Allowed

Ajit Tigga v. the Superintending Engineer and Others

Calcutta HC14 Dec 2021WPA/282/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court held that an encroacher in settled possession is entitled to an electricity connection upon complying with formalities and paying costs, citing a prior Special Bench decision, while reserving the question of the legality of possession.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent authorities to grant electricity supply within four weeks upon compliance with formalities and payment of costs.

Ajit Tigga Vs the Superintending Engineer and Others — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

¶3

¶4

PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA

¶5

WPA/282/2021

¶6

AJIT TIGGA … PETITIONER

¶7

Vs.

¶8

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS

¶9

For the petitioner	: Mrs. C. Kala Devi, Advocate
For the Respondents	: Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate
Heard on	: 14^thDecember, 2021
Judgment on	: 14^thDecember, 2021

¶10

JAY SENGUPTA, J.

¶11

The petitioner is seeking electricity connection.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. Admittedly, the petitioner is an encroacher and is in settled possession of a property. The petitioner applied for electricity connection which was denied. In the application, the petitioner clearly undertook that electricity connection shall not confer any right, title and interest on the land in question and the electricity connection would automatically stand withdrawn/disconnected upon the true

¶13

¶14

owner recovering the possession of the land by due process of law. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay all the concerned charges and comply with all formalities for the electricity connection. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs. The Superintending Engineer and

¶15

another, WP No.423 of 2010 deciding a reference on 11^th February, 2011.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the Administration submits that the petitioner is an encroacher and the electricity connection was not granted because no objection certificate was not forthcoming from the concerned Tehsildar.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent authorities and have perused the application.

¶18

In Abhimanyu Mazumdar (Supra), this Court held as under –

¶19

“We, therefore, hold that a person in settled possession of a property as illustrated in the case of Rame Gowda (supra), is free to apply for supply of electricity without the consent of the owner of the same and is entitled to get electricity and enjoy the same until he is evicted by due process of law.”

¶20

Therefore, since the petitioner is in settled possession of a property, it would be appropriate to direct the authorities to supply electricity to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall comply with all requisite

¶21

¶22

formalities for such purpose and bear all costs and expenses for the same.

¶23

The respondent authorities shall grant electricity supply to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the petitioner complying with the formalities and paying costs, charges and expenses.

¶24

However, the legality of possession of the petitioner in the land in question has not been gone into by this Court. In fact, this order will not prevent the authorities from taking appropriate steps for eviction of the petitioner, if they are so entitled, in accordance with law.

¶25

With these observations, the writ petition being WPA/282/2021 is disposed of.

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual necessary formalities.

Ajit Tigga v. the Superintending Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Tigga v. the Superintending Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Multiple Agencies Private Limited and Anr. Vs Andaman State Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors.

Vanvikas Employees Association and Ors. Vs He Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Kamal Prasad Pandey and Another Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Another

S. K. Monirul Ali Vs the Lt. Governor and Ors.

Abdul Siddique Vs the Lieutenant Governor and Anr.

The India Red Cross Society Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration