BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 25.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

Natarajan ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Junior Engineer (Distribution)

TANGEDCO,

Kadambur Division,

Thoothukudi District.

2.Murugandi ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.f.vz.,kpngh/g/flkg; +h;/Nfh.flL; /m.vz.; 312/2025 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's house situated at D.No.5/1, Talayalnadanthankulam Village, Kayathar Taluk, based on the petitioner's online application number 200073060925598 dated

06.10.2025 within stipulated time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu

For R1 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order No.f.vz.;,kpngh/g/flkg; +h;/Nfh.flL; /m.vz.; 312/2025 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the first respondent and consequential direction to the first respondent to provide electricity connection to the petitioner's house situated at D.No.5/1, Talayalnadanthankulam Village, Kayathar Taluk, based on the petitioner's online application number 200073060925598 dated 06.10.2025 within stipulated time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. Perused the records.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land in S.F.No.43/23 to an extent of

1 acre and 11 cents originally belonged to one Pandaaram. On 23.12.1964, the said Pandaaram executed a sale deed in favour of one Subbiah vide registered Doc.No.1718/1974. Thereafter, the property was sub-divided as S.F.No.43/23A measuring 0.37.00 hectares, S.F.No.43/23B measuring 0.04.50 hectares and S.F.No.43/23C measuring 0.03.50 hectares. On 22.07.1995, Subbiah executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the petitioner for land measuring about 3 cents situated on the south-west side of S.F.No.43/23 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,000/-. Subbiah thereafter passed away.

4. After his demise, the petitioner constructed a house in the vacant land in the year 2001, which was assigned Door No.5/1, and obtained electricity service connection No.305-015-261. The petitioner has been regularly paying electricity charges and property tax. In the year 2023, the building became dilapidated and the petitioner decided to demolish it and put up a new construction. When arrangements were made, the second respondent raised an objection alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon his land, which the petitioner claims was only to obstruct the construction. According to the petitioner, the second respondent remained silent for 22 years and raised objections only in 2023.

5. After obtaining approval for the building plan, the petitioner constructed a new house and submitted an online application seeking renewal of the old electricity service connection. The first respondent, however, orally instructed the petitioner to apply for a new service connection, which the petitioner complied with. Subsequently, the first respondent inspected the premises. To the petitioner’s shock, the first respondent rejected and cancelled the petitioner’s application for electricity service connection by the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 on the ground that a suit in O.S.No.18 of 2023 is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to him.

6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s application has been rejected solely on the ground that the suit in O.S. No.18 of 2023 is pending before the District Munsif, Kovilpatti, filed by the second respondent claiming title over the property in question. There is, no doubt, a dispu