Madras High Court
J.Khaniskar vs The Assistant Engineer on 7 July, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD).No.6160 of 2021
J.Khaniskar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Assistant Engineer, (Distribution)
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation, (TANGEDCO),
Chinnamanur,
Theni District.
2.Mr.M.Jegadeesan
3.Mr.M.Periyakaruppan ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in
Ka.No.UmiPo/Na/Chin/VaAa/Ko.Ka/A.No.017/2020-21, dated 19.02.2021
and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to disconnect
the service connection bearing No.541015240 for a period of of three months
for renovating the well situated in Survey No.1469/2A measuring 5 cents
situated in U.Ammapatti Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Rajeswari for
Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha for R1
Standing Counsel
Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick for R2 & R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
first respondent, dated 19.02.2021, wherein, the request made by the
petitioner for disconnection of the electricity connection in order to carry out
the renovation work in the well, was rejected by the first respondent on the
ground that it was opposed by the second and third respondents.
2.Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mrs.M.Rajeswari, learned counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned
Standing counsel for the first respondent and Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
3.It is seen from the records that the subject property was originally
owned by the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner became the owner of
the property by virtue of a gift deed executed by his mother, on 14.12.2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
and this document was also registered as document No.5909/2018. The
petitioner wanted to renovate the existing well in the property on the ground
that it has become dilapidated. A request was made to the first respondent for
disconnecting the electricity service connection to enable the petitioner to go
ahead with the renovation work. This request was rejected by the first
respondent on the ground that it was opposed by the second and third
respondents.
4.It is seen from the records that the second respondent is claiming a
right over the property by virtue of a mortgage deed that is said to have been
executed by the mother of the petitioner. It is also seen that a suit was filed
by the second respondent in O.S.No.60 of 2019, seeking for the relief of bare
injunction against the mother of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner
also filed a counter claim for redemption of the mortgage. This suit was
disposed of by a judgment and decree dated 23.06.2020 and the suit filed by
the second respondent was dismissed and the counter claim was allowed.
According to the petitioner, this decree has reached its finality.
5.The third respondent is claiming the right on the ground that the
mortgage deed to an extent of 1 acre and 9 cents has been made over to him
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
by virtue of a document, dated 15.12.2014.
6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third
respondents contended that there was an agreement of sale executed by the
mother of the petitioner and an advance amount was also received and
thereafter, a ratification deed was also executed. By virtue of those
documents, the respondents 2 and 3 claimed to be in possession and
enjoyment of the property.
7.It is an admitted case that the property stands in the name of the
petitioner. The earlier suit filed by the second respondent has been disposed
of. At the best the second and third respondents can only claim to be
agreement holders. No steps have been taken by them to either get a sale
deed in their favour or approach an appropriate Civil Court, seeking for the
relief of specific performance. In any case, this Court does not want to go
into the inter-se dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3.
The only issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the request made
by the petitioner should have been considered by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
8.In view of the fact that the property stands in the name of the
petitioner and the electricity service connection also stands in the name of the
petitioner, the first respondent ought to have acted upon the application given
by the petitioner. However, if the second and third respondents have any
right over the property, they should have approached the appropriate Civil
Court to work out their remedy. The petitioner is only seeking for
disconnection of the service connection to enable the petitioner to renovate
the well and thereafter, to restore the service connection. This request made
by the petitioner ought to have been considered by the first respondent and it
should not have been rejected only based on objections made by the second
and third respondents.
9.In view of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of the
first respondent, dated 19.02.2021 is hereby quashed and there shall be a
direction to the first respondent to disconnect the service connection for some
time to enable the petitioner to renovate the well and thereafter, the service
connection can be restored. The first respondent while disconnecting the
service connection can fix a time limit for the petitioner to carryout the
renovation work in the well and the work shall be completed by the
petitioner, within the time limit. It is made clear that if the second and third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
respondents have any independent claim over the property, they have to work
out their remedy before the appropriate Civil Court in the manner known to
law.
10.This writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.07.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
TM
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
TM
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.8061 of 2021
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
