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

2022 Supreme(Del) 2098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Manoj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Jal Board - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5672 of 2021, CM Appl. 1168 of 2022, CM Appl. 23306 of 2022 and CM Appl. 24710 of 2022
Decided On : 19-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ayush Gupta, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Nancy Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1/DJB.
Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

The right to essential services, including water supply, cannot be denied based on ownership disputes when the occupant's possession of the property is undisputed.

Headnote:

Water Connection - Property Dispute - Article 226 - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 43 - Delhi Jal Board Act, 1998, Section 4 - [Article 226] - [Electricity Act, 2003, Section 43, Delhi Jal Board Act, 1998, Section 4] - The court discussed the petitioner's request for a fresh water connection in the context of property disputes and ownership documents. It referenced legal provisions from the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Delhi Jal Board Act, 1998, emphasizing the right to essential services and settled possession of the property. The court's decision was influenced by previous judicial dicta, highlighting the right to water as part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the essential nature of water supply.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a fresh water connection for the first floor of a property amidst disputes with family members over ownership. The petitioner's possession of the first floor was undisputed, but ownership documents were requested by the water authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's request for a fresh water connection within seven days, considering the petitioner's undisputed possession of the first floor and the essential nature of water supply.

Issues: Dispute over ownership and possession of the property, denial of water connection due to lack of ownership documents, and the petitioner's right to essential services.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right to essential services, including water and electricity, and the settled possession of the property, stating that water connection should not be denied when a person is in settled possession and the only dispute is regarding ownership.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's request for a fresh water connection within seven days, subject to completing the requisite formalities, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to be resident and in possession of first floor of property bearing No. RZ-F/14, Dabri Extension, Near Deepali Chowk, Gali No.2, New Delhi-110045 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'subject property'), seeks directions to respondent No.1 to grant fresh water connection in his name without insisting on ownership documents and/or NOC.

2. It has been averred in the petition that while respondent No.2 (now deceased) is the mother of the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, i.e. respondent Nos. 2(A) and (B) respectively, are his brothers. The case of the petitioner is that his father Late Sh. Dharam Pal Singh had purchased the subject plot and initially raised a kacha construction on the ground floor of the subject plot from his own savings. Thereafter, the petitioner from his own savings got the kacha construction dismantled and the ground floor and first floors of the subject property constructed in 1999-00. Reportedly, the second and third floors were got constructed in 2014-15. Subsequently, the petitioner got married and started residing at the first floor of the subject property. It is claimed that the petitioner, his mother and his brothers had agreed to keep one floor each of the subject property, however, disputes arose between them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a common water connection exists in the subject property and though the water tank at the first floor is independent, it is installed at the terrace of the subject property. It is argued that on account of disputes between the petitioner, his mother and his brothers, the petitioner has not been able to use the aforesaid water connection. Though the petitioner has sought fresh water connection, the same has been denied for want of ownership documents.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's possession of the first floor of the subject property is not disputed, inasmuch as, his mother Smt. Veena Rani had filed a suit for possession being CS DJ/ADJ 848/18, which is pending before the concerned Trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed a suit for injunction against Smt. Veena Rani, being CS DJ/ADJ/65/2021 (Old No. CS SCJ 309/19), which is pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Trial Court in CS SCJ 309/19, to also submit that the respondent(s)/defendant(s) had undertaken to not disrupt water supply to the first floor of the subject property and that separate statement of defendant No.1/Smt. Veena Rani was recorded in this regard.

5. Mr. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has submitted that in the suit filed by Smt. Veena Rani, the petitioner has been restrained from creating any third-party rights with respect to the portion of the subject property in his possession.

6. Ms. Nancy Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that although a request for water connection has been received from the petitioner, the same has not been considered for want of ownership documents.

7. A perusal of the paper book would show that the parties were referred to Mediation however, no successful outcome came to be reported. The issue arising before the Court is as to whether in view of the disputes pending between the parties relating to ownership of the subject property and the fact that the petitioner's occupation of the first floor of the subject property is not in dispute, the petitioner's request for fresh water connection can be considered.

8. There is no gainsaying that electricity and water are essential services, of which a person cannot be deprived without cogent, lawful reason. It is well-settled that even if disputes exist as to ownership of the property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top