HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35772 of 2014 Date:27.11.2014 Between:
Syed Asiya Begum, W/o Osman Ali . Petitioner And:
Telangana State Transmission Corporation Limited, reptd by its Chairman and Managing Director and another.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Koteshwara Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manoher Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in entering the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.08 guntas out of Acs.3.10 guntas in Survey No.740/3 of Ponnaram Village, Mandamarri, Adilabad District, without notice, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.79 lakhs for the damage allegedly suffered by her.
The petitioner pleaded that she is the owner of the above-mentioned land; that in the month of August, 2014, the Engineers and workers of the respondents started erecting 132 KV electrical towers; and that in the process of such erection, the respondents have illegally entered into her agricultural land and marked the same for installing towers. The petitioner further alleged that the respondents have demolished her house bearing H.No.5- 102 while drawing the line besides damaging the cotton crop raised by her.
On 25.11.2014, the case was adjourned at the request of Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Today, at the hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that no towers have been erected over the petitioner’s land and neither the petitioner’s house nor her cotton crop was damaged. In support of his submission, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court a large sized photograph showing that the house constructed by the petitioner is well in tact and that no crop has been damaged.
While this Court is prima facie satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents, however, it feels it appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity of putting forth her case before respondent No.2. She is, accordingly, permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 with all relevant material. Within one month of receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall hold a detailed enquiry after notice to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.2, she shall be free to file a civil suit before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.44781 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
27th November 2014 JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY DR