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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 4007

High Court Of Madras
V.Dhanapalan J.
C.V.Thirugnanam - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Coimbatore District, District Collectorate – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.17479 and 18041 OF 2011 AND M.P.NOs.1, 1, 2 and 2 OF 2011
Decided On : Sep 21,2011

Advocates Appeared:
P.Valliappan, V.M.Velumani, S.K.Rameshwar, K.Kalyanasundaram

JUDGMENT

( 1. ) IN W.P.No.17479 of 2011, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from providing electricity service connection to anyone in respect of the petitioner's property situate in T.S.Nos.1668/4B and 4C, Puliyakulam village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore-641 045 in contravention of the electricity laws.

( 2. ) IN W.P.No.18041 of 2011, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in Ref.Rc.No.83/2011/CA, dated 20.07.2011 and quash the same.

The brief facts which led to filing of these writ petitions can be stated as under:

3.1. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner of the property measuring a total extent of Acre 6.8 = situate in T.S.Nos.1668/4B and 4C, Puliyakulam village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore and the same is evidenced by registered sale deed dated 29.07.1909 in favour of the father of the petitioner, namely, Verivada Chettiyar and registered partition deed between the petitioner and his brothers, dated 30.4.1928. The said property was also dealt with under registered partition deeds dated 17.05.1945 and 18.3.1967 among the family members of the petitioner. On 17.10.2006, the second respondent by his proceedings in MTR No.1829/2006 has passed orders for transfer of patta in the name of the petitioner. Patta and other revenue records also stand in the name of the petitioner and no one has any right over the property. 3.2. The case of the petitioner is that some strangers claiming to be in possession of the aforesaid property, filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18463 and 18464 of 2010 before this Court, praying for a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to provide electricity service connection though they were not in lawful possession over the property. The Electricity Act does not authorise the respondents 3 to 5 to give electricity service connection to the persons who are not lawful occupants of the property and there was no justification to seek the electricity service connection to a property which is not owned by them. By order dated 30.8.2004, this Court disposed of the above said writ petitions, directing the respondents therein to hold an enquiry in respect of the property in question and if the petitioners therein established that they are in legal occupation of the property, to consider the claim for providing electricity connection. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and by letter dated 13.12.2010, held that aforesaid persons who filed the writ petitions were illegal occupants in the patta land of the petitioner and consequently rejected the demand for electricity service connection. Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members have filed a suit in O.S.No.530 of 2011 before the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore for declaration and permanent injunction over the property in question and the said same is pending. 3.3. While that be so, the residents of Kallaukuzhi approached the District Collector, Coimbatore/first respondent made a representation seeking electricity connection. Based on the said representation, the first respondent by proceedings in Rc.No.83/2011/CA dated 20.07.2011 requested the 3rd respondent to provide electricity service connection to the residents of Kallakuzhi area residents. Pursuant to the same, the respondents 3 to 5 started to erect the poles and forming E.B.lines on a war footing manner, which is contrary to the earlier orders of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has made a representation and also sent a legal notice on 22.7.2011, requesting the respondents to drop the proposed action. However, since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions, praying to forbear the respondents 3 to 5 from providing electricity service connection and to quash the proceedings of the first respondent i











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 Back to top