2.1 The learned counsel further contended that though the property, where, irrigation Well and electric motor are situated, was allotted to the share of the petitioner's brother, Chellamuthu, (father of the fourth respondent), both the petitioner and his brother, Chellamuthu jointly used the irrigation Well and electric motor. But, after the death of the said Chellamuthu, the deceased Chellamuthu's son, the fourth respondent/private party caused troubles to the petitioner in extracting water from the irrigation Well, which necessitated the petitioner to dug another separate well, in his land, which belongs to him. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to 3rd respondent/Junior Engineer seeking separate electricity service connection to the new Well, which is situated in his property. But the third respondent directed the petitioner to obtain No Objection Letter from the 4th respondent/private party, because, for the purpose of provision of separate electricity service connection to the petitioner's land, the electricity line has to pass through the land, which belong to the fourth respondent. The learned counsel contended that, from the above facts, it is not practically possible to get no objection certificate from the 4th respondent/private party and hence, prayed for appropriate direction, directing the respondent-Electricity Board to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner's property, without insisting upon NOC from the fourth respondent/private party.
