1. Petitioners assert that they are owners and possessors of agricultural lands in various survey numbers of Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, where they have been cultivating crops for more than two decades. They state that their lands contain cattle sheds, pump rooms, workers' rooms, storage rooms for cultivation equipment, iron fencing and paddy farming. They contend that Respondent No.7, without issuing any prior notice, entered their private patta lands, marked the ground with circles and numbers with colour paint and proposed to erect 765 kV transmission towers. They describe this as a highhanded act amounting to trespass and a punishable offence. They claim that when they approached Respondent No.7 and orally objected to the works, the officials refused to acknowledge even a letter issued by the local MLA, dated 08.01.2024, requesting realignment of the transmission line.

                  1.1. Petitioners contend that Respondent No.7 has been carrying out transmission route approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 until 30.01.2025. They rely on e mail dated 28.09.2024 to claim that Respondent No.7 carried out works even before obtaining statutory approval. They further allege that Respondent No.7 is acting contrary to the guidelines and approvals issued by Respondents 1 and 2, including the guidelines issued under No.25-10/27/2023-PG dated 09.06.2023. They state that the Standing Committee Report relating to tower failures from April 2019 to December 2021 demonstrates that non-adherence to guidelines has caused past failures, therefore, Respondent No.7's execution cannot be trusted.

                  1.2. Petitioners assert that since October 2024, Respondent No.7 has changed the approved route alignment granted under Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31.01.2025. They specifically allege that Respondent No.7 issued notices to Petitioners 1 to 6 mentioning Angle Points AP-122/0, AP-122A, AP-123, AP-125, AP-126 and AP-130, with tower types DC2+6M, DB1+3, DB2+3M, DC2+0M, DC2+0M, and DD45+6M and specific latitude-longitude coordinates, which, Petitioners claim, are not approved for Kadthal Village under the Gazette Notification. They state that as per the route map obtained under the RTI Act, these Angle Points fall in neighboring villages such as Chintakuntapalle, Keshampet, Chowlapally and Ravichedu, and not in Kadthal Village. They therefore, allege that Respondent No.7 altered the route alignment for its own benefit and is constructing towers at unapproved locations. 1.3. Petitioners further state that while notices were selectively issued only to Petitioners 1 to 6, Respondent No.7 began executing works on the lands of Petitioners 7 to 21 without issuing any notices, without obtaining their consent and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They allege that when they questioned Respondent No.7 about the alignment, they were told that "non-applicant farmers are obstructing the works" and that police forces had been deployed as per permissions granted by Respondent No.4. They assert that this action is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006.

                  1.4. Petitioners further contend that after discovering the markings, they approached Respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 with written representations dated 02.10.2024, 13.11.2024, 18.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 submitted at the Gram Panchayat as well as respective offices, but no action was taken despite continuous follow-ups. They also rely on an e mail sent by another villager to Respondents 2, 3 and 4 requesting revocation of permissions, claiming that this also went unanswered. They state that Respondent No.7 falsely claims not to have received their representations and is refusing to consider their objections.

                  1.5. Petitioners also assert that Kadthal Village falls within 2.5 km of the proposed "Fourth City" development of the Telangana Government and has a population of nearly 25,000 people. They contend that Respondent No.7, without considering feasibility, diverted the transmission line from available Government lands and alternate routes and instead routed it through private agricultural lands near the village, which they state is already surrounded by two existing transmission lines. They argue that the new line is being placed between two existing lines, very near to the village, directly affecting more than 150 farmers and the development of the village. They submit that agricultural laborers and machinery will no longer be available to work in their fields due to the risks and restrictions created by the transmission corridor, thereby affecting their livelihood and economic stability.

                  1.6. Petitioners further submit that their RTI Applications dated 03.04.2025 and 18.06.2025 (CEATY/R/E/25/00121 and CEATY/R/E/25/00232/1) were filed seeking verification of the approved alignment. According to them, the replies received from Respondent No.2 reveal that alignment being executed by Respondent No.7 is not the same as the approved alignment. They interpret the RTI material as indicating that no towers were approved in Kadthal Village for the Angle Points mentioned by Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 submitted an Application for transmission licence in February 2024 to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, and that the order dated 30.04.2024 was only a prima facie order inviting objections. They claim that their objections were rejected with "false, unrealistic and unacceptable reasons," and that the final licence was granted only on 15.10.2024. They therefore, contend that Respondent No.7 carried out works without a valid licence and without authority.

                  1.7. Petitioners also challenge the permission granted by Respondent No.4 under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, arguing that such permission was wanted without verifying the approved alignment and without considering their objections. They allege that Respondent No.7 is misusing the permission granted by District Collector to forcibly execute works with police support. Finally, Petitioners contend that Respondent No.7 is carrying out the works with mala fide intention, without consent, without statutory compliance and in complete violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, thereby warranting intervention of this Court. They seek a direction to stop the works immediately, cancel the permissions granted in favour of Respondent No.7, and restrain Respondent No.7 from laying transmission lines over their lands.

2. Respondent No.7 filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying each allegation made by Petitioners. It is asserted that it is a Deemed Transmission Licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and is legally empowered to undertake survey marking, route finalization and execution activities associated with 765 KV Bidar PS-Maheshwaram Transmission Line. It states that marking of circles and numeric numbers on Petitioners' lands was done strictly in accordance with statutory procedure and only after publication in local newspapers on 25.05.2024. Notices were also issued individually but several Petitioners refused to accept them. It denies trespass stating that all the activities were conducted lawfully.

                  2.1. Respondent No.7 denies having received numerous representations referred to by Petitioners except one dated 13.11.2024. It denies receiving MLA's representation, Gram Panchayat letters dated 02.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 or the representations allegedly submitted to Respondents 4, 5 and 6 and states that Petitioners have not provided proof of such submissions.

                  2.2. Respondent No.7 states that alignment was finalized after detailed feasibility studies, technical surveys and assessments conducted under Rule 10 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Environmental, economic, safety, topographical, and logistical aspects were thoroughly analysed. The alignment chosen avoids forest areas, reduces crossings, minimizes environmental disturbance, and is technically and economically the most viable. It disputes Petitioners' assertion that alternative routes were feasible and asserts that such claims are contrary to technical findings. Respondent No.7 states that wide publicity was provided to the proposed alignment through Gazette publication and newspaper publications in Sakshi, Times of India and Hindi Milap on 25.05.2024. Petitioners cannot claim lack of notice or knowledge of the project. It is further stated that law does not require mention of survey numbers and owner names in the Notification; publication of village names and project details is sufficient compliance with Section 171 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

                  2.3. Respondent No.7 denies Petitioners' allegation that alignment being executed varies from the approved alignment. Minor shifts in tower without following approved alignment, locations, Angle Points, or tower types are permissible engineering practices necessitated by ground realities and do not constitute deviation from the approved route. It is asserted that Petitioners' interpretation of RTI documents is incorrect and based on incomplete understanding. Respondent No.7 states that the Angle Points referred to by the Petitioners-AP-122/0, AP-122A, AP-123, AP-125, AP-126, AP-130-are all part of the approved alignment under Gazette Notification No. 578 dated 31.01.2025. It denies that any unapproved Angle Points are being used.

                  2.4. Respondent No.7 stated that all the required approvals and ‘No Objection Certificates’ from Railways, National Highways Authority, State Endowments Department and other statutory bodies have been obtained and that full compliance has been made with Gazette Notification No.578. Appropriate orders under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 were issued by the District Collector, permitting commencement of work and authorizing provision of police assistance in the event of obstruction. Any police presence occurred strictly in accordance with law and pursuant to such orders. It is also stated, Petitioners’ objections relating to alignment, compensation or execution must be raised before statutory authorities under the Electricity Act and the Works of Licensees Rules, and that Petitioners cannot bypass these statutory mechanisms by invoking writ jurisdiction.

                  2.5. Respondent No.7 asserts that the project is of national importance, intended for transmission of green energy under the "Transmission Scheme for Solar Energy Zone in Bidar (2500 MW)." Considerable progress has already been made and any modification at this stage would cause significant regulatory issues, delay and increased costs. They therefore, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition.

3. Heard Ms. N. Swathi, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondents 4 to 6 and Sri Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent.

4. This Court has carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and the rival submissions advanced by both the sides. The core grievance raised by Petitioners is that the works undertaken by Respondent No.7 are not in accordance with the approved route alignment notified under Gazette Notification No.578 dated 31.01.2025, and that the alignment being executed is materially different from the sanctioned one. Petitioners rely heavily on the RTI replies furnished by Respondent No.2 and their interpretation of route maps to assert that the Angle Points mentioned in the notices issued by Respondent No.7 do not correspond to the locations approved for Kadthal Village. They further assert that Respondent No.7 not only deviated from the approved alignment but also entered their patta lands without issuing notice, without consent, without following proper procedure, and in complete disregard of their written representations.

5. Petitioners also place reliance on their submissions that Respondent No.7 commenced works before possessing a valid transmission licence and without having been granted approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 until 30.01.2025. According to them, this renders the actions of Respondent No.7 illegal and fundamentally without authority. Their grievance further extends to issuance of notices selectively to only some Petitioners, while commencement of works began on the lands of Petitioners 7 to 21 without any notices whatsoever. Petitioners further place reliance on the Standing Committee Report relating to tower failures during 2019-2021 to argue that deviation from guidelines and technical norms is not merely a procedural irregularity but carries significant risk and that Respondent No.7's conduct thus requires closer judicial scrutiny.

6. This Court has also examined Petitioners' assertions regarding alleged trespass, misuse of police assistance and allegations that Respondent No.7 refused to acknowledge representations submitted through the Gram Panchayat and other administrative offices. They also rely on the fact that Kadthal Village already has two major transmission lines and that execution of the present line between the existing corridors, near residential areas and agricultural fields, will adversely affect cultivation, availability of labour, and overall village development.

7. On the other hand, Respondent No.7 has placed substantial material on record demonstrating that it is a Deemed Transmission Licensee under Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, fully authorised to undertake survey, marking and execution of transmission works. It has further produced documents to show that Gazette publication and newspaper publications in three leading newspapers were duly issued on 25.05.2024, thereby satisfying the statutory requirement of issuing public notice. Respondent No.7 has also produced material showing that the necessary consents and NoCs from the statutory authorities concerned including Railways, National Highways Authority of India and the State Endowments Department, were duly obtained in compliance with the guidelines and approvals issued by Respondents 1 and 2.

8. Respondent No.7 has further explained that minor tower adjustments, such as shifting an Angle Point marginally or adjusting tower type, are standard engineering practices necessitated by on-ground realities, including terrain, soil conditions, and safe clearance requirements. It asserts that these adjustments do not constitute deviation from the approved alignment and that Petitioners' reliance on selective RTI replies is based on misinterpretation of technical documentation that does not capture such permissible engineering variations. Respondent No.7 has specifically denied that Angle Points AP-122/0, AP-122A, AP-123, AP-125, AP-126 and AP-130 fall outside the approved alignment and states that all such towers form part of the sanctioned route as per Gazette Notification No.578. The Court finds that this explanation is supported by the material filed by Respondent No.7.

9. As regards the allegation of trespass and highhanded behavior, Respondent No.7 has placed documents showing that police assistance was provided only following an order issued by the District Collector under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which authorizes such assistance in cases where obstruction occurs. This Court is satisfied that the said authorization forms part of the statutory scheme governing transmission works and cannot be equated to an act of trespass when exercised within statutory limits. The assertion by Respondent No.7 that some Petitioners refused to receive notices also remains unrebutted.

10. This Court also notes that Petitioners' interpretation of the route map and RTI replies is not supported by technical evidence or expert material. They have not placed any survey report, counter-engineering analysis or certified alignment map to substantiate their claim that alignment has been altered. Their case rests primarily on their own reading of maps and their inference that certain Angle Points do not fall within their village. In contrast, Respondent No.7 has produced clear and categorical material asserting that the disputed Angle Points do indeed form part of the approved route. The Court further observes that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 provide a comprehensive mechanism for resolution of disputes relating to execution of transmission works, including objections to alignment, disputes regarding compensation, and challenge to the manner in which works are carried out. Such mechanisms are specifically designed to address technical, engineering and factual objections of the nature raised in this Writ Petition. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when an effective statutory remedy exists, particularly in matters involving complex technical and engineering issues, the High Court should be circumspect in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

11. In the present case, Petitioners have not demonstrated that statutory alternative remedies are inadequate or inefficacious, nor have they shown that Respondent No.7 acted without jurisdiction or in a manner that is ultra vires the enabling statutes. The material placed by Respondent No.7 indicates that permissions, approvals and authorizations were duly obtained and that the works are being undertaken as part of a national transmission project of significant public importance.

12. Having considered the material placed on record, this Court finds no substantive evidence to support Petitioners' allegation of deviation from the approved alignment. There is also no material to establish violation of statutory guidelines or arbitrariness in the conduct of Respondent No.7. The claims regarding trespass and misuse of police force stand adequately rebutted by Respondent No.7's reliance on the Collector's order under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the prior issuance of Gazette and newspaper notifications. Petitioners have not produced documentary evidence of probative value to contradict these records.

13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions has been established against Respondent No.7 or the official respondents. The grievances raised by Petitioners pertain largely to technical and engineering matters that are within the domain of the competent statutory authorities and are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

14. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition. Petitioners have failed to establish that Respondent No.7 deviated from the approved alignment, acted without statutory authority or violated their rights under law. The material placed by Respondents demonstrate substantial compliance with statutory provisions and the permissions granted.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

16. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.