IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Savita Yadav @ Savita - Appellant
Versus
BSES Rajdhani Power Limited - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 12608 of 2021
Decided On : 21-12-2021
Electricity Connection - Property Dispute - The court held that the electricity connection should not have been denied based on a complaint from the earlier owner about non-payment of sale consideration. The electricity provider is not an adjudicating authority for title disputes and should not have declined the connection without a restraint order from a court of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an electricity connection for a property he claimed to have purchased, but the connection was denied based on a complaint from the earlier owner about non-payment of sale consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the electricity connection should not have been denied on the grounds of a title dispute, and ordered the electricity provider to grant the connection upon completion of financial and codal formalities by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of the electricity connection based on a complaint from the earlier owner about non-payment of sale consideration, leading to a dispute over the title of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the electricity provider is not an adjudicating authority for title disputes and should not have declined the connection without a restraint order from a court of law.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court ordered the electricity provider to grant the electricity connection to the petitioner upon completion of formalities, clarifying that it does not amount to recognition of the petitioner's title to the property.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Petitioner seeks grant of electricity connection to his property bearing No. E-308, Sanjay Colony, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase- II, New Delhi- 110020.
2. Petitioner is alleged to have purchased the property by way of Agreement to Sell etc. and claims to be in possession of the property and claims to have paid the entire sale consideration.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd submits that the electricity connection was denied on account of the fact that a complaint was received from Mr. Amarjeet Yadav, who claimed to be the earlier owner of the jhuggi and he had stated that he had sold the jhuggi to the petitioner and petitioner had not paid the entire sale consideration and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was still due and payable.
4. This is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that Mr. Amarjeet Yadav had sold the property and even in the Agreement to Sell it is recorded that full and final payment has been duly received. Learned counsel submits that till date no proceedings have been initiated by Mr. Amarjeet Yadav challenging any of the transfer documents in favour of the petitioner.
5. By order dated 10.11.2021, Mr. Amarjeet Yadav was impleaded as a party. Thereafter, notice was directed to be issued to him. As per the office report notice was sent to Mr. Amarjeet Yadav on his whatsapp number and the same has been duly served. None appears for Mr. Amarjeet Yadav.
6. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd has refused the connection on the ground that there is a complaint received from the earlier owner about non payment of the sale consideration. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd is not an adjudicating authority to adjudicate title disputes between the parties. Even if there was a dispute between the seller of the property and the petitioner, BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd should not have declined to grant an electricity connection unless there was a restraint order from a Court of law.
7. I am unable to sustain the rejection of the connection on the said ground by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
8. Accordingly, on petitioner completing the financial and codal formalities for grant of an electricity connection, respondent BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd shall grant the electricity connection in accordance with the rules.
9. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
10. It is clarified that this orders shall not amount to recognition of the title of the petitioner to the said property and shall be without prejudice to the dispute of title between Mr. Amarjeet Yadav and the Petitioner.
11. Order dasti.
Electricity providers are not adjudicating authorities for title disputes and should not deny connections based on such disputes without a restraint order from a court of law.
Settled possession grants entitlement to services despite ongoing title disputes, with ownership determinations reserved for civil courts.
Possession of property entitles petitioners to an electricity connection, even if a civil suit is pending, as it cannot be the sole ground for denial.
Possession of the subject property is a crucial factor in determining the grant of an electricity connection, and the pendency of a civil suit should not automatically disentitle the petitioners from....
The court balanced the right to electricity supply with the pending legal proceedings and the directive from the municipal corporation, ultimately allowing the restoration of electricity supply subje....
Court can direct the provision of utility services conditioned on compliance with procedures, without needing a No Objection Certificate from a landlord.
Restoration of electricity supply must be maintained during ongoing property disputes, contingent on bill payments, without conferring additional rights to the petitioner.
Point of law: Processing of Application for Supply - Grant of electricity connection to applicant merely on ground that there is a pending dispute in respect of property where electricity connection ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.