Dismissed

A.Vellayan v. The Superintending Engineer

Madras HC30 Jun 2025WP(MD)/17650/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order refusing to prevent the fourth respondent's use of his free electricity connection for irrigation. The court held that sharing rights over the well and connection under sale deeds required consideration by a civil court and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to work out remedy before the civil court; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

A.Vellayan Vs The Superintending Engineer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13483 and 13484 of 2025

A.Vellayan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintending Engineer,

¶11

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,

¶12

Metro, Mannarpuram, Trichy District.

¶13

2.The Executive Engineer,

¶14

Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Musiri Division, Trichy District.

¶15

3.The Assistant Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Kilakudi, Trichy District.

¶16

4.D.Thangarasu

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

impugned

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶23

impugned order made in

¶24

Ka.No.Nk.g.ngh/jp.kp.g.t/ngU/jp/knjhm/Nfh.kD/986/2024 dated

¶25

08.10.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to take action and prevent misuse of free Electricity in free electricity Service Connection No.29 (New No.29900229 (Tariff-LM-41) in S.F.No.435/4 of Appanallur Village, Thootiyam Taluk, Trichy District, by the 4^th respondent to irrigate the 4^th respondent's lands in S.F.Nos.437/1B, 436/1, 436/2, 436/3, 436/4 of Appanallur Village, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District within the time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan For RR1 to 3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is the owner of the land in S.F.Nos.435/4 and 435/5 of Appanallur Village, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District measuring an extent of 2.35 acres. An irrigating well and 3HP motor along with free electricity connection was in S.F.No.435/4 from the year 1971. The land originally belonged to one Kandasamy, who had executed a Will in favour of his son Periyasamy on 03.07.1974. It appears that after the death of Kandasamy,

¶29

_________Page 2 of 8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶32

Periyasamy and his legal heirs inherited the land pursuant to the aforesaid Will dated 03.07.1974, who in turn, sold the same to one Shanmugam on 29.03.1992. The petitioner, in turn, purchased the land with 2/3^rd right in the well. The land in S.F.Nos.435/4 and 435/5 was endowed with an electricity connection in Service Connection No.29, which is a free electricity connection for the well in S.F.No.435/4. It appears that the same vendor had also purchased another parcel of land in S.F.Nos.436/1, 436/2, 436/3 and 436/4 measuring a total extent of 3.82 acres. The land in these survey numbers was also endowed with a separate free electricity connection viz., Service Connection No.27.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent was drawing water from the well in S.F.No.435/4 measuring an extent of 1.16 acres, even though the electricity connection in S.C.No.29 had been transferred in favour of the petitioner as early as on 03.06.2023 pursuant to the purchase made by him on 23.01.2023 together with 2/3^rd right over the well. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are duty bound to protect the theft of free electricity by the fourth respondent.

¶34

_________Page 3 of 8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶37

The first respondent by his impugned communication dated

¶38

08.10.2024 considered the representation of the petitioner and has stated as

¶39

follows:

¶40

	jhq;fs; 18.09.2024 md;W Krpwp ;;	;; ; Nfhl;lk;>
	njhl;baj;jpy; eilngw;w cq;fi; cq;fs; Chpy; rpwg;G Kfhkpy; jhq;; ; Ml;rpj; jiyth; jpUr;rp mth;fspl; ; kDtpd; mbg;gilapy; jq;fsJ ; c.kp.ngh/,&fh/nfhsf;Fb gphpT ; Ma;T nra;ag;gl;ljpy; mt;tplj;jp; kpd; ,izg;G cs;sJ. mjpy; ;;;	;;; ; ;sj; Njb ;; ; ; ; ;fs; khtl;l ;; ; ; ;k; mspj;j ; ;; ; ,lj;jpid ; mYtyuhy; ; ;;;; ;;y; tptrha ; ; ; ; jq;fSf;Fk;
4 Nkw;nfhz;l eltbf;if gw;wpa tptuk;	jq;fuhR Mfpa ,UtUf;Fk; tUtha; ;; %yk; $l;L cs;sJ vd fz;lwpa;;; NkYk; jq;fuhR mth;fsplk; Nkw;nfhz;lNghJ Rkhh; 10 Mz;LfS; jdf;F ,k;kpd; ,izg;gpy; $l;L cs; ;; jdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l kpd; ,i;; ghj;jpag;gl;l epyj;jpw;F jz;zPh; ;; chpik cs;sJ vd;Wk; njhptpj;jhh;. ; tUtha; Mtzq;fisAk; rkh;gpj;Js;s; $l;Ljhuh;fSf;fpilNa cs;s NtWghLfis jhq;fNs	; ;; ; Mtzq;fs; ; ; ; ;g;gl;Ls;sJ. tprhuid ;; ; ;f;F Nkyhf ; ;; ;; ; ;sJ vd;Wk; ; ;;; ; zg;gpypUe;J ;;; ;; ;; gad;gLj;j ; ;; ;; mjw;fhd ; ;; ;;;hh;. vdNt fUj;J epth;j;jp
	nra;Jnfhs;SkhW md;Gld; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.	njhptpj;Jf;

¶41

In para No.5 to the impugned order, the first respondent has

¶42

called upon the petitioner to work out the remedy before a civil Court.

¶43

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶44

_________Page 4 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶47

for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentElectricity Board. Notice on the fourth respondent is dispensed with, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against the fourth respondent at this stage in this writ petition.

¶48

Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased land measuring an extent of 2.35 acres on 23.01.2023 together with 2/3^rd rights in the well which includes 2/3^rd rights in the free electricity connection viz., S.C.No.29. Thus, the vendor retained 1/3^rd right over the connection given for agricultural purposes for the land in S.No.435/4 in view of the restrictions in the sale deed dated 23.01.2023. It may give a right to the private respondent pursuant to sale of land in S.F.Nos.436/1, 436/2, 436/3 and 436/4 with 1/3^rd right in favour of the fourth respondent by Shanmugam, who had purchased the land from the legal heirs of Kandasamy on 29.03.1994. The modalities for sharing the rights pursuant to the restricted rights given to the petitioner pursuant to the sale deed dated 23.01.2023 and these purchases made by the fourth respondent in S.F.Nos.436/1, 436/2, 436/3 and 436/4 to an extent of 3.82 acres would require a total consideration by a civil Court. Therefore, this

¶49

_________Page 5 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶52

Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the civil Court.

¶53

With the above liberty, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

30.06.2025

¶55

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes

¶56

ABR

¶57

_________Page 6 of 8

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶60

¶61

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Metro, Mannarpuram, Trichy District.

¶62

2.The Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Musiri Division, Trichy District.

¶63

3.The Assistant Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Kilakudi, Trichy District.

¶64

Page 7 of 8

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶67

C. SARAVANAN, J.

¶68

ABR

¶69

W.P.(MD) No.17650 of 2025

¶70

30.06.2025

¶71

_________Page 8 of 8

¶72

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

A.Vellayan v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vellayan 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

M.Sundar Vs The District Revenue Officer

G.Raja Vs The District Collector

Dineshkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer

M.S.P.Senthilkumar Vs The District Educational Officer

G.Umamaheswari Vs The Tahsildar

P.Manjula Vs The Commissioner