Telangana High Court

Lakkakula Varalakshmi Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 30 July, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 9460 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of

the subject houses in Survey Nos. 119, 121, 119/1/10 and

119/1/28 in Ilapur Thanda Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga

Reddy District. It is their claim that they constructed the said

houses by obtaining permission from Gram Panchayat, Ilapur

Thanda and have been paying house tax regularly. They applied

for domestic electricity connection to their respective houses,

annexing thereto all the required documents, but respondents

rejected the same on the ground that the Application lacks

proper documents.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner

Sri Ramavarapu Chandrasekhar Reddy submits that under

Section 43(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, a distribution licensee

has a statutory duty to supply electricity to owner/ occupier of

any premises located in the area of supply of electricity of the

distribution license, if such owner or occupier of the premises

applies for it and correspondingly every owner or occupier has a

statutory right to apply for and obtain such supply from the

distribution licensee. He cites instances (Writ Petitions No.

10250 and 16552 of 2024) where this Court directed the

authorities to grant power connection subject to the applicants

fulfilling all other conditions of power supply and connection so

given shall be subject to final outcome of Writ Appeal No. 116 of

2013. Learned counsel brings to the notice of this Court the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chameli Singh v.

State of Uttar Pradesh (Appeal (Civil) No. 12122 of 1995) and

contends that 'right to shelter does not mean a mere right to a

roof over one's head but the right to all the infrastructure

necessary to enable them live and develop as a human being.

Hence, he prays that this Court may direct the respondent

officials to provide domestic electricity connection to petitioners'

houses'.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent - SPDCL

Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy submits that the 6th respondent vide

letter dated 17.03.2022 requested the authorities not to

sanction power connection for newly-constructed houses in

Ilapur Village of Ameenpur Mandal and report compliance. It is

submitted, Applications of petitioners were rejected on the

ground that the property on which their houses were

constructed is a government property. According to learned

Standing Counsel, Writ Appeal concerning the subject issue is

pending before the Division Bench wherein it was directed that

even the persons in possession of property shall not destroy,

damage or change the nature and character of the land. It is

also submitted that as per Clause 5.2.2 of General Terms and

Conditions of Supply, power supply can be granted / released in

favour of owner or tenant in authorized occupation of the

premises for which supply is required. Since petitioners could

not prove their prima facie title nor could prove that they are in

authorized possession of the property, the Applications of

petitioners were rejected. Hence, the Writ Petition may be

dismissed.

4. During pendency of the Writ Petition, Ilapur

Rajagopal Nagar Association and Mohd. Wajid Hussain had

taken out I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025 to implead them as

Respondents 7 and 8 respectively to the Writ Petition. Those

two Applications were ordered by order dated 16.07.2025.

5. The case of the 7th respondent - Association which

was formed to safeguard the rights and interests of its members

- plot owners in Ilapur Rajagopal Nagar Layout, is that Writ

Appeals No. 114, 115 and 116 of 2013 filed by the State of

Telangana claiming right and title over the land in Survey Nos. 1

to 220 of Ilapur Village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sangareddy District

are pending consideration. In the said Appeals, interim orders

were passed directing the parties whosoever in possession not to

change the nature of the land. In violation of the said order, writ

petitioners having no source of right, title, suppressing the said

fact, are attempting to illegally raise constructions and seeking

electricity connections. Petitioner Association therefore,

submitted Representations to the competent authorities,

including Electricity Department and Municipal Commissioner,

Ameenpur, concerning the aforementioned illegal activities being

carried out by writ petitioners. Writ petitioners approached this

Court with unclean hands, hence, the Writ Petition may be

dismissed.

6. The case of the 8th respondent is that Late

Mohammed Mustafa Hussain (for short H.M.Hussain) was

original Pattadar for Acs. 1263-21 guntas of land in Ilapur

Village by virtue of the patta rights granted by Sarfekhas

Administration of the Nizam Government in 1343 Fasli. H.M.

Hussain died intestate in 1958 without having any issues, as

such his entire estate including the above mentioned lands

succeeded to his legal heirs (1) Mohammed Vilayat Hussain,

(2) Mohammed Akbar Hussain and (3) Mrs. Touheed Begum

who were granted succession patta and became owners for the

same each with 1/3rd share. It is stated, the Tahsildar, Sanga

Reddy Taluk by order dated 19.07.1962 granted succession

patta to the said land to 1) Mohammed Vilayat Hussain (2)

Mohammed Akbar Hussain (3) Mrs. Touheed Begum by

rejecting the objections filed by one Mr. Omer Ali and another,

ie. sister of HM Hussain, namely, Rasheedunnisa Begum.

It is stated, the Appeal filed before the RDO by

Omar Ali was dismissed and the one filed by the daughters of

Rasheedunnisa Begum namely Shahimsha Begum and Towheed

Begum was allowed directing the Tahsildasr to mutate their

names as per their shares admissible under Mohammadean

Law. The Revision filed by Omer Ali was also dismissed. Hence,

he filed Writ Petition No. 823 of 1965 which was allowed

granting liberty to all the parties to approach a Civil Court and

get their title decided for the said land and further directed the

Tahsildar, Sangareddy to keep the petitions filed by the legal

heirs of H.M. Hussain pending till the final decision of the Civil

Court and make entries in the Revenue records as per the final

orders of the Civil Court. Therefore, O.S.No. 3 of 1970 was filed

in the Court of District Judge, Sangareddy against Omer Ali, his

brothers, sisters and mother for declaration of title to the above

mentioned land of 1283 Acres in Ilapur Village and recovery of

possession of the same from the Advocate Receiver. By

Judgment dated 26-02-1973, the District Court decreed the suit

declaring the title of Plaintiffs and directing the Advocate

Receiver to handover possession of the same to them. Omer Ali

and his family members filed A.S.No.506 of 1973 which, by

judgment dated 23-10-1976, was dismissed to the extent of

Mohammed Vilayat Hussain and LRs of Mohammed Akber

Hussain and allowed to the extent of share of LRs of Towheed

Begum as per the terms of the compromise settled between LRs

of Towheed Begum and Omer Ali and others, the Appellants in

the said first appeal. That is why the share of LRs. of Towheed

Begum has come down to half of her 1/3 share. In view of the

aforementioned judgment, Mohammed Vilayat Hussain, one of

the three LRs of H.M.Hussain, got 1/3rd share in Acs. 1263-21

guntas.

It is also stated, subsequently, the District

Collector, Medak Sangareddy, passed a final decree dividing the

said land among Mohammed Vilayat Hussain, Akbar Hussain

and Towheed Begum allotting them 1/3rd share each and in the

said final decree Mohammed Vilayat Hussain got Acs. 418-13

guntas. Mohammed Vilayat Hussain and his son Mohd

Karamath Hussain filed separate declarations under the

provisions of the then A. P. Agriculture Land Reforms (Ceiling

on Agriculture Holdings) Act, for their share before the Land

Reforms Tribunal, Sangareddy, which by its final order dated

16-04-1987, determined the holding of Mohd. Vilayath Hussain

and held that he was having a surplus land in 0.2347 SH is

equal to Ac. 2-85 cents and he is liable to surrender the same to

the government. Mohammed Vilayath Hussain died on

10-11-1983 leaving behind two sons namely Mohammed

Karamat Hussain, Mohammed Yousuf Hussain and one

daughter namely, Mahamoodunnisa Begum as legal heirs and

successors to Ac. 418-13 gts. who became pattadars and

owners of land to the said extent and the land allotted is very

clear in the final decree proceedings also.

While so, the Joint Collector, Medak passed an

illegal order dated 22-06-1994 declaring the entire land of Ac.

1263-21 gts, of H.M.Hussain in Ilapur as government land,

without issuing any notice to the legal heirs of Mohd. Vilayath

Hussain and their legal heirs knowing fully-well that Mohd.

Vilayath Hussain and his legal heirs are pattedars and owners

of Ac. 418-13 guntas out of the said Ac. 1263-21 guntas.

Therefore the legal heirs of the other two sharers and their

vendees filed Writ Petition No. 17020 of 1994 which was allowed

by order dated 19-12-1997. Against the said order, Government

filed Writ Appeals No. 1504, 1572 of 1997, 10 of 1998 and 125

of 2000. The Appeals were by order dated 04-07-2003 disposed

of while confirming the order under Appeal to the extent of

holding that Joint Collector has no jurisdiction to pass the order

dated 22-06-1994, granted liberty to the Joint Collector to

initiate fresh proceedings by giving proper notices to all the

parties for conducting appropriate enquiry to decide whether the

order dated 19-05-1982 of the Joint Collector was vitiated by

any fraud and set aside the same, if any fraud in obtaining the

said order is found by the said Joint Collector.

It is also stated, the Joint Collector again passed an

illegal order dated 07-06-2004, by misusing and

misrepresenting the liberty granted in Writ Appeals No. 1504 of

1997 holding that this is a government land, but before passing

the said order no notice was given to the legal heirs of

Mohammed Vilayath Hussain. The said order was questioned in

Writ Petition No. 9510 of 2005 and batch in which some third

parties got impleaded themselves as Respondents claiming their

right to be recognized as pattedars and shikmidars for a part of

this land. This Court allowed the said batch holding that the

claims of impleaded Respondents for recognition as pattedars

and shikmidars for a part of this land is beyond the scope of the

said Writ Petition and hence not proper to express any opinion

with regard to their claims and accordingly, left open to them to

initiate appropriate proceedings before the proper forum for

redressal of their grievance. The Official Respondents filed Writ

Appeals No. 114 of 2013 and Batch and the impleaded

Respondents filed Writ Appeal No.1773 of 2013. The Hon'ble

Division Bench passed the interim order dated 26-09-2013

stating that the parties or persons who may be in possession of

the subject land, shall not destroy or damage or change the

nature and character of the land.

Writ petitioners now seek a direction to provide

electricity connection without submitting any registered

documents of the land or construction permission of the houses

except filing the notarized documents and agreement of sales.

Revenue and HYDRA authorities have already demolished the

houses in Ameenpur, Ilapur, Krishna Reddypet of Ameenpur

Mandal, Sangareddy District. Writ Appeal No. 114 of 2013 and

batch is pending and there is an order to maintain status quo on

the land, but some of the persons illegally making constructions

and obtaining electrical connection by playing fraud. If

electricity connections are given, it will be very difficult for them

to get their land. It is also stated that lands in Survey Nos. 119,

121, 119/1/10 and 119/1/28 are subject matter of Writ

Appeals, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue on

behalf of the 6th respondent, Ms. Swetha, learned counsel on

behalf of Sri Gudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the 7th

respondent and Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 8th

respondent.

8. Having considered the respective submissions, it is

to be seen that as per Clause 5.2.2 of General Terms and

Conditions of Supply, power supply can be granted / released in

favour of owner or tenant in authorized occupation of the

premises for which supply is required. According to respondent

- TGSPDCL, petitioners could not prove their prima facie title or

authorized possession over the property, hence, considering the

letter addressed by the 6th respondent - Tahsildar dated

17.03.2022 requesting them not to sanction power connections,

the Applications of petitioners were rejected as subject houses

were constructed in government property. Though learned

counsel for petitioner tries to question the action of the

respondent as unconstitutional, illegal and discriminatory

stating that in similar circumstances (Writ Petition No. 10250

and 16552 of 2024), respondent - authorities were directed to

grant power connection on the ground that the action of

respondents appears to be discriminatory as electricity

connection was given to several other similarly-placed persons,

this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the opinion of the

learned Single Judge.

9. Further, Respondents 7 and 8 by way of their

respective affidavits brought to the notice of this Court the

litigation pending with regard to the subject land, as noted

supra. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the recent

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar

Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 1 wherein, in the

larger public interest, directions were issued in addition to the

directives issued in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of

structures. Relevant for the purpose of this case are:

(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity,

water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the

2024 SCC Online SC 3767

service provider / Board to the buildings only after the

production of the completion / occupation certificate.

(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation /

violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to

the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said

authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder

/ owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for

issuance of wrongful completion / occupation certificate shall

be proceeded departmentally forthwith.

(vi) No permission / licence to conduct any business / trade

must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States

/Union Territories in any unauthorised building irrespective of

it being residential or commercial building.

(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan

land usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage

must be taken by strictly following the rules in place land in

consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the

environment.

10. In view of the above directions and in the light of

pendency of Writ Appeals concerning the subject land and the

letter addressed by the Tahsildar dated 17.03.2022 in particular

not to sanction power connections for newly-constructed houses

in Ilapur Village of Ameenpur Mandal, it is not appropriate for

this Court to grant the relief sought by petitioners.

11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the

considered opinion that Writ Petition lacks merit and the same

is liable to be dismissed.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

costs.

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if