SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Cal) 195

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JAINARAYAN PATEL
Abhimanyu Mazumdar – Appellant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Anjili Nag, P.Maya, Ajay Kumar Mondal, C.S.Yasir, M.P.Kamraj, Tapan Kumar Das, S.Ajith Prasad, A.Adhikari, U.Kirtonia, P.Kannan, M.Siddique, S.Karmakar, N.A.Khan, Tasneem, Viswanath, K.Sabir, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Krishna Rao, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses the rights of unauthorized occupants, encroachers, and squatters regarding the application for electricity supply under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The court clarifies that an unauthorized occupier who is in settled possession of a property has the right to apply for electricity, even if their possession is not legally recognized or is disputed. The term "lawful occupier" in the relevant rules is interpreted to mean a person in settled possession, whose possession can be defended against dispossession through legal means other than due process of law. The court emphasizes that possession in settled possession grants the occupant the right to enjoy electricity until they are dispossessed lawfully. It also notes that the enjoyment of electricity does not confer any legal right or ownership in the property itself. The decision underscores that disputes over land title or occupancy should be resolved through appropriate legal channels, and the licensee or electricity department should provide service based on the occupant’s settled possession status, not on legal title.


JUDGMENT :-

Bhaskar Bhattacharya J.

This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court to the Larger Bench after having disagreed with the view taken by two earlier Division Benches on the ground that those Division Benches, while deciding the matters, did not take into consideration the effect of the Rules framed under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The following two questions have been referred to the Larger Bench for decision:

“Point I: Whether unauthorized occupiers, encroachers of any premises and squatters of any premises are legally entitled to file an application under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 claiming status as ‘occupier’ and thereby may seek supply of electricity in the premises as constructed on encroaching the land; and, whether under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, the Distribution Licensee lawfully can provide electricity supply line in due discharge of their duties and what is meaning of word ‘occupier’ in said Act on reflection of Rule 2006?

Point II: Whether right to have ‘electricity’ under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by including such right within the derived right ‘right to shelter’ under Article 21



































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top