Disposed

Mrs.S.Jayasree v. The Assistant Engineer

Madras HC15 Feb 2021WP/25119/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a disputed land sale and illegal electricity connection demand, the Court deemed the exact properties unnamed and impleaded the Revenue Officer. It ordered a survey of the premises to compare addresses in the sale deed and the electricity application. Pending the survey report, the Court directed the Electricity Board to make an independent decision on continuing or di

What did the court decide?

Order of survey of the property in question within 30 days and issuance of report to the Electricity Board to decide on the service connection.

Mrs.S.Jayasree Vs The Assistant Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.25119 of 2015

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

S.Jayasree ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. 1.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kizhkattalai, Chennai – 600 117.

¶10

2.The Executive Engineer / O & M, Tambaram, Chennai – 45.

¶11

3.The Superintending Engineer / CEDC/South, Medavakkam, Chennai – 601 302.

¶12

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Medavakkam, Chennai – 601 302.

¶13

5.Muruvammal alias Murugammal ... Respondents

¶14

6.The Thasildhar, Pallavaram, Chennai.

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to disconnect the E.B. Service connection, which was given to the 5^th respondent and her husband namely Mani at the petition premises situated at Keelkattalai Village, Balamurugan Nagar Extension, comprised in S.No.327/3, Patta No.786, Plot No.7, measuring an extent of 2405 sq.ft.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramachandran For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunaraj

¶17

for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to disconnect the E.B. Service connection, which was given to the 5^th respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased the property from the 5^th respondent's power of attorney on 28.09.2005. Pursuant to the power of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attorney executed on 20.06.2005 by the 5^th respondent. It is

¶20

the case of the petitioner that though the land was sold to the petitioner under sale deed dated 28.09.2005, the 5^th respondent along with her husband filed an application on 16.03.2011 for obtaining electricity connection from the 1^st respondent herein In Form I, they have given the address of the petitioner as S.No.88, 3^rd Cross Street, Thenmozhi Nagar, Keelkattalai, Chennai – 117 and are squatting now the property sold to the petitioner to make illegal demand for the petitioner.

¶21

2.The petitioner submits that having sold the property, 5^th respondent is illegally occupying the land and has obtained electricity connection from the 1^st respondent to extract more money from the petitioner. From the records that are available to this Court, it is noticed that address given by the 5^th respondent is S.No.88, 3^rd Cross Street, Thenmozhi Nagar, Keelkattalai, Chennai – 117 whereas the petitioner purchased the property at S.No.327/13 Patta No.786 Pallavaram Registry, Keelkattai Village, Balamurugan Nagar, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District from the power of attorney of the 5^th respondent vide sale deed dated 28.09.2005.

¶22

3.There is some doubt as to whether both the properties are one and the same. Therefore, this Court suomotu impleaded Thasildar/Pallavaram as the 6^th respondent to survey teh proeprties described in the sale deed dated 28.09.2005. The 6^th respondent shall depute a surveyor to survey the property and give a report to the 1^st respondent as to whether the property purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 28.09.2005 is the same the property at S.No.88, 3^rd Cross Street, Thenmozhi Nagar, Keelkattalai, Chennai – 117 for which, the 5^th respondent has obtained E.B. Service connection for the 1^st to 4^th respondent.

¶23

4.The 6^th respondent shall have the property surveyed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, before the survey, the 5^th respondent shall given notice. On receipt of the survey report from the surveyor, the first respondent is directed to take an independent decision as to whether the connection given to the 5^th respondent is to be continued or disconnected.

¶24

5.The Writ Petition stands disposed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ jas

¶30

¶31

1.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kizhkattalai, Chennai – 600 117.
2.The Executive Engineer / O & M,
Tambaram, Chennai – 45.
3.The Superintending Engineer / CEDC/South,
Medavakkam, Chennai – 601 302.
4.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Medavakkam, Chennai – 601 302.
5.The Thasildar,
Pallavaram, Chennai.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 8809
W.P.No.25119 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
PL(CO)
GN(29/03/2021)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.S.Jayasree v. The Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.S.Jayasree v. The Assistant Engineer

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

K.Devakumar Vs The Commissioner/

M/s.Mando Automotive India Vs The Deputy Commissioner

M/S.Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of

Malayan, Vs The Chairman

St.Marys Elementary School Vs The Secretary

Jayapandian Vs M.Palanisamy