The claim for Electricity Service Connection did not arise as there was no one residing in the subject property and no activities were going on. The parties were directed to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for adjudicating their rights and grievances regarding possession and title.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the Electricity Service Connection SC No.259 fitted in SF No.512/ 2A2, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District to continue in the name of the petitioner Mr.K.K.Sukumaran, S/o.Kothandaraman.)

1. The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the Electricity Service Connection SC No.259 fitted in SF No.512/2A2, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District to continue in the name of the petitioner Mr.K.K.Sukumaran, S/o.Kothandaraman.

2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of the property situate in SF No.512/2A2, Veerakeralam Village, Perur Taluk, Coimbatore District, measuring an extent of 0.90 cents.

3. The petitioner purchased the said property on 04.12.1992. The petitioner states that he constructed two houses of cattle shed in the aforementioned subject property and used the same for domestic utility. The petitioner obtained Electricity Service Connection vide No.259 by applying to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Coimbatore North Distribution Circle. The said Electricity Service Connection has been in the use of the petitioner since 1999.

4. One S.M.Palani Gowder his wife Tmt.P.Seethammal represented by their Power Agent Mr.S.P.Kumaresan filed suit in OS No.686 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. The suit was disposed of. However, the petitioner, who was originally impleaded in the suit, was subsequently deleted and therefore, the disposal of the suit would not have any implication in respect of the case of the writ petitioner.

5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Electricity Service Connection in the subject premises was disconnected by the respondent-Electricity Board on the ground that there was a dispute between the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner is in possession of the property and was enjoying the Electricity Service Connection for many years. While-so, there is no reason to disconnect the Electricity Service Connection and more-so, the patta stood in the name of the writ petitioner was modified and one Smt.Kavitha was also included in the patta.

7. The District Revenue Officer in proceedings dated 20.01.2017 passed such an order based on the documents produced by the respective parties. The said order was passed after adjudication and enquiry.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent made a submission that the third respondent''s name has already been included in the patta and therefore, she also has a right over the subject property. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek any such direction for the grant of Electricity Service Connection.

9. It is contended by the third respondent that the petitioner is not in possession of the subject property and it is in a locked condition. therefore, the grant of Electricity Service Connection need not be considered.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) was directed by this Court to find out the present status of the subject property. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel for the TNEB secured instructions from the respondents 1 and 2 that in the subject property nobody is residing and it is kept vacant. When the petitioner is not residing in the subject property nor carrying on any activities, there is no reason to consider the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.

11. Regarding the grant of patta, including the name of the third respondent or possession or otherwise, the parties have to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for the purpose of ascertaining their rights. The dispute regarding the possession of title is to be adjudicated before the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction and the patta, if at all, granted erroneously.

12. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion