Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K.V. Narasimha Reddy and Others – Petitioners
Versus
TS Southern Distribution Company Limited and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1380 of 2023
Decided On : 30-10-2023
ELECTRICITY CONNECTION - DISPUTED PROPERTY - OWNERSHIP - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 - SECTION 43, 126, 145 - COURT'S DISCRETION TO DIRECT DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - STATUS QUO - MAINTENANCE - CIVIL SUIT PENDING - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO DECIDE OWNERSHIP DISPUTES - ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AS RECOGNITION OF TITLE - COURT'S REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE TITLE THROUGH ELECTRICITY CONNECTION - COURT'S DIRECTION TO CONSIDER OBJECTION PETITION BEFORE GRANTING CONNECTION - COURT'S REFUSAL TO ORDER COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners claimed ownership and possession of a property, while Respondents 4 and 5, strangers to the property, applied for an electricity connection. Despite petitioners' objection, the electricity connection was granted to Respondents 4 and 5 without considering the petitioners' representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the electricity connection was granted without considering the petitioners' objection petition, violating the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that a civil suit regarding the ownership of the property was pending, and the civil court had directed the maintenance of status quo.
Issues: 1. Whether the electricity connection was granted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes. 3. Whether the grant of electricity connection amounts to recognition of title.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the electricity connection was granted without considering the petitioners' objection petition, violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The court held that it does not have jurisdiction to decide ownership disputes, as that is the domain of civil courts. 3. The court held that the grant of electricity connection does not amount to recognition of title.
Final Decision: The court directed the electricity board to consider the petitioners' objection petition and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The court also refused to order costs.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the highhanded action of Official Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in granting power supply vide Electricity Meter service connection Nos. (1) 10722794503 and (2) 10722794489 in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, in the subject premises i.e. land admeasuring Ac. 2.39 Gts in Sy. No. 105 part situated in Kompally Village, Quathbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri, which is owned and possessed by the Petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the provision contemplated under Electricity Act and violative of principles of the Natural Justice, contrary to the Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently, cancel/disconnect the Electricity Meter service connections of service Nos. (1) 10722-794503 and (2) 10722794489 granted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 forthwith, in the interest of justice.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
3. The averments as per the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition, in brief are as under:
(b) Thereafter, upon request made by Y.D. Sriveni to take over her undivided piece of land for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- being the market value, for which the Petitioner No. 1 agreed to purchase the same and entered into an Agreement of Sale on 17.10.2003 and paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs on the day of execution of said Agreement of Sale and thereafter on 19.11.2003 the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1 lakh was also paid.
(c) Ever since the petitioners are in uninterrupted physical peaceful possession of the said 1/6th share equivalent to 0-19.83 Gts and constructed compound wall covering western side and northern side of the property. On construction of the compound wall, the entire scheduled property became integral part of the Marriage Hall in the name and style of ‘KVR Convention’ owned and possessed by the Petitioners herein and the compound wall of the Hall i.e. KVR Convention was constructed in the year 2000 itself.
(d) While matter stood thus, the aforesaid Y.S. Dharma Reddy, father of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 demanded more money for Agreement of Sale entered on 17.10.2003. In view of the repeated threats from said Y.S. Dharma Reddy the petitioners were compelled to issue a Caution Notice in Newspapers informing the public that the property is owned by the petitioners alone and no one else. But the said father of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 trespassed into the scheduled property on 29.07.2022 with the local anti-social elements for taking forcible possession and in order to achieve his illegal gain, he had broken a small portion of compound wall committing the act of trespass. Therefore, the 1stpetitioner was compelled to lodge a police complaint.
(e) In pursuance to the Petitioners' complaint dated 30.07.2022 the Police registered a case vide FIR No. 617 of 2022 dated 30.07.2022 and thereafter it appears that, the aforesaid Y.S. Dharma Reddy also filed a counterblast case on 30.07.2022 for which the Police registered a case vide FIR No. 618/2022.
(f) Subsequently, the petitioners have filed a Comprehensive Suit for Declaration of
Electricity connection cannot be granted without considering the objection of the person claiming ownership of the property, as it violates the principles of natural justice.
A party must demonstrate lawful ownership or possession to obtain electricity connections; pending civil disputes cannot be overlooked by administrative authorities in granting such connections.
High Court refrains from interfering in property disputes pending in civil courts via writ jurisdiction.
Court refrained from addressing title disputes; it emphasized compliance with documentation requirements for electricity supply and maintained TGSPDCL's obligation under the Electricity Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
