Geeta Kumar vs Delhi Jal Board
2014 Latest Caselaw 5491 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                           Date of hearing and Order: 05.11.2014
+    LPA 720/2014
     GEETA KUMAR
                                                   ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, and
                            Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocates


                         versus

      DELHI JAL BOARD
                                                            ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Mr. Suresh Tripathi, Advocate


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

                                  ORDER

% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

The Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 25th August

2014 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a direction was given to

the appellant/petitioner to file an application seeking impleadment of legal

heirs of Late Shri Ram Lubhaya in the writ petition preferred by her. Feeling

aggrieved by the said order, the grievance raised by the appellant in the

present appeal is that the appellant has filed sufficient documents to prove

her occupation on the premises in question and also made an averment in the

petition that the other legal heirs of Late Shri Ram Lubhaya had been

harassing her and refused to give any no objection for the grant of any

independent water connection in her favour. It is also the case of the

appellant that she is entitled to adequate water supply in terms of Section 13

read with Section 21 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998.

On the last date, when this matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.

Suresh Tripathi, Advocate had entered appearance on behalf of the

Respondent and Mr. Tripathi was impressed upon by the Court to take

instructions as to why the appellant is being deprived of independent water

connection, despite there being ample documents to prove her occupation

having been placed on record. Today, when this matter was taken up for

hearing, Mr. D.C. Jain, Zonal Revenue Officer appeared in the matter and as

per the instructions given by him, Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the

respondent took a stand that grant of no objection by the owner or his legal

heirs is imperative as per the Regulations as ultimately in all such cases, the

apprehension is the recovery of dues is not made by the occupier and if no

objection is given by the owner/landlord, then at least the respondents can

recover the dues from the owner/landlord. The learned counsel for the

respondent also raised a contention that the connection is provided to the

premises and not to the person and therefore, as per the regulations, the

Respondent has to feel satisfied that the person seeking grant of independent

water connection has some interest in the premises in question. Not feeling

satisfied with the submissions of counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent, the Court directed the presence of some senior person who can

give better instructions so as to resolve the matter. Court, thus orally

directed the learned counsel for the respondent to ensure presence of Joint

Director in post lunch session. In compliance of the directions, Mr. V.P.

Tanwar, Joint Director (South) had appeared in this matter but without any

change in the stand. The learned counsel for the respondent has also

submitted that if the water connection to the occupier is permitted in the

absence of no objection then it will set a wrong precedent.

We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides

and the documents placed on record were also perused.

Considering the fact that the matter has been heard at length, although

the issue involved is very short, which concerns the grant of independent

water connection to the appellant on the second floor of premises No. 7/35

B, Second Floor, Jangpura, New Delhi 110014, therefore the matter was

taken up for final hearing of the writ petition itself so as to give finality to

the lis. W.P. (C) No. 5126/2014 was preferred by the appellant who is the

daughter in law of Late Shri Ram Lubhaya, who indisputably was the owner

of House No. 7/35 B, Second Floor, Jangpura, New Delhi 110014. Mr. Ram

Lubhaya had died on 31.03.1999, leaving behind him four sons and three

daughters. Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Jagdish Kumar have been residing in the

premises in question, in addition to Sheri Vinod Kumar, who was residing

alongwith his family on the second floor of the property. Mr. Vinod Kumar

who was the husband of the appellant, also died on 17.01.2000 and after his

death, his family continued to reside on the second floor of the premises.

This Respondent has been facing scarcity of water at the second floor of the

premises and due to which her entire family has been facing hardships on a

daily basis. As per the appellant/petitioner there have been quarrels between

her family members and the family members of Late Shri Jagdish. In the

background of facts, the petitioner had applied for grant of independent

water connection and alongwith the application, she had filed requisite

documents to prove her possession in the said property. The petitioner had

also filed an indemnity bond alongwith her application. This application

filed by the petitioner was not accepted by the Respondent.

As per the appellant/petitioner also got prepared affidavit dated 15 th

March 2014 in support of the fact that the ownership documents are not

available with her. This petitioner has been struggling for the last six months

but the Respondent remained adamant in their stand that till the appellant/

petitioner is not able to obtain no objection from the legal heirs of Late Shri

Ram Lubhaya, her application would not be accepted by them and therefore,

she would not be given any independent water connection.

Before the Court also, the stand taken by the Respondent is no

different and the same being that the petitioner is not in a position to submit

a no objection certificate and there is no adequate proof to prove the

possession and status of the petitioner in the second floor of the premises in

question.

It is quite distressing and disgusting as well to find that these public

bodies like Delhi Jal Board instead of extending a helping hand, create all

sorts of bottle necks to resolve the problems of the citizens. This appears to

be one such case where a widow has been struggling and what she is

wanting is an independent water connection which is her fundamental and

statutory right. It is not the case of the Respondent that the petitioner is a

tenant and as per the Regulation 6(ii) of the Regulations, she is required to

furnish her no objection from the owner. Respondents in their utter

blindness even did not realise the fact that this lady is none else but the wife

of the pre-deceased son of Late Sheri Ram Lubhaya and therefore, being the

legal heir of Vinod Kumar, she herself is one of the legal heirs of Late Shri

Ram Lubhaya and therefore, in such capacity she was not required to furnish

any kind of no objection although not being a tenant therein.

Enough documentary proofs have been placed on record by the

appellant in the nature of ration card, electricity connection, election card,

house tax receipts and telephone connection, but none of these documents

could satisfy the respondent in accepting the application of the appellant for

the grant of independent water connection. Not only this, the appellant has

also filed an indemnity bond and an affidavit to say that she was not in a

position to produce the ownership documents of the property in question as

other legal heirs are not making available to her and also that she would be

personally liable to indemnify the Respondent for any kind of water dues in

respect of independent water connection.

Under Section 13(2) of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998, the

requirement is that where it appears to the Board that any premises in Delhi

are without supply of water for domestic purposes or that the existing supply

of water for domestic purposes available for the persons usually occupying

or employed in such premises, is inadequate or objectionable for reasons of

health and sanitation, the Board may, by notice in writing, require the owner

of the premises or the person primarily liable for the payment of property

taxes in respect of them to take a water connection for the persons occupied

or employed in the premises in question. Here also, had the respondent been

not satisfied with the documentary evidence placed on record, or with regard

to inadequacy of water supply to the second floor of the premises, it was for

them to have visited the site to verify the fact as to whether adequate water

supply is available to the appellant/petitioner at the second floor premises or

not. It is a settled legal position that Regulations cannot override the

statutory provisions of a substantive Act and therefore the respondents

cannot take shelter under Delhi Water and Sewer (Tariff and Metering)

Regulations, 2012 to deny independent water connection to the petitioner.

This is despite the fact that the said regulations deal with the tenants and not

with an occupier and in the present case, the appellant has claimed herself to

be an occupier and rightly so, because she being a widow of Mr. Vinod

Kumar son of the owner Late Mr. Ram Lubhaya, is residing in the premises

in that capacity and not any other capacity.

In our view, once the petitioner herself was in a capacity of a legal

heir, where is the need of furnishing any kind of no objection from her in

grant of independent water connection.

In the light of the above facts, the present appeal is allowed with costs

of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare

Fund, within a period of four weeks.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.8.2014 passed in W.P.

(C) No. 5126/2014 by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the

Respondent - Delhi Jal Board is directed to provide a domestic water

connection to the appellant at 7/35-B, Second Floor, Jangpura-B, New Delhi

110014 within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

With aforesaid directions, the present appeal filed by the appellant is

disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for both the sides.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 05, 2014 pkb