Noor Islam Molla vs The Chairman
2022 Latest Caselaw 3145 Cal

10.06.2022
Item No. 01
Court No.32
Avijit Mitra

                                  FMA 2078 of 2015
                                        with
                                  CAN 3241 of 2017

                             Noor Islam Molla
                                   Versus
                       The    Chairman,    West  Bengal    Electricity
                       Distribution Company Limited & ors.


                       Mr. Rudranil De,
                       Mr. Ziaul Haque,
                       Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata
                                   ....for the appellant
                       Mr. Srijan Nayek,
                       Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee
                                   ....for the WBSEDCL.



                       The present appeal has been preferred against an

               order dated 24th February, 2015 passed in W.P. 16015 (W) of

               2014.

                       Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the appellant

               submits that the appellant is running a hotel under the

               name and style of "Noormahal Hotel" over a plot of land

               being L.R. Plot No.4041, Khatian No.1042/1195 of Mouza-

               Matla, J.L. No.75, Police Station-Canning, District- South

               24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the said plot of land).

               The name of the hotel and the appellant's name stand

               incorporated in the Record of Rights pertaining to the said

               plot of land, as occupier. As the said plot of land is vested to

               the State, the appellant submitted an application for grant

               of long term lease. As the said application was not

               considered, the appellant preferred an application before the
                              2




West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. By an

order dated 10th August, 2006, the competent authority was

directed to consider the appellant's prayer. Pursuant to

such direction, the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms

Officer sent a proposal to the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms

Officer for grant of long-term lease in favour of the

appellant. As an attempt was made to forcibly dispossess

the appellant, the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer vide

memo dated 21st October, 2011 requested the respondent

no.5 to render administrative help to the appellant as his

prayer for grant of long term lease was under consideration.

The fact that the said plot of land is a vested land would

also be explicit from the report of the Block Land and Land

Reforms Officer filed in connection with a proceeding under

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

appellant, thereafter, submitted an application for new

electric connection (commercial) on 13 th June, 2013. The

application fee was also paid by the appellant on 19 th June,

2013. Such prayer was, however, refused vide memo dated

7th December, 2013 informing that the appellant had no way

leave permission and that the said plot is a "Defaulter

Disconnected Premises (S/C. no. B/C-301)". Aggrieved by the

said communication, the appellant preferred a writ petition.

He argues that though there was no dispute that the

appellant is in possession to the said plot of land, the

learned Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition placing

reliance upon the submission of one Pradip Sha, who

appeared before the learned Single Judge and submitted

that he was the owner of the said plot of land.

He further argues that the appellant is a bonafide

occupier of the said plot of land and such occupation had

not been challenged by any person in any proceeding. He

earns his livelihood by running the said hotel on the said

plot of land and the denial of electricity connection affects

his right to livelihood.

Per contra, Mr. Nayek, learned advocate appearing for

the WBSEDCL submits that the appellant was enjoying

electricity by making a private arrangement with a

neighbour and for such act, a complaint was lodged and a

case was registered against the appellant under Section 135

of the Electricity Act and a provisional bill of pilferage was

raised.

Answering our query he, however, submits that the

amount as claimed by the authority being Rs.21,530/- had

already been paid by the appellant.

He submits that in terms of the notification dated 19 th

May, 2020, the appellant is under an obligation to pay an

amount of Rs. 7,263/- pertaining to an electric connection

which was previously existing in the name of Pradip Sha.

In reply, Mr. De submits that the appellant is ready

and willing to pay the said amount of Rs. 7,263/-. He

further submits that the said plot of land is adjacent to the

main PWD Road and for effecting electricity connection no

wire is required to be drawn over any person's plot.

Mr. Nayek in his fairness submits that during

pendency of the matter, he sought for necessary instruction

from the competent authority as to whether way leave

permission is necessary considering the location of the land.

In reply thereto, an instruction has been furnished by a

memo dated 9th June, 2022 observing inter alia, that "the

electric connection to the Noor Islam can be provided by

overhead line". A copy of such communication, as produced,

be kept on record. In view thereof, there can be no hurdle

towards grant of electricity connection in favour of the

appellant.

It is well-settled that a person in occupation of a

property is free to apply for supply of electricity and is

entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is

evicted by due process of law. However, grant of such

electric connection would not create any right or equity in

his favour [See the judgment delivered in the case of

Abhimanyu Mazumder Vs. The Superintending Engineer,

reported in AIR 2011 Cal 64]. The documents annexed to the

stay application at pages 57 to 61 and 80 reveal that the

said plot of land is a vested plot of land and the appellant is

occupying the same. Such occupation of the appellant has

also not been disputed by any person. Even if there is any

dispute as regards ownership, the same can be decided in

an appropriate proceeding but such dispute cannot prevent

the appellant, being the occupier from availing electricity

connection. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge ought

not to have rejected the appellant's prayer.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24 th February,

2015 is set aside. The appellant is directed to pay the

amount of Rs.7,263/- to the respondent no.4 within a

period of one week.

Within a week after payment of the said amount, the

authorities of WBSEDCL, particularly the respondent no.4

shall take necessary steps to supply electricity connection to

the appellant, subject to compliance of the necessary

formalities, if any.

The respondent no.5 is also directed to render all

assistance to the authorities of WBSEDCL for grant of such

electricity connection to the appellant.

With the above observations and directions, the

appeal and the connection application are disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)