Allowed

Smt M Jayalakshmi v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023WP/4751/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the disconnection of power supply due to an encroachment allegation. The Court held the dispute regarding land measurement is for the Civil Court and quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.12.2019 disconnecting power supply is quashed. Liberty is reserved to agitate rights before the Civil Court.

Smt M Jayalakshmi Vs the Assistant Executive… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4751 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4751 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. CHUNCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1278/A, 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SRIGANDADA KAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), 8TH NORTH SUB-DIVISION, 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEES LAYOUT, SRIGANDADA KAVALU, BENGALURU - 560 072.

¶14

SMT. REKHA Y, W/O. NAGARAJU J.H, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.856, 17TH 'G' MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4751 of 2020

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner claims that his father was granted with site bearing No.1278/A in Sy.No.30/1 of Srigandada Kavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, and possession certificate was issued indicating the measurement of the site as 65+78/2x30 ft which is produced at Annexure-A. The petitioner was sanctioned with power supply to the subject premises on 18.02.2008. However, on the objection submitted by the second respondent stating that the petitioner by encroaching the property of the second respondent and by producing fabricated documents has availed power supply, the first respondent passed the impugned order disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner's premises. Hence, this petition.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 4751 of 2020

¶26

It is undisputed that the petitioner was sanctioned

¶27

with power supply on 18.02.2008 and the dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent is with regard to the measurement of the land and the said dispute can be agitated only before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Hence, the respondent has committed an error in passing the impugned order and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i. Petition is allowed.

¶30

ii. The impugned order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the first respondent at Annexure-H is hereby quashed.

¶31

iii. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner and the second respondent to agitate their rights before the jurisdictional Civil Court.

¶32

All contentions are kept open.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

RKA

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt M Jayalakshmi v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt M Jayalakshmi v. the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri R H Siddammanavar

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. Vs the Central Board of Trustees

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Berela Lalithamma Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka