Disposed

L. Sujata Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/6342/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought restoration of disconnected electricity in property subject to an ongoing title dispute. Court directed petitioner to approach APDCL for a fresh connection application within a specified time without prejudicing pending civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make an application to APDCL for a fresh electricity connection; APDCL to consider and decide within a specified time period.

L. Sujata Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010185552022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6342/2022

¶5

L. SUJATA DEVI D/O- LATE RUPCHAND SINGH, R/O- MANIPURI BASTI, GUWAHATI-7, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, ASSAM. 2:MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED

¶8

PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781008 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SDO) APDCL ULUBARI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781007. 4:O. ROHIT SINGH

¶9

Page No.# 2/5

¶10

S/O- LATE O. RUPCHAND SINGH

¶11

R/O- TIKENDRAJIT ROAD MANIPURI BASTI GUWAHATI-7 P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B DEKA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 11-11-2022

¶17

Heard Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the APDCL respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. CKS Boruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶18

2. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that her electricity connection in respect of the plot of land which was originally owned by Rohini Devi, the sister of the respondent No. 4, had been disconnected and a request for granting electricity connection had not been considered by the APDCL.

¶19

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the electricity connection that has to be given to the petitioner pertains to a plot of land, which originally belonged to one Guni Devi. Guni Devi gifted the land to her daughter, Rohini Devi. Rohini

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

Devi expired in the year 2014 and her portion of land was given to the petitioner by way of a Will, executed by the late Rohini Devi.

¶22

4. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that the petitioner is in possession of the property, which has been gifted to the petitioner by way of a Will made by Rohini Devi. He also submits that the electricity that is being prayed for by the petitioner is with regard to the disconnected electric supply given to Consumer No. 0050000016154 in the name of Smt. Rohini Devi. He also submits that the petitioner is the sister of Rohini Devi (L).

¶23

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Will executed by the late Rohini Devi has not been probated till date. He prays that the APDCL should be directed to restore the electricity connection to the property, which was originally owned by Rohini Devi.

¶24

6. Mr. S. Banik, learned Standing counsel APDCL, submits that the annexure to the writ petition shows that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, with respect to the portion of land originally belonging to Rohini Devi, in the Court of the Munsiff No. I, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, vide Title Suit No. 416/2022, wherein the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent No. 4 is the defendant No. 2. He submits, without making any comment on the merits of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 with regard to who is the owner of the disputed property, that if an application is made by the petitioner for a fresh electricity connection, the APDCL will consider the same and give a decision within a specified time period. He also submits that the electricity connection earlier given to Consumer No. 0050000016154 had been discontinued, in view of the respondent No. 4 making

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

a request for disconnection of the electricity supply, as he had stated that he was the absolute owner of the said property, being the brother of the late Rohini Devi.

¶27

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

8. There is nothing to show that the petitioner is the owner of the plot of land in which electricity had been provided by the APDCL, in respect of Consumer No. 0050000016154 in the name of Rohini Devi. The alleged Will made by Rohini Devi, who expired on 2014 has also not been probated as on date. Further, there is Title Suit No. 416/2020 pending before the Court of the Munsiff No.1 Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati, with regard to the property left behind by the late Rohini Devi, which the petitioner claims to be hers, on the strength of the alleged un-probated Will. On the other hand, the electricity connection with regard to the plot of land owned by late Rohini Devi has been disconnected due to the request made by the respondent No. 4 (brother of Rohini Devi), who also claims to be the absolute owner of the said land.

¶29

9. On perusing page No. 38 of the writ petition, I find that the petitioner herein has claimed to be the sister of Rohini Devi and that after the death of her sister Rohini Devi, she is looking after the property of the late Rohini Devi. In the said letter dated 24.01.2022 (page No. 38 of the writ petition), there is nothing stated to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the property on the basis of any un-probated Will.

¶30

10. Be that as it may, as Mr. S. Banik, learned Standing counsel APDCL has stated that the question of providing a fresh electricity connection to the

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

petitioner can be considered, if the petitioner makes an application for the same, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may make an application to the APDCL for a fresh connection, which the APDCL shall consider and take a decision on the same, within a specified time period, keeping in view that there is a property dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4.

¶33

11. The above direction should not have any bearing or cause any prejudice to the rights of the parties, in respect of Title Suit No. 416/2022, which is pending in the Court of the Munsiff No. I, Kamrup (Metro). Guwahati.

¶34

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

L. Sujata Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Sujata Devi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jadumoni Nath and 28 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Binod Gupta Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Imran Hussain Khan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S Jalan Iron and Steel Company Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors.

Pinki Barman @ Pingki Barman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mintoo Das Vs Pabitra Ram Khound and 2 Ors.