Disposed

Abraham.v v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC1 Nov 2021WP(MD)/18284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought electricity connection for a memorial graveyard. Respondents declined acting due to joint land title held by 33 persons. Court permitted petitioner to provide evidence of alleged oral partition within two weeks to establish his share.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed two weeks to provide evidence of oral partition; respondents directed to consider request within two weeks of receipt of evidence.

Abraham.v Vs the Superintending Engineer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18284 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18284 of 2021

¶7

V.Abraham ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintending Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Executive Engineer, Kanyakumari Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Assistant Engineer, Distribution, TANGEDCO, Karungal – 629 157, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, by directing the respondents to grant electricity service connection for the petitioner's wife memorial graveyard situated in Survey No.543/8, Paloor Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2021.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef For Respondents : Ms.M.Parameswari, For Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner seeks an electricity service connection in respect of his wife's memorial graveyard at Survey No.553/8, Paloor Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

According to the petitioner, he is entitled to a share https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in the property admeasuring a total extent of 1 acre 3 cents in the

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P(MD)No.18284 of 2021

¶17

above mentioned survey number. The petitioner asserts that an oral partition by metes and bounds was effected and that the Southern portion admeasuring 42.91cents was allotted to his family. He also states that the revenue record stands in his name.

¶18

According to the petitioner, he requested the TANGEDCO

¶19

to provide an electricity service connection, but there has been no response in spite of a representation dated 06.07.2021. The present Writ Petition is filed in the said facts and circumstances.

¶20

Ms.Parameswari, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of all the respondents. On written instructions, she submits that Patta No.3594 has been issued jointly to 33 persons. Therefore, the TANGEDCO was unable to act on the petitioner's representation.

¶21

As pointed out by learned counsel for the TANGEDCO, Patta No.3594, which pertains to the property bearing Survey No.543/8, has been issued to 33 persons, including the petitioner. The total extent of the said survey number is 31 ares. The petitioner relies upon an oral partition in terms of which 42.91 cents in the Southern portion of the larger extent was allotted to his share. Therefore, the petitioner should provide evidence of such oral partition and, in particular, evidence to indicate the portion allotted to him. If such evidence is provided, the respondents shall consider the petitioner's request.

¶22

Accordingly, W.P.(MD).No.18284 of 2021 is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to provide evidence with regard to the portion of 42.91 cents allotted to him by way of partition. Such evidence shall be provided within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's request and dispose of the same by a reasoned communication within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

tsg/nsr/LM

¶25

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

2/3

¶27

W.P(MD)No.18284 of 2021

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.A. MOHAMED HANEEF, Advocate ( SR-33459 [F] dated 01/11/2021 )

¶29

W.P(MD)No.18284 of 2021

¶30

01.11.2021

¶31

DKS(CO) KB(18.11.2021) 3P 2C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

Abraham.v v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham.v v. the Superintending Engineer

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

Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam Trust (Tmmk) Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Thangaraj.M Vs the Commissioner

Murugan a Vs the District Collector

Rojapoo Vs The Joint Registrar

Meenakshi Vs the Chairman

Aadeeswaran Vs the District Collector