Dismissed

M.Settu v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC26 Nov 2024WP/35895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction to TANGEDCO to provide domestic electricity connection to his property based on his application, but the sale deed under which he claimed title had been declared invalid by the District Munsif Court with an appeal pending before the First Appellate Court.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue remedy in pending appeal; no costs.

M.Settu Vs the Superintending Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

M.Settu

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri – 5

¶11

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Adhiyamaankottai, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to provide the domestic service connection to the petitioner's residential portion of the property situated at Naduhalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Dharmapuri District comprised in Survey No. 69/1 to an extent of 2.25 Acres, S.No.70/1A2 to an extent of 2.11 Acres and S.No.70/1B to an extent of 20

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶16

cents in petitioner name on the basis of application given by the petitioner on 06.09.2024 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.Swamisubramanian Standing Counsel (TNEB)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

By consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as

¶21

well as respondents, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

¶23

provide domestic service connection to the petitioner's residential property comprised in Survey Nos.69/1, 70/1A2 and 70/1B situated at Naduhalli Village, Dharmapuri Taluk and District by considering petitioner's application dated 06.09.2024 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the above

¶25

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶28

mentioned property under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.12.2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house in the above mentioned property. The legal heirs of one Muniyandi interfered with petitioner's right over the said property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.398 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri seeking mandatory injunction against the legal heirs of Muniyandi. It is also stated by the petitioner that the legal heirs of Muniyandi also filed a suit in O.S.No.24 of 2011 seeking declaration that the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioner dated 10.12.2010 was not valid and for other consequential reliefs.

¶29

It is seen from the averment in the writ affidavit and typed-set of papers, the suit in O.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri filed by legal heirs of Muniyandi namely Venmal and others was partly decreed declaring the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner dated 10.12.2010 was invalid. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner said to have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court and the same is pending.

¶30

In view of the fact the Sale Deed in favour of petitioner is already declared as invalid by Court of Competent jurisdiction and the appeal filed

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶34

against the judgment is said to be pending before the First Appellate Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to workout his remedy by filing appropriate application in the pending appeal. No costs.

¶35

26.11.2024

¶36

Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No dm

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶40

¶41

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Dharmapuri – 5

¶42

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Adhiyamaankottai, Dharmapuri District.

¶43

5/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

W.P.No.35895 of 2024

¶49

26.11.2024

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

6/6

M.Settu v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Settu 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

Ahamed Jabir Dastageer Thaika Najeem Vs Union of India

R.Natarajan Vs The District Collector

A.Parthasarathy Vs The Superintendent of Engineer

A.Venkatesan Vs the Commissioner

Jayanthi Pai Vs the Commissioners

Anitha Alagesan, Vs Mr. S.Sivarasu, I.a.S., and 2 others