Madras High Court
R.Karuppanan vs R.Natarajan on 28 October, 2022
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD) No.9855 of 2022
R.Karuppanan ... Appellant
-vs-
1. R.Natarajan
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation(TANGEDCO),
N.R.T. Nagar Main Road, Theni District.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO),
Municipal Commercial Complex,
Vaigai Road, Periyakulam, Theni District.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO),
Rajathani, Andipatti, Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order dated 17.06.2022 made in W.P(MD) No.5435 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents : Mr.J.Senthil Kumariah
for R1
Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
Standing Counsel for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
Aggrieved over the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the
Writ Court in W.P(MD) No.5435 of 2020, the appellant / fourth
respondent in the said writ petition, has come up with this writ appeal.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the first
respondent / writ petitioner, to set aside the order dated 01.02.2020,
passed by the third respondent herein and direct him to disconnect the
appellant / fourth respondent's service connection in S.C.No.
537-001-521 and restore the service connection in S.C.No.12 in the name
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
of the first respondent / writ petitioner in Survey No.133/4, based on the
relevant revenue documents. This Court by order dated 17.06.2022, has
passed the following order:-
“Heard the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the
respondents 1 to 3. Though the fourth respondent has been
served and his name is printed in the cause list, he has not
chosen to enter appearance.
2. According to the petitioner, the fourth
respondent who has no right over the well in question has
illegally obtained free electricity service connection. When
the petitioner moved the respondent authorities, they took the
stand that there are no revenue records to show that the well
in question does not belong to the fourth respondent. The
petitioner's counsel states thereafter he moved the
jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer, who clearly
ordered that the fourth respondent has no right over the well
in question. The fourth respondent is said to have preferred
an appeal before the District Revenue Officer. The District
Revenue Officer also confirmed the order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer. In these circumstances, the petitioner
wants the authority concerned to revisit the issue. I find the
said request to be reasonable. I therefore permit the petitioner
to file a fresh representation before the second respondent by
enclosing the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer as well as the District Revenue Officer. Thereafter,
the second respondent will enquire into the same and pass
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
final order after issuing fresh notice to the fourth respondent
herein. The entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of twelve weeks after receipt of a fresh representation
from the writ petitioner herein.
3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.”
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
land in Survey No.133 to an extent of 2 Acres 45 Cents originally
belonged to his father Ramasamy Moopar and after his demise, based on
the oral partition made among his four sons, including the appellant
herein, in the capacity of legal heirs. As per the said oral partition, the
subject land was subdivided into Survey Nos.133/2, 133/3, 133/4 and
133/5. A common well and channel with electricity connection in
S.C.No.521, in Survey No.133/4, was commonly enjoyed by the
aforesaid legal heirs for irrigation to their respective lands, without
affecting the rights of each other. Thereafter, one of the legal heirs,
namely, Marutha Moopar sold his share of the property in Survey No.
133/4, measuring to an extent of 58 Cents, to the first respondent/
Natarajan, thereby he became a co-owner of the common well and
channel having electricity connection in S.C.No.521. While so, claiming
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
individual ownership and right over the common well and channel in
Survey No.133/4, the first respondent / writ petitioner filed an appeal
before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, to cancel the joint
patta issued in respect of Survey No.133/4 and to issue an individual
patta in his name. The said authority by order dated 23.01.2019, allowed
the appeal, against which, the appellant herein along with two others
filed a review petition. The said review petition was also dismissed on
28.02.2019, by the District Revenue Officer, Theni. Under these
circumstances, the first respondent / writ petitioner made an application
before the second respondent to disconnect the electricity connection in
respect of the aforesaid survey numbers, however, the same was rightly
denied by the second respondent vide his order dated 01.02.2020.
Challenging the said order, the first respondent / writ petitioner has filed
WP(MD) No.5435 of 2020 and this Court, without appreciating the facts
of the case properly has disposed of the writ petition as stated above.
Thus, the learned counsel prayed that the order of the learned Judge
warrants interference at the hands of this court.
4. We have heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant / fourth respondent and the learned counsel for
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
the first respondent / writ petitioner and perused the materials available
on record.
5. The first respondent/writ petitioner has filed a counter
affidavit disputing the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. The
learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first
respondent is having the absolute right over the land and well set up with
electrified motor pump-set with S.C.No.12 in S.No.133/4 and the
Tahsildar has also issued separate patta in Patta No.1138 in the name of
the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the appellant
obtained joint patta based on the forged documents and obtained service
connection No.537-001-521 for the well situated in S.No.133/4.
Therefore, the first respondent filed appeal in Na.Ka.No.6395/2009/A1
in 2009 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, to cancel
the joint patta issued by the Tahsildar, Andipatty, in RTR No.1685/2006
dated 21.12.2006 and to confirm the separate patta issued to the first
respondent earlier in RTR.No.804/06. The said appeal was allowed on
23.01.2019 and though a revision petition was filed by the appellant
against the order passed in the aforesaid appeal, the revisional authority
also confirmed order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Revenue Divisional
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
Officer, Periyakulam, by dismissing the revision on 28.02.2022.
Considering the above facts, the Writ Court has rightly directed the third
respondent herein to consider the fresh representation of the petitioner,
enquire into the matter and pass final order, after issuing notice to the
appellant. Without pursuing the matter with the third respondent, the
appellant has filed the present appeal only to protract the proceedings.
Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the writ appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Perusal of record shows that though the appellant contended that
the first respondent is only a co-owner of the common well and channel
in question and that there was only a joint patta in respect of the said well
and channel, on the appeal filed by the first respondent, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, has passed a detailed order cancelling
the aforesaid joint patta and directed for issuance of separate patta in
respect of the aforesaid well and channel in the name of the first
respondent. Though the appellant challenged the same by filing a
revision before the District Revenue Officer, Theni, it was dismissed
confirming the order passed by the RDO. Considering the above, the
Writ Court rightly directed the third respondent herein to consider the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
fresh representation of the petitioner, enquire into the matter and pass
final order, after issuing notice to the appellant. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said order of the learned Judge. Thus, the
appellant can very well put forth his case before the authorities
concerned as per the order passed by the Writ Court. Further, it is made
clear that the civil disputes between the parties cannot be adjudged by
this Court sitting in the Writ jurisdiction.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
28.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pkn
To
1. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation(TANGEDCO),
N.R.T. Nagar Main Road, Theni District.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO),
Municipal Commercial Complex,
Vaigai Road, Periyakulam, Theni District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO),
Rajathani, Andipatti, Theni District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
pkn
W.A(MD) No.1275 of 2022
28.10.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
