@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Dhanapalan, J.@mdashIn W.P.No.17479 of 2011, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to forbear the respondents from providing electricity service connection to anyone in respect of the petitioner''s property situate in T.S.Nos.1668/4B and 4C, Puliyakulam village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore-641 045 in contravention of the electricity laws.
2. In W.P.No.18041 of 2011, the petitioner has sought
for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for therecords of the first respondent pertaining to theproceedings in Ref.Rc.No.83/2011/CA, dated 20.07.2011 andquash the same.
3. The brief facts which led to filing of these writ petitions can be stated as under:
3.1. According to the petitioner, he is the absoluteowner of the property measuring a total extent of Acre 6.81/2 situate in T.S.Nos.1668/4B and 4C, Puliyakulam village,Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore and the same isevidenced by registered sale deed dated 29.07.1909 infavour of the father of the petitioner, namely, VerivadaChettiyar and registered partition deed between thepetitioner and his brothers, dated 30.4.1928. The saidproperty was also dealt with under registered partitiondeeds dated 17.05.1945 and 18.3.1967 among the familymembers of the petitioner. On 17.10.2006, the secondrespondent by his proceedings in MTR No.1829/2006 haspassed orders for transfer of patta in the name of thepetitioner. Patta and other revenue records also stand inthe name of the petitioner and no one has any right overthe property.
3.2. The case of the petitioner is that some strangersclaiming to be in possession of the aforesaid property,filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18463 and 18464 of 2010before this Court, praying for a direction to therespondents 3 to 5 to provide electricity serviceconnection though they were not in lawful possession overthe property. The Electricity Act does not authorise therespondents 3 to 5 to give electricity service connectionto the persons who are not lawful occupants of the propertyand there was no justification to seek the electricityservice connection to a property which is not owned bythem. By order dated 30.8.2004, this Court disposed of theabove said writ petitions, directing the respondentstherein to hold an enquiry in respect of the property inquestion and if the petitioners therein established thatthey are in legal occupation of the property, to considerthe claim for providing electricity connection. Pursuantto the said order, the 2nd respondent conducted a detailedenquiry and by letter dated 13.12.2010, held that aforesaidpersons who filed the writ petitions were illegal occupantsin the patta land of the petitioner and consequentlyrejected the demand for electricity service connection.Thereafter, the petitioner and his family members have filed a suit in O.S.No.530 of 2011 before the I AdditionalDistrict Munsif, Coimbatore for declaration and permanentinjunction over the property in question and the said sameis pending.
3.3. While that be so, the residents of Kallaukuzhiapproached the District Collector, Coimbatore/firstrespondent made a representation seeking electricityconnection. Based on the said representation, the firstrespondent by proceedings in Rc.No.83/2011/CA dated20.07.2011 requested the 3rd respondent to provideelectricity service connection to the residents ofKallakuzhi area residents. Pursuant to the same, therespondents 3 to 5 started to erect the poles and formingE.B.lines on a war footing manner, which is contrary to theearlier orders of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioner has made a representation and also sent a legalnotice on 22.7.2011, requesting the respondents to drop theproposed action. However, since no action was taken by therespondents, the petitioner has come forward with thesewrit petitions, praying to forbear the respondents 3 to 5from providing electricity service connection and to quashthe proceedings of the first respondent inRc.No.83/2011/CA dated 20.07.2011.
4. On the above background of the pleadings and afterhearing the learned counsel on either side on 2.8.2011,this Court passed the following order:
Heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner. It appears that this Court, by its order, dated 30.8.2010 made in W.P.Nos.18463 and 18464 of 2010, directed the Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity BoardPuliyakulam, Coimbatore-45, 1st respondent in those writ petitions, toissue notice to both the petitionersand the 3rd respondent in the writpetitions, calling them to appear foran enquiry to establish their casepertaining to the property in question.The grievance of the petitioner inthese writ petitions is that, thatopportunity - as directed by this Court
- was not given. However, thepetitioner has not made the concernedJunior Engineer in this Writ Petition.Considering the fact that he is anecessary party for effectiveadjudication of this writ petition,learned counsel for the petitioner ishereby permitted to implead the saidJunior Engineer, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore-45, as
party respondent in this writ petition,
in the Open Court.
2. Mr.G.Vasudevan, learnedcounsel appearing for the Tamil NaduElectricity Board takes notice for R.3,R.4, R.5 and R.7. Mrs. V.M.Velumani,learned Special Government Pleadertakes notice for R1 and R2. To enableboth the learned counsel to takeinstructions, post the matter on5.8.2011 at the end of ''Motion List''.
4.1. Thereafter, on 16.8.2011, this Court passed further orders as under:
In these matters, the claims andrival claims of the respective partiesare to be clarified by the statusreport in respect of the lands inquestion and the claim of the partiesas on date to be reported by theDistrict Collector, CoimbatoreDistrict, the first respondent hereinand therefore, the learned SpecialGovernment Pleader is directed to filea report from the District Collector,Coimbatore, stating the details aboutthe lands in question as well as theclaim of the respective parties.
4.2. Further, as there was no report received from the respondents, on 12.09.2011, this Court, after taking note of the earlier orders, granted one more week''s time to the respondents to file the status report. Accordingly, on 20.09.2011, the District Collector, Coimbatore in his proceedings in Lr.No.20464/2010/B1, dated 15.09.2011, filed the status report, which reads as under:
In connection with Writ PetitionsW.P.Nos.17479/2011, and 18041/2011 pendingbefore the Hon''ble High Court, Chennai andin pursuance of the directions of Hon''bleJudge of High Court, Chenni I herewithsubmit my status report in this case.
A vast extent of land inT.S.No.1668/1,2,3 and 4 in Puliyakulamvillage of Coimbatore (North) Taluk iscalled as Kallukuzhi. This was previouslyan unused quarried area. This is a waste land and unused by the owner of the land. This land was occupied by landless and houseless poor for some 80 years back. There are about 331 families in this areaas per latest enumeration. The occupantsbeing poor have spent their valuable moneyand have constructed tiled houses huts andpucca houses. These houses were bequeathedby their legal heirs with some alterationsthen and there. Most of the people areemployed under the category daily wageswithin the locality as the land is withinthe city limits. As per the land recordsthe land stands in the name ofThiru.C.V.Thirugnanam but the enjoyment rights are disputable since the lands inquestion are in adverse possession of theland owners by means of uninterruptedpossession of the land continually by theoccupants and a suit to decide theownership of the land is pending on thefile of District Munsif Court, Coimbatorein O.S.No.106/2010 and O.S.No.758/2010. Thedetails of families residing in the area,their occupation, their monthly incomeetc., are appended herewith. There areabout 294 children in the area out of which285 go to school/College for education.Some basic amenities were already providedto the residents like common waterconnection etc. From the time since theoccupation of land, the residents don''thave electricity connection and afterrepresentations some of the residents havefile writ petitions before the Hon''ble HighCourt, Chenni in W.P.Nos.19766/2010 to19770/2010 to direct the Electricity Boardto provide electricity connections. TheHon''ble High Court, Chennai while disposingthe above writs have ordered that the firstrespondent (Junior Engineer, TNEB,Puliyakulam) should decide whether thepetitioners are entitled to electricityconnections as per clause 27(4) of thedistribution code. That apart, the firstrespondent may also require the petitionersto execute indemnity bond for providingelectricity connections. In another Writ Petitions filed by Tvl.R.Jothilakshmi andM.Saminathn to provide electricityconnections in Writ Petition Nos.18463/2010and 18464/2010 before the Hon''ble HighCourt, Chennai, the High Court in itscommon order dated 30.08.2010 has held thatthe first respondent (Junior Engineer,TNEB) should hold enquiry and passappropriate orders in accordance with law.In both the cases the Assistant ExecutiveEngineer, TNEB, Puliakulam has rejected thepetitioners claim for providing electricityconnections citing code 27(4) of Tamil NaduElectricity Distribution Code.
Meanwhile on 18.07.2011, many schoolgoing and residents of Kallukuzhi areapeople of Puliyakulam Village, Coimbatore(North) Taluk have given a petition to theCollector, requesting electricityconnection to their houses. Theyexpressed that they are residing in thisarea for more than 80 years and they havebeen denied of electricity connection forno fault of them and their education isaffected because they could not study inthe night, do their home work etc. Onenquiries, it was found that there is lotof truth in their contention that theresidents of Kallukuzhi are residing in this area for a long time. However, it wasfound that the civil rights and patta areunder some dispute and as on date they haveno patta in their name. Further it was found that the authorities have no locusstandi to prevent the electricityconnection on the basis of the records toprove their civil right and as per law, thelong term occupation itself conferspossessional rights on the people.
Further, it was found that as on date,all the people residing in this area areeffectively possessing the land by way ofconstructing tiled houses, huts and puccahouses and the human life and theircomforts, their future education, presenteducation should not be affected because oflack of electricity in this moderndeveloped stage, that too in a city likeCoimbatore. Hence the SuperintendingEngineer (CEDC Metro) TANGEDCO, Coimbatorewas requested vide Collector letterNo.83/2010/CA dated 20.07.2011 to giveElectricity connection to these householdsuntil the legal dispute come to an end andcontinue the supply of electricity untilthe dispute come to a finality.
Now the land owner who doesn''t haveenjoyment rights over the land has filedthe writ petitions in W.P.No.17479/2011 and18041/2011 to forebear the authorities toprovide electricity connections to theresidents and also to quash the letter ofDistrict Collector in No.83/2011 CA dated 20.07.2011. The Assistant Executive Engineer, uliyakulam/CEDC/Metro, Coimbatore in his letter has stated that all the above seven writ petitioners havebeen provided with electricity connectionsand further 66 nos.of applications wereregistered by the residents of the areafrom 02.08.2011 and in order to effect theservice connections to the registeredapplications a new 100 KVA/11 KVDistribution Transformer was proposed andthe work is under progress and aftercompletion of work the service connectionswill be effected. This is the presentstatus as on date.
I wish to add the following points with the status report:
1.Enquires reveals that the peopleresiding in the Kallukuzhi area areresiding for 80 years and they havepossessional and enjoyment rights and thushave the advantage of adverse possession asper records submitted by them and henceeligible for electricity connections andbasic amenities.
2. When the claim for ownership ofthe land was not made before proper legalforum all these 80 years by the land owner,the question of raising the issue belatedlynow seems to be an after thought.
3.Further the dispute of ownershipamong the residents and the owner of theland is pending on file of District Munsif,Coimbatore in O.S.No.758 of 2010 and thereis a stay granted by the District Munsif,Coimbatore in this case favouring the residents. Another Civil Suit inO.S.No.106 of 2010 is also pending on thefile of District Munsif, Coimbatoreregarding the ownership dispute.
4. As per 285 latest enumeration thereare about 331 families in the area. Thereare about 285 school and College goingchildren in the area. They are leading amiserable life without electricityconnection and their education is seriouslyjeopadarised and there are about 9 dropoutsdue to non-availability of electricity. Alegal dispute of ownership should not be aconstraint to achieve the objects ofeducation and running the day to day lifeof the occupants.
5. The Socio economic condition of thepeople residing in the area is very low andhence provision of basic amenities is amust for their upliftment of the people andhence in order to provide specific reliefto the suffering people a decision wastaken to provide electricity connectionwithout prejudice to the ownership suits,in the public interest.
6. Apart from being respondent in twocivil suits the land owner has filed acivil suit in O.S.No.530 of 2011 before theDistrict Munsif, Coimbatore for claimingownership of land and the same is pending.
7. Pending of ownership claims couldnot be a hindrance to provide basic amenities to the people who are living the area for a long time.
8.Finally without prejudice to thecivil suits pending it may be submittedbefore the Hon''ble High Court that asagainst the rights of the paper-owner inthe context of adverse possession, thereevolves a set of competing rights in favourof the adverse possessor who has for a longperiod of time cared for the land,developed it as against the owner of theproperty who has ignored the property.These poor people have took all pain todeveloping this land and for fault of theowner whose claims for ownership isbelated, they cannot be deprived ofelectricity connection. Further, Schoolgoing children cannot be deprived ofeducation by depriving electricity.
9.Further, all the residents there areeligible for electricity connectionssubject to the finality of civil suits bymeans of submitting Deed of Indemnity (Incases where the owner is not available orrefused to give his consent in writing toprovide electricity connection) and thisright cannot be denied.
I enclose herewith report of Tahsildar,Coimbatore (North) along with enumerationof families, records submitted by them toprove their occupation in the land for longperiod etc., I request that the Hon''bleHigh Court may kindly be apprised of these facts and also the right the plight of poorpeople living without electricity for along time and dismiss the two writpetitions."
5. In the light of the above position, the petitionerclaims his title over the property in question whereas, themembers of the 6th respondent claim right over the same propertyby adverse possession stating that they have been in possessionof the property for the past eighty years by constructing thehouses and huts therein. In fact, the claims of the respectiveparties is the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.758 of2010 pending before the District Munsif, Coimbatore. Apart fromthe said suit, another suits in O.S.No.106 of 2010 and 530 of2011 were filed before the said District Munsif Court, Coimbatoreclaiming ownership of the property.
6. Therefore, the claims of the petitioner as well as themembers of the 6th respondent had been sub judice before theDistrict Munsif Court, Coimbatore. Therefore, it is for theparties to establish their respective claims over the property in the manner known to law by adjudicating the civil suits before the concerned District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
7. As far as the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions are concerned by the petitioner, viz.
i) to forbear the respondents from providing electricityservice connection to anyone in respect of the petitioner''sproperty situate in T.S.Nos.1668/4B and 4C, Puliyakulam village, Coimbatore North taluk, Coimbatore-641 045 in contravention of the electricity laws
ii)to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 20.7.2011, in and by which, the first respondent requested the Superintending Engineer (CEDC Metro), Coimbatore to provide electricity to members of the 6th respondent,
it is to be noted from the comprehensive report submitted by theDistrict Collector, Coimbatore that the land comprised inT.S.No.1668/1, 2, 3 and 4 in Puliyakulam village over which, thepetitioner and the members of the 6th respondent claim theirtitle, was occupied by landless and houseless poor for the past80 years back and there are about 331 families living in the saidarea by constructing tiled houses and huts and though as per therevenue records, the said land stands in the name of thepetitioner, however, the the members of sixth respondent arein uninterrupted physical possession and they filed civil suitsclaiming adverse possession. In such circumstances, having takennote of these facts, the first respondent/District Collectorsent a letter dated 20.7.2011 to the thirdrespondent/Superintending Engineer (CEDC Metro), requesting himto provide electricity connection in the said area. The saidletter, dated 20.7.2011 sent by the District Collector reads as under:
On 18.7.2011, many school goingchildren and residents of Kallukuzhi areapeople of Puliakulam village, Coimbatore (North) Taluk have given a petition to theCollector in the Grievance Day requestingelectricity connection to their houses.They expressed that they are residing in this area for more than 80 years and theyhave been denied of electricity connectionfor no fault of them and their education isaffected because they could not study inthe night, do their home work etc. On oralenquiries, I found there is lot of truth intheir contention that the residents ofKallukuzhi are residing in this area for along time. However, the civil rights andpatta are under some dispute and as on datethey have no patta in their name. However,I find that the authorities have no locusstandi to prevent the electricityconnection on the basis of the records toprove their civil right. As per law, thelong term occupation itself conferspossessional rights on the people.
As on date, all the people residingin this area are effectively possessing theland by way of constructing tiled houses,huts and pucca house. The human life andtheir comforts their future education,present education should not be affectedbecause of lack of electricity in thismodern developed stage, that too in a citylike Coimbatore. Hence I request you toimmediately give Electricity connection tothese households until the legal disputecome to an end and continue the supply of electricity until the dispute come to afinality. Erection of poles and forming ofEB lines for this purpose to be taken byyou in a war footing manner.
8. Therefore, keeping in view of the above narrated factsand circumstances and having regard to the fact that the membersof the 6th respondent have been residing over the land for thepast 80 years and the plight of the students who are residingthere, I am of view that the relief sought for in the writpetitions by the petitioner to restrain the officials of theElectricity Board to provide electricity to the said area on theground that they are not the owners of the property, cannot bejustified. Electricity is one of the essential basic amenitiesfor everyone to live and without the same, the common livingcondition would be malaise and miserable and also the educationof the students would be affected. Therefore, considering thesocio, economic condition of the people residing in the area, inorder to provide basic amenity of electricity to them which is amust for their upliftment, this Court is inclined to direct therespondents to proceed with the proposed action of givingelectricity by invoking the provisions of Clause 27(4) of theTamil Nadu Electricity Supply Distribution Code, 2004, whichsafeguards the interest of both parties, namely, the land ownerand the persons who are residing in the property for whichelectricity service connection is sought for and it is alwayssubject to the establish of ownership in the manner known to law.However, it is to be noted that providing electricity by invoking under this provision would not confer any right or title on the person who gets electricity service connection. It is relevant to extract Clause 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 as under:
An intending consumer who is not theowner of the premises, he occupies shallproduce a consent letter in Form 5 ofAnnexure III to this Code from the owner ofthe premises for availing the supply. Ifthe owner is not available or he refuses togive consent letter, the intending consumershall produce proof of his/her being inlawful occupation of the premises and alsoexecute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of theAnnexure III to this Code indemnifying thelicence against any loss on account ofdispute arising out of effecting serviceconnection to the occupant and accept topay security deposit twice the normalrate."
9. Therefore, on a perusal of the above, it is clear that the occupant of the premises who is not the owner, can avail the electricity on producing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises as well as executing an indemnity bond and making security deposit in the event of any loss arising out of effecting such service connection.
10. It is admitted fact that the members of the 6th respondents have been in occupation of the premises for the past several years and even claiming the ownership over the saidproperty, they filed a civil suit and it is pending before thecivil Court. In such circumstances, the members of the 6th respondent are certainly entitled to avail the electricity.However, it is made clear that providing the electricity serviceconnection to the members of the 6th respondent itself does notconfer any right or title over the property and it is alwayssubject to the outcome of the civil suits pending before thecivil Court.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, therespondents 3 to 5 are directed to provide electricity to thearea wherein, the members of the 6th respondent are living, byinvoking provisions under Clause 27(4) of the Tamil NaduElectricity Supply Distribution Code, 2004 and subject tocompliance of the terms and conditions envisaged therein by the6th respondent. As regards the grievance of the petitioner and
also the sixth respondent pertaining to the title of the land in question, the parties are directed towork out their remedies before the Civil Court where the suitsare pending.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Nocosts. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
