Partly allowed

Shri. Sanjit Banik v. the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 Dec 2022WPA/961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking an electricity connection after refusal on the ground of encroachment. The court referred a prior precedent and directed the respondents to grant the connection within three weeks if settled possession is established, while clarifying it does not confer title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant electricity connection within three weeks if settled possession is established; clarification that connection does not confer title.

Shri. Sanjit Banik Vs the Superintending… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

…

¶3

WPA 961/2022

¶4

Shri Sanjit Banik … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

The Superintending Engineer and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Alisham Venkatesh …for the Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Tulsi Lall

¶8

Mr. Rakesh Kumar …for the Respondents

¶9

December 22, 2022 [MAM] Item No.5

¶10

According to the petitioner, he had encroached upon a Government revenue land and claimed to be in settled possession thereof. In support of such possession the petitioner has relied upon the documents including Aadhaar Card annexed with the petition. The petitioner had applied for an electricity connection but the same was refused. That is why the petitioner approached this Court by filing instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have not able to produce any document to rebut the presumption arose out of the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶11

Both the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties to this Writ application have referred to the case of Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs. Superintending Engineer reported in 2011(2) CHN (CAL) 768.

¶12

On perusal of the reported decision, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to grant electricity connection to the petitioner within three weeks from the

¶13

date of communication of this order if the Writ petitioner is found in settled possession of land-in-question and entitled to the enjoyment of electricity so long the writ petitioner is dispossessed by due process subject to payment of all requisite charges and fulfillment of other procedure to get such electric connection.

¶14

I make it clear that grant of electricity connection on the petitioner’s encroached land will not create any equity in favour of the petitioner over the subject plot to resist the rightful owner.

¶15

Since I have not asked for any affidavit the allegation contained in the Writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. Parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order downloaded from the official website without insisting certified copy thereof.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

Shri. Sanjit Banik v. the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sanjit Banik v. the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

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

K. Veeramani Vs M.V. Jayalakshmi

K. Veeramani Vs M.V. Jayalakshmi

Susheel Dixit Vs M/S Barefoot Resorts and Leisures Ltd. and Anr.

A.R.Manickam Vs the State

Smt. Banaspathi Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Shri. v. Murugan Vs the Superintendent Engineer and Ors.