-west direction cannot be accepted.
In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for issue of Mandamus to the respondents to remove the proposed location of tower from his land.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.45366 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th December, 2014 IBL